[00:00:06]
          MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO ORDER. AND ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. MAYOR PRO TEM FRANCIS HERE. COUNCILOR RADFORD, PRESENT COUNCILOR DINGMAN HERE. 
          COUNCILOR FREEMAN HERE. COUNCILOR LARSON HERE. COUNCILOR LEE HERE. THANK YOU. 
          MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU. AND AS USUAL, WE WILL START WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. AND GENERAL MANAGER FREDERICKSON WILL LEAD US. PLEASE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. 
          ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ALL RIGHT. WE 
          [3. Public Comment]
HAVE THE TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. AND SO PEOPLE ARE INVITED TO MAKE COMMENT ON ANYTHING RELATED TO A CITY ISSUE AND ANYTHING ON THE AGENDA EXCEPT A HEARING. AND I BELIEVE THERE ARE THREE HEARINGS ON THIS AGENDA. SO. HELLO, EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS TERRY IRELAND. I AM A RESIDENT OF IDAHO FALLS THROUGH TERRY IRELAND, A RESIDENT OF IDAHO FALLS, SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, AND THE DOWNTOWN MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION. I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF DOWNTOWN UPDATES REAL QUICK. SUPER DUPER THANKS TO THE STREET DEPARTMENT, THE NEW LINES FOR PARKING, EVERYTHING ELSE LOOK LOOK GREAT. THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH SOME TREES ON SHOUP AND THOSE TREES HAVE BEEN TRIMMED. I SUBMITTED AN ONLINE REQUEST. THOSE GOT TRIMMED. HOWEVER, THERE ARE STILL SOME TREES ON CAPITOL AT THE INTERSECTION THERE BLOCKING THE STOP SIGNS, AND I SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO HAVE NOT ANYTHING AND THE CROSSWALK AT PARK AND EATON IS A HUGE IMPROVEMENT. SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE COME TO ME AND ASKED ME TO MAKE SURE I THANK YOU AND THE STREET DEPARTMENT FOR THAT, BECAUSE ONCE THAT LIGHT WAS REMOVED, CROSSING THE PEDESTRIANS GOT REALLY, REALLY UNSAFE, REALLY SCARY. SO THEY'RE EXCITED ABOUT THAT. WE NEED SOME HELP DOWNTOWN WITH GRAFFITI, GETTING IT REMOVED, GET SOME CODE ENFORCEMENT HAPPENING. PROPERTY OWNERS HELD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE A LITTLE BIT. THERE'S ANOTHER LITTLE PROBLEM THAT'S DOWNTOWN ADJACENT. IT'S ON THE EASTERN BOULEVARD WHEN ALL TOURISTS PARENTS ARE GETTING READY TO PICK UP THEIR KIDS. THEY FORM A PICKUP LINE, LONG LINE OF CARS ALONG EASTERN AND ALONG ELM, WHICH IS JUST BROADWAY. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TRACKS, THEY'RE BLOCKING CROSSWALKS. THEY'RE BLOCKING ENTRANCES TO BUSINESSES. THEY'RE BLOCKING DRIVEWAYS, THEY'RE BLOCKING PEOPLE THAT ARE PARKED AND THEN WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE. THEY'RE BLOCKING PEOPLE THAT WOULD LIKE TO PARK AND SHOP. AND SO SOMETHING NEEDS TO HAPPEN. 
          THOSE BUSINESSES HAVE ASKED ME TO COME TONIGHT AND TALK ABOUT THAT. SO IF WE COULD MAYBE HAVE I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUE OR WHAT THAT IS, MAYBE A SCHOOL ON THAT. BUT THAT'S REALLY A PROBLEM FOR THOSE BUSINESSES RIGHT ALONG EASTERN AND ELM, RIGHT IN THEIR. 
          AND THE LAST THING I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS THE, THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ALCOHOL ORDINANCE. THERE'S A SECTION IN THERE THAT TALKS ABOUT CATERING PERMITS. IT'S SECTION 4-2-16 IN THAT IT SHOULD INCLUDE SOME KIND OF LANGUAGE. I KNOW THE SPIRIT OF IT IS TO ENCOURAGE BUSINESSES THAT DO NOT HAVE A DESIGNATION AS A GROUP A TO ASSEMBLY AREA TO GET THE THINGS DONE THAT THEY NEED TO, TO BECOME A TWO. BUT IT DOESN'T SPECIFY THAT. IT DOESN'T SAY THAT. SO IF IT SAYS SOMETHING LIKE. PLEASE WORK WITH YOUR. OR I SAID SOMETHING LIKE, IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE USING CATERING PERMITS, YOU'LL NEED TO BE DESIGNATED GROUP ASSEMBLY, A TWO AND THAT AND THE STEPS FOR THAT ARE FOUND IN CITY CODE BLANKETY BLANK. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR TONIGHT. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK. GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS RONALD O'CONNOR. I WORK FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IN THE WASTEWATER DIVISION. SO I'M PROUD TO STAND BEFORE YOU TONIGHT AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE IDAHO FALLS MUNICIPAL BOARD ASSOCIATION, THE MTA. THE MTA HAS A DEEP SHARED HISTORY WITH THE CITY DATING BACK OVER 50 YEARS. IN JUNE OF 1974, THIS COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY ALLOWED PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS FOR DUES FOR OUR MEMBERS. A FEW MONTHS LATER, ON NOVEMBER 7TH, 1974, THE CITY COUNCIL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY AGAIN, 6 TO 0 TO OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZE IDAHO FALLS MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES 
          [00:05:02]
ASSOCIATION AS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENT FOR CITY EMPLOYEES. FOR DECADES. 
          FOLLOWING THOSE HISTORIC VOTES, THE MTA WAS A VITAL PART IN OUR EMPLOYEES LIVES AND A RESPECTED PARTNER IN CITY ADMINISTRATION. UNFORTUNATELY, THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION CHOSE TO IGNORE THAT ESTABLISHED HISTORY. WE WERE STRIPPED OF OUR SEAT AT THE TABLE, STRIPPED OF OUR VOICE, AND BARRED FROM EVEN DISCUSSING THESE CRITICAL ISSUES DURING WORKING HOURS. 
          TONIGHT, WE ARE HERE IN THE HOPES THAT WE CAN TURN THE PAGE ON THAT DARK CHAPTER. WE FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT OUR MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ARE THE GREATEST ASSET THAT THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS HAS. OUR CITY IS A WONDERFUL PLACE TO LIVE BECAUSE OF THE UNWAVERING DEDICATION OF THE PEOPLE WHO KEEP IT RUNNING. OUR MEMBERS ARE THE ONES PROVIDING CLEAN PARKS, ENSURING PURE DRINKING WATER, MAINTAINING REGULAR GARBAGE PICKUP, AND MANAGING THE SAFE CONVEYANCE OF WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER. WE KEEP OUR ROADS REPAIRED ALONGSIDE THE DEDICATED PERSONNEL, PROVIDING OUR POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION. HOWEVER, DEDICATION ALONE DOES NOT PAY THE BILLS. RIGHT NOW, MANY CITY EMPLOYEES ARE HAVING A VERY DIFFICULT TIME MAKING ENDS MEET. AS INFLATION CONTINUES TO RISE, OUR WORKFORCE IS FEELING UNDERAPPRECIATED WHEN IT COMES TO COST OF LIVING INCREASES. WE WANT TO WORK WITH YOU TO FIX THIS PROBLEM TO ENSURE THE CITY CONTINUES TO THRIVE. THE MTA WOULD LIKE TO OPEN AN ACTIVE AND REGULAR DIALOG WITH THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. WE'RE ASKING TONIGHT TO BE RECOGNIZED AGAIN AS A VITAL PARTNER IN THE DECISIONS THAT AFFECT CITY EMPLOYEES. OUR WORKFORCE DESERVES A SEAT AT THE TABLE, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO BUILDING A STRONG RELATIONSHIP MOVING FORWARD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. AND THERE WILL BE FOLLOW UP TO YOUR COMMENTS. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS KAYDEN WALDMAN. I AM A RESIDENT OF IDAHO FALLS. I'M HERE TODAY TO RAISE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE FLOCK CAMERAS THAT OUR CITY HAS INSTALLED. I FEEL AS THOUGH WE DON'T NEED THEM. THEY'RE UNNECESSARY AND THAT THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE ACCESS TO THE DATA COULD BE ANYONE. THANK YOU. COUNCIL. MY NAME IS SHAY. I AM THE PRESIDENT OF MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION DOWNTOWN AND LOCAL BUSINESS OWNER AS WELL. I WANT YOU TO IMAGINE SOMETHING. YOU'RE A WARM JULY EVENING AT THE PARK. THE BAND IS SETTING UP. FAMILIES ARE SPREADING BLANKETS ON THE GRASS AND TO SEND A SIGNAL TO THE SNAKE RIVER. NOW IMAGINE THE POLICE CHIEF WALKING IN AND SHUTTING IT ALL DOWN. NO WARNING, NO HEARING, NO APPEAL. JUST LIGHT OUT AND GO HOME. THAT IS NOT A HYPOTHETICAL. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT SECTION THREE OF THE ORDINANCE, THE ALCOHOL ORDINANCE AUTHORIZES. AND I'M HERE TO TELL YOU THAT THAT PROVISION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IN 1976, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECIDED MATHEWS VERSUS ELDRIDGE. THAT CASE ESTABLISHED A SIMPLE PRINCIPLE BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT CAN DEPRIVE YOU OF A PROPRIETARY INTEREST, EVEN IN AN EMERGENCY, IT MUST PROVIDE SOME SORT OF PROCESS, A NOTICE, A HEARING, AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. 
          THIS ORDINANCE VIOLATES THAT PRINCIPLE. IT GRANTS THREE UNELECTED OFFICIALS ABSOLUTE POWER TO TERMINATE ANY EVENT IMMEDIATELY, AND THEN EXPLICITLY STATES THERE SHALL BE NO APPEAL. LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN, BECAUSE IT SHOULD SHOCK YOU. NO APPEAL. THERE IS NO QUESTIONING THAT IT IS JUST OVER IN AMERICA. YOU CAN APPEAL A TRAFFIC TICKET, YOU CAN APPEAL A ZONING VIOLATION. BUT UNDER THIS ORDINANCE, YOU CANNOT APPEAL THE IMMEDIATE DESTRUCTION OF YOUR EVENT, YOUR INVESTMENT, OR YOUR REPUTATION. THAT IS NOT PUBLIC SAFETY. THAT IS ARBITRARY POWER, AND THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PERMIT IT. BUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS DO NOT STOP THERE. THIS ORDINANCE BANS EVENTS WITHIN 300FT OF ANYWHERE. CHILDREN ARE LIKELY TO BE PRESENT, LIKELY TO BE PRESENT. IN 1971, THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN AN ORDINANCE, COATES VERSUS CINCINNATI, BECAUSE IT CRIMINALIZED CONDUCT THAT ANNOYS PEOPLE. THE COURT SAID LAWS MUST GIVE FAIR NOTICE OF WHAT IS PROHIBITED. THEY CANNOT BE SO VAGUE THAT OFFICIALS CAN ENFORCE THEM ARBITRARILY. IN 1999, THE CITY OF CHICAGO VERSUS MORALES, THE COURT STRUCK DOWN A LOITERING ORDINANCE FOR THE SAME REASON IT FAILED TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM GUIDELINES TO GOVERN LAW ENFORCEMENT. THIS ORDINANCE SUFFERS THE SAME FATAL DEFECT. WHAT DOES LIKELY TO BE PRESENT MEAN IF A FAMILY IS PICNICKING 300FT AWAY, A FOOTBALL FIELDS LENGTH? DOES THAT TRIGGER THE BAN? IF SOMEONE RESERVES A PLAYGROUND THE DAY BEFORE YOUR EVENT, CAN THEY VETO YOUR PERMIT SIMPLY BY SAYING THEY OBJECT? THE ANSWER IS NOBODY KNOWS. THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT EXPLICITLY STATE THAT. AND WHEN CITIZENS CANNOT KNOW IN ADVANCE WHETHER THEIR CONDUCT IS LEGAL, THE LAW IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS. 
          THERE'S ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL DANGER HERE. THE SUPREME COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD THAT REGULATIONS AFFECTING PUBLIC GATHERINGS MUST BE NARROWLY TAILORED. THEY CANNOT BE OVERBROAD, MEANING THEY CAN'T SWEEP UP PROTECTED SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY ALONG WITH LEGITIMATE 
          [00:10:05]
REGULATIONS. THIS ORDINANCE IS OVERBROAD BY ALLOWING ANY PERSON WHO RESERVES A PARK SPACE TO VETO AN ALCOHOL PERMIT BASED ON VAGUE CHILD PRESENCE, THE ORDINANCE CREATES A TOOL THAT CAN BE WEAPONIZED TO SUPPRESS DISFAVORED VIEWPOINTS OR EVENTS. A GROUP OPPOSED TO YOUR POLITICAL RALLY SIMPLY RESERVES A NEARBY SPACE. A COMPETITOR WANTS TO BLOCK YOUR FESTIVAL. THEY RESERVE THE ADJACENT SHELTER UNDER THIS ORDINANCE. THEY DON'T NEED A REASON. THEY DON'T NEED TO PROVE HARM. THEY JUST NEED TO SAY THE MAGIC WORDS I OBJECT. 
          THAT IS NOT REGULATION. THAT'S A HECKLER'S VETO, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT FORBIDS IT. THERE'S ALSO AN EQUAL PROTECTION PROBLEM. THIS ORDINANCE IMPOSES DIFFERENT RULES ON DIFFERENT LOCATIONS WITHOUT ANY RATIONAL BASIS. BEER AND WINE AT THE PIER CAN GO TELL TWO BEER AND WINE AT THE ZOO MUST END AT TEN. WHY? WHAT PUBLIC SAFETY JUSTIFIES THAT DISTINCTION? THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF SIMILAR PRODUCT REQUIRES JUSTIFICATION. 
          WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CREATES ARBITRARY CATEGORIES WITHOUT REASON, IT VIOLATES THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. NOW, I KNOW THE INTENT BEHIND THIS ORDINANCE IS GOOD. I THINK WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE MEETINGS WITH MULTIPLE PEOPLE ABOUT HOW GOOD THIS ORDINANCE IS. I KNOW YOU WANT IT SAFE EVENTS. I KNOW YOU WANT RESPONSIBLE ALCOHOL SERVICE. BUT THE SUPREME COURT HAS MADE CLEAR THE ROAD TO UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDUCT IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS. 
          THIS ORDINANCE GRANTS OFFICIALS POWERS THAT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. IT USES STANDARDS SO VAGUE THEY VIOLATE THE VOID FOR VAGUENESS DOCTRINE. IT DELEGATES LEGISLATIVE POWER WITHOUT INTELLIGIBLE PRINCIPLES. IT CREATES OVERBROAD RESTRICTIONS THAT CHILL PROTECTED SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY. PASSING THIS ORDINANCE WON'T JUST HARM COMMUNITY EVENTS. IT WILL EXPOSE THE CITY TO EXPENSIVE LITIGATION. LITIGATION. IT WILL LOSE BECAUSE FEDERAL COURTS DO NOT HESITATE TO STRIKE DOWN ORDINANCES THAT GRANT UNCHECKED POWER TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. IF YOU PASS THIS ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN, YOU WON'T BE IMPROVING PUBLIC SAFETY. YOU'LL BE SIGNING A DEATH CERTIFICATE FOR COMMUNITY EVENTS IN IDAHO FALLS AND WRITING A CHECK FOR LEGAL FEES. WHEN THAT FIRST LAWSUIT ARRIVES. THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT OPTIONAL. DUE PROCESS IS NOT NEGOTIABLE, AND ARBITRARY POWER IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. TYLER. NORMALLY, WE DON'T CARRY ON CONVERSATION, BUT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVE STRETCHED OUT THE ADOPTION OF THIS IS SO WE COULD GET THE KIND OF COMMENTS WE'RE GETTING TODAY AND THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. SO WE THANK YOU ALL. IT HELPS US LOOK AT LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE CAREFULLY BEFORE WE PASS IT. HELLO. MY NAME IS KAREN. I LIVE WITHIN CITY BOUNDS, AND I'M HERE ONCE AGAIN IN OPPOSITION TO FLOC. 
          SINCE GIVING MY LAST COMMENT, FLOC WAS DISCOVERED TO HAVE LEAKED DATA FROM POLICE SEARCHES BY ALLOWING SEARCH ENGINES TO CRAWL THE PAGE WHERE POLICE DO SEARCHES. THIS LEAK IS SO EASY TO ACCESS, I WAS ABLE TO PERSONALLY VERIFY ITS LEGITIMACY FROM MY PHONE'S WEB BROWSER WHILE I WAS EATING DINNER. THESE LEAKED SEARCH URLS ALSO SHOWED FLOC DOES NOT USE ANY METHOD TO PREVENT CROSS-SITE REQUEST FORGERY, MEANING THAT IF SOMEONE INTERCEPTED THE NETWORK TRAFFIC OF AN OFFICER DOING A SEARCH, THEY COULD PERFORM A REPLAY ATTACK AND GAIN ACCESS TO SEARCHES AND ACCOUNTS. PREVENTION FROM THESE ATTACKS IS IMPLEMENTED IN GOOGLE SEARCH, BUT NOT IN A POLICE TOOL THAT WOULD PAY 65 GRAND EVERY YEAR FOR SOMETHING ELSE. I COULDN'T FIT IN MY FEW MINUTES. PUBLIC COMMENT A FEW WEEKS AGO WAS THAT FOX EMPLOYEES HAVE UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO CAMERA FEEDS, AND THEY HAVE BEEN FOUND IN LOGS MISUSING THEM. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE MARCUS JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER IN DUNWOODY, GEORGIA, THEY DID NOT OPT IN TO BEING USED FOR SALES DEMONSTRATIONS. YET THE VP OF STRATEGIC RELATIONS AT FLOCK WAS FOUND LOOKING AT VERY PRIVATE AREAS LIKE GYMNASTIC ROOMS AND THE PRESCHOOL UNDER THE PRETENSE OF A SALES DEMO. OTHER EMPLOYEES WERE FOUND CYCLING THROUGH PRESCHOOL CAMERAS AT TIMES WHEN CHILDREN WERE BEING DROPPED OFF, OR IN SEQUENCES THAT SUGGEST THEY MAY BE FOLLOWING A PERSON THROUGH THE BUILDING. ON THESE CAMERAS, WE HAVE CAMERAS POINTED TOWARDS HOLY ROSARY CATHOLIC SCHOOL, ALTURAS INTERNATIONAL, HAWTHORNE ELEMENTARY AND THE SMALL WORLD DAYCARE TRACKING EVERYONE WHO DRIVES TOWARDS THESE BUILDINGS. THERE IS NO PUBLIC LOG OF WHO VIEWS THESE CAMERAS. I DON'T BELIEVE THE SYSTEM IS SAFE AND WE SHOULD NOT CONTINUE USING IT. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS BRIAN MCKELLAR. I GREW UP HERE IN IDAHO FALLS BUT CURRENTLY RESIDE IN AMMAN. I'M A HUSBAND, FATHER, AND I'M HERE BECAUSE FLOCK SAFETY CAMERAS ARE NOW OPERATING THROUGHOUT IDAHO FALLS. AND I BELIEVE THIS CONTRACT NEEDS TO END. THESE ARE NOT SIMPLE LICENSE PLATE READERS. THEY ARE AI POWERED SURVEILLANCE MACHINES THAT PHOTOGRAPH EVERY VEHICLE AND THE PEOPLE INSIDE IT, AND THEN SEND THAT DATA TO A PRIVATE CORPORATIONS CLOUD. FROM THERE, IT BECOMES SEARCHABLE BY DOZENS OF AGENCIES, OFTEN WITHOUT A WARRANT. A PHONE CAN LEAD TO A 
          [00:15:03]
NAME, A NAME TO AN EMAIL, AND THAT EMAIL TO A DETAILED MAP OF SOMEONE'S DAILY MOVEMENTS. THIS SYSTEM ALREADY HAS OVER 20 800,000 CAMERAS NATIONWIDE AND PERFORMS BILLIONS OF SCANS EVERY MONTH. FLOCKS OWN RECORD RAISES SERIOUS RED FLAGS. THE COMPANY'S LEADERSHIP PREVIOUSLY CLAIMED IT HAD NO FEDERAL CONTRACT, YET. PUBLIC RECORDS LATER SHOWED A PILOT PROGRAM GIVING BORDER PATROL ACCESS TO LOCAL CAMERA DATA WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CITY'S PAYING FOR IT. SECURITY FAILURES HAVE EXPOSED SENSITIVE ACCESS CREDENTIALS DOZENS OF TIMES. 
          STOLEN POLICE LOGINS HAVE BEEN SOLD ON HACKING FORUMS, AND LIVE CAMERA FEEDS HAVE BEEN LEFT EXPOSED ON THE INTERNET. OUR RESIDENTS MOVEMENTS ARE BEING HARVESTED FOR A FOR PROFIT COMPANY THAT ANSWERS TO VENTURE CAPITALISTS, NOT TO US. RIGHT HERE IN IDAHO, CONCERNED CITIZENS ARE ALREADY FILING TORT CLAIMS AGAINST CITIES USING FLOCK. THEY ARGUE THESE CONTRACTS VIOLATE STATE LAW BY ALLOWING NON-LAW ENFORCEMENT USE OF THAT DATA, INCLUDING COMMERCIAL AI TRAINING, AND BY FAILING TO PROPERLY DELETE OR RESTRICT IT. NOW, I'M NOT ANTI-POLICE. I SUPPORT EFFECTIVE TOOLS THAT HELP OFFICERS DO THEIR JOB, BUT MASS SURVEILLANCE OF INNOCENT RESIDENTS BY A PRIVATE CORPORATION IS NOT SMART POLICING. IT IS A MISSION CREEP. IT TRACKS WHERE YOU GO TO CHURCH, WHERE YOUR KIDS GO TO SCHOOL, AND EVERY ERRAND IN BETWEEN. AND THIS IS NOT THE IDAHO WAY. I AM ASKING THIS COUNCIL TO ACT DECISIVELY TONIGHT. FIRST, IMMEDIATELY AUDIT EVERY QUERY MADE AGAINST FLOCK DATA INVOLVING IDAHO FALLS RESIDENTS AND DISCLOSE ALL DATA SHARING AGREEMENTS. 
          SECOND, DEMAND FULL TRANSPARENCY ON SECURITY PRACTICES AND HOW OUR INFORMATION IS BEING USED. AND THIRD, VOTE WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT WITH FLOCK SAFETY, REMOVE THE CAMERAS AND REPLACE THEM WITH TOOLS THAT KEEP CONTROL RIGHT HERE IN OUR COMMUNITY WITH WARRANTS, STRICT DATA DELETION, AND REAL ACCOUNTABILITY. IF THE CITY DOES NOT START ACTIVELY ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE, WE INTEND TO FILE A TORT CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, JUST AS HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE IN OTHER IDAHO CITIES. WE DO NOT HAVE TO TRADE OUR PRIVACY AND FREEDOM FOR SAFETY. WE CAN HAVE BOTH. STAND WITH THE PEOPLE YOU'RE AT RESENT AND END THIS CONTRACT. THANK YOU. WE ASK NOT FOR DEMONSTRATIONS ON PUBLIC COMMENT. THAT'S WHY WE DON'T DO INTERACTION WITH WHAT WE LISTEN, AND WE TAKE IT ALL INTO CONSIDERATION AND FOLLOW UP ON THESE THINGS. SO. BUT PLEASE, NO CLAPPING. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? HELLO, COUNCIL. MY NAME IS MOSLEY. MOSLEY, MORAN AND I RUN THE HEART AND IDAHO FALLS, THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO SEVERELY RESTRICT ALCOHOL CATERING PERMITS, IN MY OPINION, IS A FLAWED POLICY THAT WILL HURT OUR LOCAL ECONOMY, THAT MAKES AND WILL MAKE OUR CITY LESS SAFE. AS REFERENCED IN THE JUNE 6TH WORK SESSION, PACKET CATERING PERMITS WILL EVENTUALLY BE SLASHED TO 12 PER YEAR PER LOCATION, WHICH WILL IMMEDIATELY CRIPPLE INDEPENDENT EVENT SPACES LIKE THE HEART, THE GEM AND AND AND OTHER SPACES AS WELL. WE ARE VENUE OWNERS IN A HOST AND COMMUNITY EVENTS, AND WE ARE NOT RUNNING BARS AND DON'T MAKE MONEY. AND A LOT OF US DON'T MAKE MONEY AT ALL OFF OF THE ALCOHOL SALES AND, AND CAN'T AFFORD TO UPGRADE THE BUILDINGS ALREADY BEING SAFE AS AS A THREE TO MAKE ENOUGH MONEY WOULD FORCE US TO ACQUIRE OUR OWN VERY MUCH SCARCE AND EXPENSIVE LIQUOR LICENSES, WHICH PUTS US INTO AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT INDUSTRY THAT I DON'T WANT TO BE A PART OF. THE DRAFT ORDINANCE ALSO CREATES A CONVENIENT LOOPHOLE FOR SPACES THAT ALREADY MEET AN A2 OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION, WHICH MEANS THE RULES BENEFIT WEALTHY AND ESTABLISHED PLACES WHILE PUNISHING GRASSROOTS COMMUNITY STAPLES. ON TOP OF THAT, THE OVERREACH GOES EVEN FURTHER BY GIVING THE CHIEF OF POLICE AND CITY ATTORNEY THE POWER TO SUBPOENA OUR VIDEO SURVEILLANCE RECORDINGS, WE ARE HOSTING WEDDINGS AND COMMUNITY GATHERINGS, BUT THE POLICY SEEMS TO SEEMS TO TREAT OUR SPACES LIKE CRIMINAL ENTERPRISES. IF WE WANT TO MANAGE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION SAFELY, WE NEED MORE MORE OPTIONS. INSTEAD OF FEWER. LIMITING LICENSES CRAMS 
          [00:20:01]
HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE INTO INTO A FEW TIGHT SPACES, AND SPREADING OUT AMONG VARIOUS VENUES MAKES CROWDS AND CROWDS MORE MANAGEABLE AND KEEPS OUR FAMILIES AND SUPPORTERS SAFE. 
          RESTRICTING PERMITS IS IS JUST, IN MY OPINION, A MODERN FORM OF PROHIBITION. IT ONLY BENEFITS THE WEALTHY WHO CAN AFFORD TO BUY THEIR WAY AROUND THE LAWS. OUR BUILDINGS ARE ALREADY WITHIN A STANDARD A3 CODE GUIDELINES, AND I REQUEST TO LET US CONTINUE TO HAVE SAFE, WELL-MANAGED VENUES FOR OUR CITY TO GATHER, GATHER AND TO REJECT THE CATERING PERMIT LIMITS. BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, I JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO BECOME A BAR AND I DON'T WANT TO BE. THAT'S THEIR JOB. SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, FOR ME, I JUST WANT TO THROW CONCERNS. AND SOME OF THEM AND SOME OF THEM INVOLVE A FEW PEOPLE HAVING A FEW GLASSES OF WINE, AND THAT SHOULDN'T LIMIT ME TO HAVE TO, TO NOT BEING ABLE TO HAVE THESE EVENTS. 
          GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS MATT JACOBSON. I RUN SOME BUSINESSES DOWNTOWN. FIRST OFF, I DO WANT TO THANK YOU GUYS FOR LISTENING TO THE COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS OWNERS. WHEN IT CAME TO THE ALCOHOL ORDINANCE, A LOT OF THINGS THAT WERE SPOKEN UP AND ADDRESSED. I SAW THE CHANGES MADE, AND I APPRECIATE THE OUTREACH AND EVERYTHING TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE EVERYBODY'S DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS AND OPINIONS. WHEN WITH ALL THE CHANGES AND COMBINING THE ORDINANCES, THERE ARE ONLY A FEW THINGS THAT FOR ME THAT I WANT ADDRESS MOVING TO A TIERED PENALTY SYSTEM INSTEAD OF AN AUTOMATIC REVOCATION IS A REAL IMPROVEMENT, BUT THERE ARE A FEW THINGS THAT DO COME AWAY AND THAT LOOK HARSHER THAN IT REALLY LOOKS. FIRST VIOLATION RIGHT NOW IS THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IS A MANDATORY SEVEN DAY SUSPENSION. NO WARNING, NO CHANCE TO FIX IT, AND A FINE ISN'T EVEN AN OPTION UNTIL THE THIRD OFFENSE. THE LIST OF THINGS THAT CAN TRIGGER IT IS BROAD, INCLUDING TECHNICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES THAT ANY STATE ALCOHOL LAW VIOLATION, A SUSPENSION OF ONE LICENSE, AUTOMATICALLY SUSPENDS EVERY ALCOHOL LICENSE AT THAT LOCATION BEER, WINE, LIQUOR. SO PUT TOGETHER A SINGLE PAPERWORK SLIP UP, CAN SHUT DOWN A RESTAURANT'S ENTIRE ALCOHOL SERVICE FOR A WEEK. SO MY FIRST TASK IS TO BE ABLE TO ADD A WARNING OR A CURE STEP, OR A FINE OPTION FOR A FIRST, AND MINOR VIOLATIONS A LIMIT AND LIMIT THE AUTOMATIC CROSS DEFAULT TO RELATING VIOLATIONS. THAT WAY, A GOOD OPERATOR DOESN'T LOSE A WEEK OF SERVICE OVER A TECHNICAL VIOLATION. THE SECOND CONCERN IS AROUND THE INVESTIGATORY INVESTIGATORY POWERS. APOLOGIZE. THIS ONE'S SMALLER, BUT THE NEW SUBPOENA POWERS LARGELY MIRROR EXISTING STATE LAW. THEY DO CROSS-REFERENCE QUITE WELL, AND WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. BUT THE LOCAL VERSION REACHES OUR SECURITY VIDEO AND FINANCIAL RECORDS. AND THE ORDINANCE ITSELF INCLUDES NO NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT, NO PROTECTION FOR CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION. SO MY SECOND ASK IS TO BUILD PLEASE BUILD IN A REASONABLE NOTICE, A BASIC PROTECTION FOR SENSITIVE FINANCIAL SECURITY RECORDS. SO THE STANDARD IS CLEAR FOR EVERYONE. NONE OF THIS IS A REASON TO SLOW DOWN THE ORDINANCE. LIKE I SAID, A LOT OF THE CHANGES HAVE BEEN REALLY GOOD. I WOULD WELCOME ANY MORE OUTREACH THAT I CAN PROVIDE AS HELP, AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY WITH THE TRAINING, I DO SUPPORT IT. I APPRECIATE THE CHANGES AND ADJUSTMENTS THAT WERE MADE ALLOWING BUSINESS OWNERS TO CREATE THEIR OWN TRAINING ENVIRONMENT, GETTING SIGNED OFF BY THE CHIEF, AND THOSE KIND OF FLEXIBILITY AND ADJUSTMENTS I THINK ARE REALLY WELCOME. SO THANK YOU. HI, I'M MUSEUM OWNER, OPERATING PARTNER OF THE CAL. I ALSO AGREE WITH MATT WHAT HE SAID BECAUSE I THINK THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. SO THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT. THERE'S A LOT OF IT'S IT'S A LOT MORE REASONABLE. AND I GUESS I DON'T HAVE ANY. I'M SORRY, BUT THERE WAS ONE THING I DO, ANOTHER THING I KIND OF WANTED TO POINT OUT AND IT'S 4-2-11. THE BARTENDER'S IDENTIFICATION REQUIRED. I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT THE REASONING FOR THIS IS THAT THEY. 
          A POLICE OFFICER CAN ASK FOR THE BARTENDER'S DRIVER'S LICENSE OR ID AT ANY MOMENT, AND IT MUST BE ON THEIR POSSESSION WHEN THEY'RE TENDING BAR. THE ONLY THING IS, I MEAN, I DO KNOW THAT YOU. I MEAN, TO BE IN A LICENSED ESTABLISHMENT, YOU DO HAVE TO HAVE AN ID 
          [00:25:04]
THAT'S JUST STATE LAW ALREADY. BUT OUR BARTENDERS DO TEND TO, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THEIR BAG WHEN THEY COME IN AND THEIR PURSE, THEY GO PUT IT IN THE LOCKER DOWNSTAIRS. AND SO DOES THIS MEAN THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE IT IN THEIR POCKET AT ALL TIMES? BECAUSE IF THAT'S THE CASE, I JUST WORRY THAT YOU MIGHT LOSE YOUR ID. YOU KNOW, LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE LOSE THEIR CREDIT CARD IF THEY'RE TRANSFERRING IT FROM POINT A TO POINT B ALL THE TIME. IF IT'S IN YOUR POCKET, IT MIGHT FALL OUT. IT MIGHT END UP IN YOUR LAUNDRY. AND THEN IF YOU END UP GETTING ASKED FOR YOUR ID THE NEXT DAY AND IT'S OOPS, IT'S NOT IN YOUR WALLET ANYMORE, OR IS THAT A CRIME? I THINK MAYBE JUST CAN IT JUST BE ON THE PROPERTY? THAT WOULD, I WOULD THINK WOULD BE A REASONABLE ADDITION. I ALSO AM A LITTLE BIT WORRIED ABOUT JUST THE, AGAIN, BEING SUBPOENAED FOR PAYROLL RECORDS. THE OUR FINANCIAL RECORDS, OUR VIDEO SURVEILLANCE. YOU KNOW, WHAT? IF OUR VIDEO FOOTAGE ISN'T THESE CAMERAS KIND OF BREAK ON US ALL THE TIME. WE TRY TO HAVE IT FOR OUR OWN SECURITY REASONS. THERE'S PLENTY OF INCENTIVE FOR US TO KEEP THE SECURITY FOOTAGE, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT SOMETIMES THE CAMERAS ARE NOT 100%. AND SO I JUST I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THE INTENTION IS TO BE SHOWING OUR PAYROLL RECORDS AND STUFF. AND IT JUST KIND OF SEEMS A LITTLE EXCESSIVE AND SCARY AS JUST A BUSINESS OWNER. SO ANYWAYS, ALSO I DID WANT TO JUST ONE LITTLE FEEDBACK. I WAS PART OF THAT GROUP OF BAR OWNERS THAT WAS ASKING FOR MORE SECURITY AND MORE SAFETY DOWNTOWN. AND THAT WAS A FEW YEARS AGO. AND THERE HAS BEEN SO MANY STEPS FORWARD SINCE THEN. I THINK WE REALLY HAVE BECOME A MUCH SAFER PLACE, AND ESPECIALLY THE POLICE, THE, THE COMMUNITY POLICING WHERE THEY'VE WHEN YOU GUYS ALL ADDED THE THE OFFICERS DOWNTOWN, THAT'S BEEN A HUGE DIFFERENCE, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND I JUST, I JUST HOPE WE ALL CAN JUST KEEP CONTINUING TO MAKE IT AS SAFE AND NICE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. 
          [4. Consent Agenda]
OUR NEXT STEP IS CONSENT AGENDA. AND JUST ASK FIRST, DO ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS WANT TO REMOVE SOMETHING OR. WE ALSO HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE POLICY OF. COUNCIL MEMBER MIGHT WANT TO TALK TO THE DIRECTOR ABOUT SOMETHING BEFORE WE DO THE CONSENT AGENDA. DOES ANYONE. 
          OKAY, SO I WILL ASK THE CLERK TO READ THE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE. THANK YOU. I WANTED TO REMIND COUNCIL THAT MAYOR BURTENSHAW IS ALSO ONLINE, SO WE HAVE A FULL COUNCIL. ALL RIGHT. SO FOR TONIGHT, WE HAVE SEVEN ITEMS FOR CONSENT. THE FIRST IS FROM MUNICIPAL SERVICES. IT IS THE PURCHASE OF ONE VIPR HANDHELD CHEMICAL ANALYZER FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR NINE $99,000, 499 $421,000. THE NEXT ITEM IS FOR IDAHO FALLS POWER. IT'S THE SOUTH TOURIST PARK BATHROOM REPLACEMENT BY RIVERS WEST CONSTRUCTION FOR $136,180. 
          THEIR SECOND ITEM IS A CONDUCTOR WIRE PURCHASE. THE BIDDER'S, AWARDED TO AMERICAN WIRE GROUP IRBY, WESTERN ELECTRIC, TUFTS AND BORDER STATES FOR A TOTAL OF $1,603,713.64. THE NEXT ITEM IS FOR THE AIRPORT, AND IT IS FOR AN OFF AIRPORT RENTAL CAR OPERATING AGREEMENT WITH AVIS BUDGET CAR RENTAL, LLC. THE NEXT ITEM IS OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK AND THEY ARE. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM MAY 18TH AND 21ST. JUNE 1ST AND JUNE 4TH, 2026 AND THEN ALSO THE MAY 2026 LICENSING, WHICH INCLUDES 88 NEW LICENSES, 35 RENEWED AND 25 CONTRACTOR LICENSES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE, ACCEPT OR RECEIVE ALL ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ACCORDING TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED. SECOND. THANK YOU. ROLL CALL IS RADFORD. LARSON. YES. FREEMAN. YES. FRANCIS I. DINGMAN. YES. AND LEE. YES. THANK YOU. MOTION 
          [5.A.1) Sole Source Purchase - Wastewater Treatment SCADA Upgrade for Public Works.]
          [00:30:11]
CARRIES. THEN ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA. WE START WITH MUNICIPAL SERVICES. WE HAVE ONE ITEM FROM MUNICIPAL SERVICES. SO PURCHASE. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS. I REPRESENT DIRECTOR ALEXANDER FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO COME UP AND PRESENT THIS ITEM. THIS IS A PURCHASE REQUEST TO DECLARE AUTOMATION WORKS, LLC AS A SOLE SOURCE VENDOR. THE ONES THAT HAVE WORKED ON OUR SYSTEM BEFORE THE LOCAL. THE ONLY ONES CAPABLE. AND THEY HAVE ALL THE LICENSES TO DO SO. WE DID PUBLISH THE NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC FOR 14 DAYS TO DO THIS. 
          WE'RE ALSO REQUESTING THAT THE APPROVAL OF THE. TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO ISSUE AN APPEAL FOR $114,967.50. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE PURCHASE PROCESS? COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I'LL DECLARE AUTOMATION WORKS, LLC. AS THE ONLY VENDOR ABLE TO COMPLETE THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SCADA UPGRADE FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY AUTOMATION AND CONTROL SYSTEM PURSUANT TO IDAHO CODE 67-28082AI II, AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER TO AUTOMATION WORKS, LLC FOR A TOTAL OF $114,967.50, AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. OKAY, ROLL CALL IS FRANCIS I. FREEMAN. YES. DINGMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. RADFORD. ALL RIGHT. LEE. YES. 
          [5.B.1) Amendments to Police Personnel Manual ]
MOTION CARRIES. AND THEN WE HAVE ONE ITEM FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. CHIEF JOHNSON. GOOD EVENING. SO THIS IS THE POLICE PERSONNEL MANUAL. THIS WAS TAKEN TO A CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION IN EARLY MAY. WE DISCUSSED FOR CHANGES TO THE MANUAL THAT THAT CHANGE THEN PUBLISHED ALL EMPLOYEES THAT FALLS POLICE DEPARTMENT IS REQUIRED BY THE THE RULES OF MAKING CHANGES. THERE WASN'T ANY COMMENT BACK FROM THE EMPLOYEES. ALL THE COMMENT WE HAD FROM EMPLOYEES HAPPENED PRETTY. BRINGING IT TO CITY COUNCIL. SO THEY DID HAVE A LOT OF INPUT AND TALK ABOUT IT. BUT WHAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE, COUNCIL HAD ALREADY INCORPORATED ALL OF THAT, SO THERE WEREN'T ANY MORE COMMENTS FROM THEM. WE'RE NOW PAST THAT 30 DAYS. AND SO WE WOULD ASK CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE ACTION ON, AS YOU SEE, APPROPRIATE. ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE CHIEF. WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS IN THE WORK SESSION AND. 
          ACKNOWLEDGED IT FORWARD, SO TO SPEAK. MR. LEE, WOULD YOU MAKE THE MOTION? YES. I'D LIKE TO MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE POLICE PERSONNEL MANUAL. SECOND. ROLL CALL. FREEMAN. YES. RADFORD. HI, LEE. YES. DINGMAN. YES. FRANCIS. HI. AND LARSEN. YES. THANK YOU. 
          MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. WE INVITE ALL THE POWER, AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE ITEM FROM IDAHO FALLS 
          [5.C.1) IFP 26-19 South Tourist Park Path Lighting - Bid Rejection]
POWER. DID YOU DO? AS ALWAYS, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. 
          UNFORTUNATELY, EARLIER THIS MONTH WE HAD PUT OUT WE'D ACTUALLY RECEIVED FOUR BIDS FOR THE PROJECT THAT WOULD REPLACE THE LIGHTING OR ACTUALLY PLACED LIGHTING IN SOUTH TERRACE PARK. 
          OF THOSE FOUR BIDS RECEIVED, HOWEVER, TWO WERE DEEMED NON-RESPONSIVE. ONE HAD A MATHEMATICAL ERROR AND WHEN THAT WAS CORRECTED, WAS ACTUALLY 163% OF THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE. AND THE FOURTH BID WAS 214% OF THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE. SO STAFF HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT DOWN AND GO OVER THESE BIDS WITH OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT. AND BASED ON THOSE CONVERSATIONS, THE RECOMMENDATION THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD TONIGHT IS TO REJECT ALL BIDS AND REQUEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO NEGOTIATE ON THE OPEN MARKET TO SECURE THIS WORK. SO I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE. JUST FOR THE PUBLIC TO KNOW. 
          THIS IS PRETTY STANDARD. WHEN WE GET UNRESPONSIVE BIDS THAT WE GO TO THE OPEN MARKET AND 
          [00:35:02]
NEGOTIATE WITH, TRY TO GET SOMEONE WHO CAN DO IT ACCORDING TO OUR STANDARDS. OKAY? ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO REJECT ALL BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE SOUTH TOURIST PARK PATH LIGHTING SYSTEM. PROJECT PASSED A RESOLUTION DECLARING THAT THE GOODS CAN BE PROCURED MORE ECONOMICALLY BY PURCHASING GOODS AND SERVICES ON THE OPEN MARKET, AND GRANT STAFF AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE WORK ON THE OPEN MARKET. SECOND. 
          LARSON. YES. FRANCIS I. LEE. YES. DINGMAN. YES. FREEMAN. YES. RADFORD. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. 
          IF YOU WANT THE MOTION. OH, OKAY. OKAY. WE'RE DONE. OKAY. SO WE HAVE TWO ITEMS FROM 
          [5.D.1) Sewer Service Cooperative Agreement Extension with Iona Bonneville Sewer District (IBSD)]
PUBLIC WORKS. DIRECTOR. THANK YOU. SO FIRST ITEM TONIGHT IS APPROVAL OF OUR ANNUAL SERVICE AGREEMENTS OR EXCUSE ME, NOT OUR ANNUAL AGREEMENT. THIS IS OUR IT'S AN EXTENSION TO MAINTAIN OUR AGREEMENT WITH THE BONNEVILLE SEWER DISTRICT. IT'S A FIVE YEAR AGREEMENT. IT'S SCHEDULED TO EXPIRE AT THE END OF JUNE. WE'VE REQUESTED A THREE MONTH EXTENSION TO TIME. 
          WELL, THE MAJORITY OF THE CHANGES THAT WE SEE ARE ADJUSTMENTS IN THE RATES TO MATCH OUR FACILITY PLAN THAT ARE FORTHCOMING. AND THE BONNEVILLE SEWER DISTRICT REQUESTED ADDITIONAL TIME FOR THEIR ENGINEERING STAFF TO MAINTAIN SOME THINGS, TO EVALUATE THINGS IN THE AGREEMENT THAT COMPLY WITH THE PROJECT THAT THEY'RE WORKING ON. 
          SO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS. WE'VE HAD THIS AGREEMENT FOR QUITE SOME TIME WITH THEM, RIGHT? YES. IT'S WORKING OUT WELL AT THIS POINT. SO IS THAT CORRECT? WE UPDATED EVERY FIVE YEARS, FIVE YEARS AGO AT THE SAME EXTENSION REQUEST, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. BUT BUT YEAH, IT'S AN ONGOING AGREEMENT THAT WE WORK OUT WITH THE SEWER DISTRICT. AND I GUESS I SHOULD CLARIFY FOR THE PUBLIC TO THIS IS POSES NO THREAT TO THE CAPACITY OF OUR WASTEWATER PLANT. NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? COUNCIL. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO APPROVE THE SERVICE AGREEMENT. EXTENSION AUTHORIZATION FOR IBS-D AND AUTHORIZE. AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND SIGN THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. DINGMAN. YES, YES, A LARSON. YES. LEE. YES. FRANCIS I. FREEMAN. YES. MOTION 
          [5.D.2) 2026 Revised Storage Water Lease Agreement with the City of Pocatello]
CARRIES. SECOND ITEM. SO THE SECOND ITEM IS AN ANNUAL WATER RIGHT LEASE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH THE CITY OF POCATELLO. SO THIS HELPS US TO MEET OUR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS TO PRESERVE OUR ABILITIES TO MAINTAIN OUR WATER RIGHTS AND OUR WATER SYSTEM WITHIN THE CITY. IT'S FOR 2,069.9 ACRE FEET OF WATER, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $121,296.14. SO WITH THAT, I'LL ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS. I DO HAVE A QUESTION, BUT DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? AM I READING IT RIGHT THAT WE ACTUALLY ARE REDUCING OUR REQUIREMENT BECAUSE WE'VE DONE WELL WITH OUR. SO WE HAVE DONE WELL WITH OUR MITIGATION ANNUALLY. WE'VE. WE'VE ADJUSTED THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF POCATELLO, BUT WE EVALUATED ANNUALLY FOR OUR NEEDS. AND WE'RE CONSERVATIVE IN OUR AGREEMENT. SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE, IF ANYTHING, WE WANT TO BE IN A POSITION WHERE WE'RE MITIGATING INSTEAD OF IN A POSITION WHERE WE'RE. AND THAT'S ON A BASICALLY A FIVE YEAR ROLLING AVERAGE EVALUATION, TYPICALLY. 
          RIGHT. AND PART OF THE REASON WE'RE HAVING TO MITIGATE A LITTLE LESS IS THAT ACCORDING TO THIS AGREEMENT WE DID 4 OR 5 YEARS AGO OR MORE IS BECAUSE WE HAVE CONVERTED SOME OF OUR PARK AND GOLF COURSES TO SURFACE WATER, SO WE'RE NOT TAKING AS MUCH AQUIFER WATER, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. YEAH. SO THE REDUCTION IN GROUNDWATER MITIGATION IS A GOOD THING FOR THE CITY. PART OF THE INCOMPETENT CIRCLE TRYING TO BUT WE SHOULD POINT OUT TO THE COMMUNITY, WE PAY FOR WHAT WE USE BY PAYING FOR THIS WATER THAT I WOULD TELL THEM YEARS AGO. GOT IT. PALISADES WATER RIGHTS. AND THEN WE PUT IT BACK IN THE GROUND TO MITIGATE FOR WHAT WE USE. YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO APPROVE THE WATER 
          [00:40:08]
RIGHTS LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF POCATELLO TO LEASE 2,069.9 ACRE FEET OF WATER FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $121,296.14. AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. OKAY. DINGMANN. YES. FREEMAN. YES. FRANCIS A. RADFORD. LEE. 
          YES. LARSON. YES. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN WE HAVE THREE ITEMS 
          [5.E.1) Resolution to Waive Certain 2026 Fourth of July Fees.]
FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY. ALL RIGHT. IT'S KIND OF RARE THAT I GET TO BRING SOMETHING FUN TO COUNCIL. WE HAVE A RESOLUTION. THIS ISN'T A RESOLUTION. WE DO QUITE OFTEN. WE'VE DONE FOR YEARS NOT TO WAIVE CERTAIN FEES TO HELP OUT WITH THE 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION. THERE'S SERVICES PROVIDED BY PARKS AND REC, IDAHO FALLS POWER, AS WELL AS PUBLIC WORKS. THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR THESE THREE DEPARTMENTS THAT IF THIS RESOLUTION IS PASSED THAT THE CITY WOULD BE WAIVING IS $40,595.17. ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. NO QUESTIONS. WE CAN GO RIGHT TO MOTION BECAUSE WE ARE ALWAYS EXCITED TO SEE DEPARTMENTS. I MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE RESOLUTION TO WAIVE CERTAIN 2026 4TH OF JULY FEES FOR SERVICES PERFORMED BY THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS TO ASSIST IN THE FREE PUBLIC 4TH OF JULY ACTIVITIES AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. 
          ROLL CALL IS LEE. YES. DINGMANN. YES. FRANCIS I. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. RADFORD. AYE. 
          MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. INDEMNIFICATION. ALL RIGHT. SO SIMILARLY, THIS IS ANOTHER 
          [5.E.2) 2026 Indemnification Agreement for the 2026 Independence Day Fireworks Show.]
AGREEMENT WE ENTERED. WE'VE ENTERED INTO FOR SOME TIME NOW. WHAT THIS IS IS WITH MELALEUCA, THE ONES THAT SPONSORS THE FIREWORKS. MELALEUCA LIKES US TO SHUT OFF SOME OF OUR LIGHTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY SO THAT THE FIREWORK FIREWORKS DISPLAY IS EVEN BETTER. IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT, THE CITY ASKS FOR MELALEUCA TO SIGN AN INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT SO THAT IF SOMEBODY GETS IN AN ACCIDENT, OR IF THERE'S LIKE A SLIP AND FALL, THAT'S DUE TO THE LIGHTS BEING OUT, MELALEUCA WILL COVER THAT. SO WE'VE GOTTEN THERE. WE'VE REACHED OUT AGAIN THIS YEAR. THEY'RE WILLING TO DO THAT. SO WE PRESENT THAT TO COUNCIL FOR FOR APPROVAL. ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. READY FOR A MOTION. I MOVE THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE 2026 INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT AND DIRECT THE MAYOR AND CITY STAFF TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. I'LL SECOND. OKAY. FREEMAN. YES. RADFORD. LARSON. YES. DINGMAN. YES. LEE. YES. 
          FRANCIS. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. AND RECORDS. DESTRUCTION. THIS IS JUST A ROUTINE MATTER. 
          [5.E.3) 2026 Records Destruction Resolution.]
APPARENTLY, WE DIDN'T GET IT DONE LAST YEAR, SO THIS ONE'S AUTHORIZING EVEN MORE RECORDS I GUESS, FOR CONSTRUCTION. SO MY PER CODE CITY COUNCIL HAS TO APPROVE THE DESTRUCTION OF TEMPORARY AND SEMI-PERMANENT RECORDS. WE'VE COME TO MY OFFICE, REACHED OUT TO THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS TO SEE WHAT THEY SPECIFICALLY WANTED INCLUDED OR UPDATED. THEY'VE INCORPORATED THEIR FEEDBACK. AND SO WE PRESENT THAT RESOLUTION TO YOU FOR YOUR APPROVAL TIME. AND I WILL SAY THE LIST IS VERY LONG. SO THAT'S WHY WE DID NOT DO IT LAST YEAR. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S LONG QUESTIONS, CONCERNS ABOUT DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOVE THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE 2026 RECORDS DESTRUCTION RESOLUTION TO DESTROY CERTAIN TEMPORARY AND SEMI-PERMANENT RECORDS PURSUANT TO IDAHO CODE 50907. 
          I'LL SECOND. OKAY. LEE. YES. DINGMANN. YES. FRANCIS I. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. 
          RADFORD. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. AND WE HAVE EIGHT ITEMS FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. 
          [5.F.1) Legislative Public Hearing for the Annexation and Initial Zoning of I&M,   Industrial and Manufacturing - Annexation and Initial Zoning Ordinances and Reasoned Statements of Relevant Criteria and  Standards for approximately 10.7 acres in the NE ¼ of Section 8,  Township 2 North, Range 38 East. ]
SO, MR. SANTER, WE WILL START. THE FIRST ONE IS A LEGISLATIVE HEARING, AND I GUESS MAYBE YOU DON'T GO FIRST BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER OR THE APPLICANT HAS A CHANCE TO GO FIRST, SINCE IT'S A LEGISLATIVE HEARING, THIS INVOLVES 10.7 ACRES. IS IT COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BOONE 
          [00:45:05]
PROPERTY? YOU CAN CALL IT THAT. IT'S THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION EIGHT, TOWNSHIP TWO, NORTH, RANGE 38 EAST. TO BE OFFICIAL, AND THE HEARING WILL GO AS FOLLOWS. TWO ITEMS IS THE ANNEXATION AND THE INITIAL ZONING. BUT WE DO THE HEARING ALL IN ONE. AND SO THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK FIRST. THEN DIRECTOR STANTON WILL SPEAK FOR THE CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE ALLOWED AND THEN THE APPLICANT HAS THE FINAL WORD. 
          WE WILL CLOSE THE HEARING THEN AND COUNCIL WILL DELIBERATE AND VOTE. SO I THINK I HAVE THE WORD CORRECT THERE. SO WE'LL START WITH THE APPLICANT. OKAY. GOOD EVENING COUNCIL BLAKE ENGINEERING M 2295 NORTH YELLOWSTONE HIGHWAY, SUITE SIX HERE IN OVERALLS. I THINK THIS IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. ANNEXATION WENT THROUGH EARLIER THIS YEAR WITH NO PROBLEMS IN THAT DIRECTION. BUT BASICALLY WE'RE ASKING TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY FOR THAT 10.7 ACRES, WHICH IS, AS YOU MENTIONED, OVER THERE OFF OF SAINT UNION ROAD OVER THERE NEAR ANDERSON BUSINESS PARK, SEEMS TO FIT THE AREA WITH THE INITIAL ZONING REQUEST OF NINE M. SO I GUESS IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER. ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT, MR. SHANNON. THANK YOU. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OR I GUESS JUST COUNCIL. 
          THANK YOU COUNCIL. IT'S GOOD TO BE WITH YOU THIS EVENING. COULD WE PULL UP MY PRESENTATION FIRST, PLEASE? THANK YOU. AS WAS STATED, WE'RE LOOKING AT ANNEXATION 25-006. WE'VE BEEN CALLING IT THE ANNEXATION JUST BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OWNER. BUT IT'S A REQUEST TO ANNEX 10.7 ACRES. THERE WE GO. THANK YOU. 10.7 ACRES. THE PROPERTY WHERE IT WAS LOCATED IS THIS THIS PROPERTY HERE IN IN RED RIGHT HERE JUST NORTH OF YELLOWSTONE HIGHWAY ON 15TH EAST. THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE AREA OF IMPACT AND IT IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY THROUGH 15TH EAST, RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT HERE. AND THE PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THE EAST ARE ZONED INDUSTRIAL. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN. IMAGINE IF IT'S LOCATED IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRANSECT. THEY ARE REQUESTING THE I AM ZONE, WHICH IS IN IN COMPLIANCE WITH. IMAGINE IF THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY IS ACTUALLY HAS SOME CONSTRUCTION GOING ON IT IN THE COUNTY. THIS PROPERTY WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON MARCH 3RD OF 2026. IT. A UNANIMOUS POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION WAS SENT TO YOU FOLKS. THEN. THIS ITEM CAME TO CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 21ST. IT WAS TABLED TO JUNE 1ST AND THEN IT WAS TABLED AGAIN TO THIS EVENING. DURING THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING, NO PUBLIC MADE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS APPLICATION. AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ANNEXATION, INITIAL ZONING OF INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE HEARING BEFORE THE CLOSING. I THINK I FORGOT TO MENTION ALL THE RECORDS IN THE AGENDA ARE PART OF THE RECORD FOR THIS HEARING. OKAY, SO I WILL CLOSE THE HEARING AND COUNCIL DELIBERATE THOUGHTS. THIS JUST MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. SO I DON'T HAVE MUCH ELSE TO SAY. YEAH, I, I CONCUR WITH JUST ANY COMMISSION. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. GOOD FOR THE PROPERTY, I BELIEVE, AND GOOD FOR THE CITY. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. SO OKAY, WE HAVE A SERIES OF MOTIONS. I BELIEVE WE DO. 
          OKAY. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE ORDINANCE ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 10.7 ACRES IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION EIGHT, TOWNSHIP TWO, NORTH, RANGE 38 EAST. ASSIGN A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, DESIGNATION OF INDUSTRIAL AND UNDER A SUSPENSION OF THE RULES REQUIRING THREE COMPLETE SEPARATE READINGS, REQUEST THAT IT BE READ BY TITLE AND PUBLISHED BY SUMMARY. SECOND. I WILL TAKE THE ROLL CALL AND THEN READ THE ORDINANCE INTO 
          [00:50:01]
THE RECORD. THANK YOU. LEE. YES. DINGMANN. YES. FREEMAN. YES. FRANCIS I. LARSON. YES. RADFORD. 
          AYE. MOTION CARRIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 10.7 ACRES DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A OF THIS ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CITY WITH THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY AND STATE AUTHORITIES, AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY. 
          PUBLICATION BY SUMMARY AND ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE. ALL RIGHT. VISION STATEMENT. 
          MOTION. WE APPROVE THE RECENT STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 10.7 ACRES IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION EIGHT, TOWNSHIP TWO NORTH, RANGE 38 EAST, AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. DINGMANN. YES. LARSON. YES. FRANCIS I. FREEMAN. YES. LEE. 
          YES. RADFORD. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. I MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE INITIAL ZONING FOR I AND M INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING, AS SHOWN IN THE ORDINANCE, EXHIBITS UNDER SUSPENSION OF THE RULES REQUIRING THREE COMPLETE AND SEPARATE READINGS AND REQUEST THAT IT BE READ BY TITLE AND PUBLISHED BY SUMMARY, THAT THE CITY LIMITS DOCUMENTS BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE AREA ANNEXED HEREWITH, AND THAT THE CITY PLANNER BE INSTRUCTED TO REFLECT SAID ANNEXATION AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND INITIAL ZONING ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAPS LOCATED IN THE PLANNING OFFICE. SECOND. LEE. YES. DINGMANN YES. FRANCIS I BRADFORD I. LARSON. YES. 
          FREEMAN. YES. THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, PROVIDING FOR THE INITIAL ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 10.7 ACRES DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A OF THIS ORDINANCE AS INM INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING ZONE AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY PUBLICATION BY SUMMARY AND ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATES. I MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE REINSTATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE INITIAL ZONING OF I'M INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. LEE. YES. 
          DINGMANN. YES. FRANCIS I. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. RADFORD. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. 
          [5.F.2) Final Plat, Development Agreement, and Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards, Petersen Place Division No. 1.]
ALL RIGHT. AND FINAL PLAT FOR THE PETERSON PLACE. DIVISION ONE. THANK YOU. MAYOR. THANK YOU. COUNCIL. THE NEXT ITEM BEFORE YOU IS A FINAL PLAT. AND JUST FOR REFERENCE FOR THE PUBLIC, THESE ARE BUSINESS ITEMS PER THE STATE STATUTE PER IDAHO STATE STATUTE. SO I'LL JUST GO THROUGH THESE. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THE FIRST ONE IS FLAT 24059 FOR THE PETERSON PLACE SUBDIVISION PLAT. PETERSON PLACE PLAT IS LOCATED RIGHT HERE ON THE RED ON JUST WEST BROADWAY. IN FACT, THE DOTTED LINE RIGHT HERE ON THE MAP IS OUR CITY BOUNDARY. SO THE AIRPORT IS JUST HERE. SO I WANT TO POINT OUT SOMETHING JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE, THIS ERNEST DRIVE RIGHT HERE. YOU'LL NOTICE THERE'S A GAP BETWEEN ERNEST DRIVE AND THE PROPERTY SUBJECT PROPERTY. ERNEST DRIVE IS IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING MOVED TO THE WEST. SO YOU'LL SEE THAT ON THE PLAT. THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED R-2. IT WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY IN 2022, OR THE R-2 DESIGNATION WAS GIVEN TO IT. IT'S LOCATED WITHIN THE LIMITED DEVELOPMENT AIRPORT OVERLAY SHOWN HERE. AND THIS IS THE PLAT. IT'S A SINGLE LOT SUBDIVISION PLAT. AND PRIMARILY WHAT IT'S DOING IS IT'S CODIFYING A NUMBER OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS. YOU'LL SEE THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS A DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY ALONG BROADWAY. AND AS I STATED, IT'S SHOWING ERNEST DRIVE TO BE ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. ERNEST DRIVE WILL EVENTUALLY JUST TO GO BACK, WILL EVENTUALLY EXTEND ALL THE WAY UP TO CONNECT TO ERNEST DRIVE TO THE NORTH. BUT THIS IS JUST THE FIRST PART OF THAT. SO IT'S JUST THIS IS JUST CODIFYING THOSE UTILITY EASEMENTS AND DEDICATION. IT'S A SINGLE LOT SUBDIVISION OF 5.7 ACRES. THIS WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          THIS WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON FEBRUARY 4TH OF 2025. THERE WAS AN EXTENSION 
          [00:55:02]
THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT ON FEBRUARY 5TH OF 2026. SO YOU'LL SEE THOSE TWO PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS IN THERE. THAT WAS JUST THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION. THAT EXTENSION WAS GRANTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THAT TIME, AND HENCE WHY IT'S BEFORE YOU AT THIS TIME. NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED UNANIMOUSLY FOR A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          QUESTIONS. RIGHT. ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE FINAL PLAT FOR PETERSON. PETERSON. PLACE DIVISION NUMBER ONE. AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIT BEHIND SAID AGREEMENT. SECOND. LARSON. YES. RADFORD A LEE. YES. 
          DINGMANN. YES. FREEMAN. YES. FRANCIS. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT FOR PETERSON PLACE DIVISION ONE AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR, CITY ENGINEER AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN SAID FINAL PLAT. SECOND. ME? YES. DINGMANN. YES. FRANCIS I. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. RADFORD. ALL RIGHT. MOTION CARRIES. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE RECENT STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE FINAL PLAT FOR PETERSON PLACE DIVISION NUMBER ONE, AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. RADFORD. ALL RIGHT. LARSON. YES. FREEMAN. YES. FRANCIS. I. DINGMAN. YES. 
          LEE. YES. MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE ANOTHER FINAL PLAT. THIS ONE IS CALLED THE MK 
          [5.F.3) Final Plat and Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards, MK Simpson Division No. 4.]
SIMPSON DIVISION NUMBER FOUR. AND THIS ONE WE NEED YOU TO EXPLAIN LOT NUMBERS. SURE. NO PROBLEM. NO PROBLEM AT ALL. SO THE NEXT PLATFORM FOR YOU IS FLAT 26002, MK SIMPSON. 
          DIVISION NUMBER FOR THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED HERE ON 33RD NORTH. THIS IS OVER IN THE INL AREA IS WHAT I CALL IT. IT'S ZONED R AND D, AND THIS IS A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. AND AS COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS STATED THAT LOT NUMBERS. IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING BECAUSE WHEN THEY WENT THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE TIME, THERE'S A. AND I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THE FULL RULE. IT'S A SURVEY RULE ACTUALLY, THAT COMES FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO. I'M USED TO SEEING IN THE STATES I'VE WORKED IN THAT YOU WOULD DESIGNATE A LOT PER LOT ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR. BUT AS YOU GO THROUGH DIVISIONS IN THE STATE OF IDAHO, YOU ACTUALLY ASSIGN IT ACCORDING TO WHAT DIVISION YOU'RE IN. SO THE LOT NUMBER GETS ASSIGNED A NUMBER ACCORDING TO THE DIVISION. SO IT SOUNDS REALLY CONFUSING, BUT THAT'S WHY THE LOT NUMBER IS LOT FOUR AND LOT FIVE OF THIS SUBDIVISION, AND NOT LOT ONE AND LOT TWO. TO MAKE IT EVEN MORE CONFUSING, WHEN WE INITIALLY WERE LOOKING AT THIS PLANNING COMMISSION, WHEN THEY REVIEWED IT, IT WAS ASSIGNED THE NUMBERS OF LOT SIX AND LOT SEVEN. SO THIS HAS BEEN CORRECTED IN THE FINAL PLAT. SO THE SURVEYOR WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THIS. THEY DID REVISE THEIR PLAT. AND BECAUSE OF THAT DIVISION IT GOES TO LOT FOUR AND LOT FIVE. SO I REALIZE THAT'S ALL A LOT OF CONFUSION THERE. I APOLOGIZE BUT IT IS LOT FOUR AND LOT FIVE. SO YOU'LL SEE THAT DISTINCTION AS YOU'RE READING THROUGH THE STAFF REPORT. IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. SO THE QUESTION THERE THEN WHEN WE READ WHAT PLANNING AND ZONING WAS TALKING ABOUT SIX AND SEVEN, THEY WERE REALLY TALKING ABOUT 4.5. LOT SIX IS LOT FOUR AND LOT SEVEN IS LOT FIVE. AND IT IS CORRECT IN OUR PACKET, CORRECT? CORRECT. YES. 
          AND WE WILL MAKE SURE WITH THESE AS WELL, I WILL I WILL HAVE THE PROJECT MANAGER DOUBLE CHECK AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE THE CORRECT LOT. SO THAT IS BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES WHAT HAPPENS AFTER A SUBDIVISION IS RECORDED, YOU FILE THINGS AGAINST THOSE LOT NUMBERS. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO BE SURE THAT THEY'RE ACCURATE. SO WE ARE FOR SURE MAKING SURE THEY'RE ACCURATE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S CONFUSING AS WE CHANGE THE NUMBERS. IN SHORT, THIS THIS SUBDIVISION IS A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. WHAT'S OCCURRING. AND YOU'LL SEE THIS IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS. I'LL EXPLAIN SOME OF IT AS WELL. SO WE HAVE THE DIVISION OF THE PROPERTY. SO IT'S JUST A LONG RECTANGLE PIECE RIGHT HERE ON 33RD NORTH. THERE IS PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE INL CAMPUS TO TO OCCUR ON THESE TWO PROPERTIES. AND SO THEY'RE DIVIDING IT ON THE NORTH WITH RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION HERE ON THE FRONTAGE OF 33RD NORTH. BUT ALSO WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS THEY'RE CREATING A FLAG LOT THAT COMES DOWN WITH A 27 FOOT 
          [01:00:05]
WIDTH FIRE ACCESS HAS TO BE 26FT IN WIDTH. SO THIS IS ONE FOOT WIDER FOR FIRE ACCESS. 
          ALSO IN THAT ACCESS IS SOME UTILITY EASEMENTS THAT WRAP THE PROPERTY. AND THAT WAS WHAT WAS BEING AS YOU READ THROUGH THE MINUTES, ONE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS BROUGHT THIS UP ABOUT ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN IT. THAT'S WHY THEY BROUGHT IT BACK AND REVISED IT TO CREATE A FLAG LOT ON THE WEST SIDE, SO THAT WE CAN CODIFY ACCESS TO THE BACK PROPERTY. LINE FIVE. SO THERE WAS A LONG DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT, ABOUT HOW THEY WERE GOING TO MAKE SURE WE HAD ACCESS TO THAT REAR PROPERTY, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SUBDIVIDE A PROPERTY WITHOUT ACCESS. SO THAT'S WHAT YOU'LL SEE ON THAT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THIS WENT BEFORE THEM ON. ON MARCH 3RD OF 2026. AGAIN, NO PUBLIC COMMENTED ON THIS, AND IT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT FOR MK SIMPSON DIVISION NUMBER FOUR AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR, CITY ENGINEER AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN, SAID FINAL PLAT SECOND LEE. YES. DINGMANN. YES. BRADFORD. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. 
          YES. FRANCIS. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE RECENT STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE FINAL PLAT FOR MK SIMPSON DIVISION NUMBER FOUR, AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. LEE. YES. 
          DINGMANN. YES. FRANCIS I. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. BRADFORD. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. 
          [5.F.4) Legislative Public Hearing for the Annexation and Initial Zoning of I&M, Industrial and Manufacturing - Annexation and Initial Zoning Ordinances and Reasoned Statements of Relevant Criteria and  Standards for approximately 1.35 acres in Lot 4, Block 1  Kingston-Bauchman Industrial Park Division No. 1. ]
ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT COLUMN FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IS ANOTHER LEGISLATIVE HEARING, AND IT INVOLVES AN ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING. IN THIS CASE, THE PROPERTY IS. IS 1.35 ACRES, LOT FOUR, BLOCK ONE OF THE KINGSTON BACHMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK DIVISION ONE. AND WE'LL DO THE SAME ORDER SO THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK FIRST. OH, AND ALL THE RECORDS IN THE AGENDA PACKET ARE PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THIS HEARING, AS WELL AS WHAT'S SAID. OKAY, SO THE APPLICANT IN THE ROOM. MY NAME IS JASON HUGHES. I AM THE MANAGER FOR THE LOCAL BUSINESS THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY. AND RIGHT NOW, WITH THE WAY IT'S SET UP, WE JUST HAVE A MAJOR ISSUE WITH OUR SEWER. I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT. WE JUST HAD AN ISSUE WITH THE SEWER. SO WE'RE TRYING TO ANNEX INTO THE CITY. THIS IS THE WHOLE ISSUE WITH IT. SO THE REASON BEING IS IT'S CONSTANTLY OVERFLOWING AND WE'RE JUST CONSTANTLY HAVING TO GET PUMPED, HAVE A BUSINESS COME OUT AND PUMP IT AND PUMP IT LIKE PROBABLY ONCE A WEEK, MAYBE ONCE EVERY TWO WEEKS. WE HAVE TO HAVE IT PUMPED OUT. SO THIS IS THE WHOLE REASON BEHIND IT IS TO HELP WITH THAT, BECAUSE IT IS IT SMELLS REALLY BAD. AND WE HAVE CUSTOMERS COMING TO THE PARKING LOT TO GET OUT OF THE CAR. AND THAT'S THE FIRST THING THEY NOTICE IS THE SMELL. SO THAT'S THE REASON BEHIND IT. SO THANK YOU. OKAY. SO THE, THE ANNEXATION ON THE AGENDA IS 26004. AS WAS STATED, IT'S ABOUT 1.4 ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED HERE IN RED JUST ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY 20 AND ON NORTH BOULEVARD AS IT TURNS INTO STANLEY STREET RIGHT HERE. THE APPLICANT IS THE PROPERTY IS IS CURRENTLY ZONED I AM ONE WHICH IS AN INDUSTRIAL ZONING IN THE COUNTY. IT IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY ON THE WEST SOUTH. AND WE ACTUALLY CLASSIFY CONTIGUITY ON THE NORTH AS WELL. 
          AND WE HAVE A HIGHWAY DIVISION THAT'S USUALLY UNDER HIGHWAY JURISDICTION. WE ACTUALLY CONSIDER THOSE CONTIGUOUS AS WELL. SO IT'S CONTIGUOUS ON THREE SIDES. THE APPLICANTS REQUEST. THIS IS WITHIN THE AREA OF IMPACT. THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE. THEY ARE THROUGH. IMAGINE IF RIGHT HERE IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRANSECT. SO THE REQUESTED ZONE IS IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH. IMAGINE IF THIS WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON. OH, AND IT'S ALSO SORRY. IT'S ALSO LOCATED IN THE CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT ZONE. SO THAT'LL BE 
          [01:05:01]
PART OF THE ZONING THAT'S ATTACHED TO. THIS. WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON JUNE THE 2ND. THIS IS ACTUALLY WE DIDN'T GET THE MINUTES BACK IN TIME. SO THAT'S WHY YOU DIDN'T SEE THEM IN YOUR PACKET. WE WANTED TO JUST CONTINUE THIS TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE A COPY OF THEM QUITE YET. BUT I WENT BACK AND LISTENED TO THIS PUBLIC HEARING, AND IT DID PASS UNANIMOUSLY ON PLANNING COMMISSION. AND IT WAS A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ANNEXATION AS WELL. SO WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT. AND IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ANNEXATION? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE HEARING AND INVITE DELIBERATION BY COUNCIL. 
          I'M JUST GLAD WE CAN HELP. YES, AND IT SOUNDS IMPERATIVE. SO. ALL RIGHT. MOTION. WITH THAT, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE ORDINANCE ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 1.35 ACRES IN LOT FOUR, BLOCK ONE, KINGSTON BACHMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK. NUMBER ONE, ASSIGN A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, DESIGNATION OF INDUSTRIAL AND UNDER A SUSPENSION OF THE RULES REQUIRING THREE COMPLETE SEPARATE READINGS, REQUEST THAT IT BE READ BY TITLE AND PUBLISHED BY SUMMARY. SECOND. 
          LARSON. YES. DINGMANN. YES. FRANCIS I. FREEMAN. YES. LEE. YES. RADFORD. I. MOTION CARRIES AND I'LL READ THE ORDINANCE. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 1.366 ACRES DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A OF THIS ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CITY WITH THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY AND STATE AUTHORITIES, AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY PUBLICATION BY SUMMARY AND ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE RECENT STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 1.35 ACRES IN LOT FOUR, BLOCK ONE, KINGSTON BACHMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK DIVISION NUMBER ONE, AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. 
          SECOND, FRANCIS I. DINGMAN. YES. LEE. YES. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. RADFORD. RIGHT. MOTION CARRIES. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE INITIAL ZONING FOR I AND M INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING WITH THE CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE, AS SHOWN IN THE ORDINANCE EXHIBITS UNDER A SUSPENSION OF THE RULES REQUIRING THREE COMPLETE AND SEPARATE READINGS AND REQUESTS THAT IT BE READ BY TITLE AND PUBLISHED BY SUMMARY. THAT THE CITY LIMITS DOCUMENTS BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE AREA ANNEXED HEREWITH, AND THAT THE CITY PLANNER BE INSTRUCTED TO REFLECT SAID ANNEXATION AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND INITIAL ZONING ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAPS LOCATED IN THE PLANNING OFFICE. SECOND. LARSON. YES. DINGMANN. YES. FRANCIS I. FREEMAN. YES. LEE. YES. 
          BRADFORD. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. I'LL READ THE ORDINANCE. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, PROVIDING FOR THE INITIAL ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 1.366 ACRES DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A OF THIS ORDINANCE AS INM INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING WITH CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT, AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY PUBLICATION BY SUMMARY AND ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE. 
          LASTLY, I MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE REASON STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE INITIAL ZONING OF I AND M INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING WITH THE CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE, AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. 
          SECOND, FRANCIS I. DINGMAN YES. ME. YES. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. RADFORD. AYE. MOTION 
          [5.F.5) Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing - Planned Unit Development (PUD) and   Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards, Willows Place Townhomes. ]
CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. NOW WE HAVE A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, THE REASON STATEMENT, ETC. FOR THE WILLOWS PLACE TOWNHOMES. WE'RE ENTERING KIND OF A UNIQUE AREA IN COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS. SO I AM GOING TO READ A RATHER LENGTHY STATEMENT FOR EVERYONE. 
          SO GIVE ME A MINUTE TO GET THIS ORDERED. AND THE REASON THAT THIS STATEMENT, ETC. IS NECESSARY IS THAT TWO MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, MYSELF AND COUNCILOR LEE, PARTICIPATED IN 
          [01:10:06]
A MEDIATION THAT LED TO THIS REVISED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. SO JUST BEAR WITH ME, PLEASE, AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. FIRST OF ALL, OPEN THE HEARING AND ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN THE AGENDA PACKET. BECOME PART OF THE OF THE HEARING RECORD AS WELL. AS I SAY, ALL THE PACK, ALL THE PUBLIC RECORDS THAT HAPPENED IN THE PREVIOUS HEARINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ON THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. ALL OF THEM ARE LISTED IN THE MEMO ON THE AGENDA. SO SECOND, THE SUBMITTAL IS CONSIDERED A REVISED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND THE ORDER FOR HOW WE WILL DEAL WITH THIS IS I WILL DESCRIBE THE MEDIATION PROCESS AND PRESENT MY NOTES, ETC. REGARDING THE CITY SIDE AND THE EXCHANGE IN MEDIATION. 
          SO IT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. THE DEVELOPER WILL HAVE THE CHANCE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION AFTER THAT AND ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL DIRECTOR. SANTORE WILL PROVIDE EXPLANATIONS FOLLOWING THAT AND ALSO ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL. 
          THEN THERE WILL BE PUBLIC COMMENT TIME. THERE WILL BE TIME FOR THE DEVELOPER TO PROVIDE A REBUTTAL, AND AT THAT POINT, I WILL CLOSE THE HEARING AND COUNCIL WILL DO DELIBERATION AND MOTION AND MOTIONS NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THIS. REMEMBERING EVERYONE THAT COUNCIL IS NOT OBLIGATED TO APPROVE THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT JUST BECAUSE WE ACCEPTED THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT. SO IT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT WILL MAKE, WILL BE INFLUENTIAL IN WHAT HAPPENS EVENTUALLY, WHICH I DO NOT KNOW. 
          SO BECAUSE THE FOUNDATION OF THIS REVISED PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT IS A WRITTEN MEDIATION AGREEMENT, A COPY OF WHICH IS IN THE AGENDA AND WAS ACCEPTED BY COUNCIL ON JUNE 4TH. 
          AND BECAUSE, AS I SAID, TWO OF THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL PARTICIPATED IN THAT MEDIATION, I'M GOING TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATIONS. BOTH COUNCILOR LEE AND MYSELF WILL REMAIN AT THE DAIS DURING THE HEARING. WE WILL EXPLAIN THE MEDIATION PROCESS AND WE, IF NECESSARY, ARE ASKED, WILL BE ABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND RESPOND TO POINT RAISED IN THE HEARING. IF NECESSARY. THE PROCEDURE WILL ALWAYS ALLOW FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK AFTER COUNCILOR LEE OR I HAVE SPOKEN NOT IMMEDIATELY, BUT IT WILL BE MADE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC HAS A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO ANYTHING WE DO SAY. ONCE THE HEARING IS CLOSED AND COUNCIL BEGINS DELIBERATION, COUNCILOR LEE AND MYSELF WILL RECUSE OURSELVES AND STEP AWAY FROM THE DAIS. THERE WILL REMAIN A QUORUM, INCLUDING COUNCILOR FREEMAN, WHO IS ON ONLINE REMOTELY. COUNCILOR GILLES DINGMAN THEN WILL CONDUCT THE MEETING DURING THE DELIBERATION AND THE VOTING. SO AS BACKGROUND FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, I MAKE THESE STATEMENTS. 
          THE MEDIATION WAS REQUESTED BY THE DEVELOPER AT A SUGGESTION FROM CITY COUNCIL IN A MOTION DELIVERED ON JUNE 4TH. NO. EARLIER, BACK IN APRIL. I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT DATE THE MEDIATOR SELECTED MR. KIRK THOMPSON AS HE WAS SELECTED AS THE MEDIATOR. THE PARTIES MET IN THIS BUILDING IN SEPARATE ROOMS, AND NOTE THERE WERE NO DIRECT TALKS BETWEEN COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE DEVELOPER DURING MEDIATION. EVERYTHING HAPPENS IN MEDIATION, BACK AND FORTH, WITH THE MEDIATOR GOING FROM ROOM TO ROOM AND COMMUNICATING IDEAS FROM ONE TO THE OTHER. ALL COMMUNICATION IS ALWAYS THROUGH THE MEDIATOR. THE DEVELOPER HAD ALREADY PRESENTED FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD A PROPOSAL TO REDUCE THE DENSITY. SO THAT WAS ALREADY OUT THERE FOR ALL TO LOOK AT. THE BIG STEP AS WE WENT INTO THE ACTUAL MEDIATION. AND AS I SAID, I WILL PRESENT MY NOTES FROM THE MEETING IN A FEW MINUTES. BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, I WAS GOING TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY IF HE WOULD EXPLAIN EX PARTE AND WHAT IT MEANS AND WHY ALL OF THIS IS NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THE EX PARTE ELEMENT OF LAW. SO DUE PROCESS REQUIRES THAT WHEN YOU HAVE TWO PARTIES TO A CASE, AND HERE THE TWO PARTIES WOULD BE THE DEVELOPER AS WELL AS AFFECTED PERSONS UNDER LUPA, YOU HAVE TO MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA, BUT CERTAIN NEIGHBORS COULD BE CONSIDERED AFFECTED PERSONS IF THEY MEET THAT TEST UNDER LUPA. THOSE ARE THE TWO PARTIES HERE. THE DUE PROCESS REQUIRES THAT AT ANY TIME THERE'S A COMMUNICATION 
          [01:15:04]
BETWEEN ONE OF THE PARTIES AND A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER REGARDING THE MERITS OF THE MATTER THAT IT HAS TO. YOU NEED YOU NEED TO HAVE BOTH PEOPLE THERE, RIGHT? SO THAT BOTH SIDES CAN HEAR WHAT HAPPENED. NOW, AT TIMES, THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT AT TIMES THE CITY COUNCIL IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN A JUDGE. A JUDGE, IF YOU TRIED TO TALK TO THEM BEHIND, YOU KNOW, BEHIND THE OTHER PARTIES BACK, THAT'S A PRETTY BAD ETHICAL VIOLATION, RIGHT? THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT CITY LEGISLATURES ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE USED TO BEING ABLE TO CALL THEIR LEGISLATURES. RIGHT? SO THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT IF THERE IS EX PARTE COMMUNICATION, WHICH GENERALLY IS DISCOURAGED, IF THERE IS EX PARTE COMMUNICATION THAT CAN BE CURED BY THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER WHO HAD THE EX PARTE COMMUNICATION DISCLOSING WHAT WAS SAID FULLY AND ACCURATELY. 
          RIGHT. AND WHAT THAT DOES IS THAT ALLOWS THE OTHER PARTY WHO WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THAT COMMUNICATION, TO REBUT THAT, TO ARGUE BASED ON IT, AND TO. AND THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT SAID THAT THAT CURES THE PROBLEM. SO THAT'S WHY THAT'S THE PROCESS, WHY WE'RE DOING IT TONIGHT, THAT ANY TIME THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS FRANCIS AND LEE SPEAK TONIGHT, THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AFTER THAT. THAT'S THE REASON FOR THAT, IS SO THAT YOU CAN ADDRESS WHAT THEY BRING UP, BECAUSE THEY HAVE HAD EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. AND AS YOU ALSO HEARD, THE PLAN IS FOR THEM NOT TO TAKE PART IN THE ACTUAL VOTE AGAIN, BECAUSE THEY'VE HAD THOSE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. AND WHAT THIS IS TO DO IS TO GIVE AS BEST WE CAN, A FAIR HEARING FOR THOSE PARTIES THAT WERE NOT PRESENT AT MEDIATION. 
          I WILL NOTE THAT THE IDAHO CODE PROVIDES FOR MEDIATION. SO THAT WAS A PROPER PROCESS. AND WE FOLLOWED THAT. AND I'VE DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH INTO WHAT WE SHOULD DO TONIGHT TO TO KEEP THINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH DUE PROCESS. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE WAYS TO KEEP THIS IN ACCORDANCE WITH DUE PROCESS. SO IT'S MY OBLIGATION AT THIS POINT TO RELEASE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE IN MY NOTES THAT I TOOK DURING THE MEDIATION AND BEFORE. SO THAT'S ALL KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC KIND OF WHAT HAPPENED BEHIND THE SCENES. BUT REMEMBER, AS I SAID, WE DON'T TALK TO THE DEVELOPER DIRECTLY. EVERYTHING GOES BACK AND FORTH FROM THE MEDIATOR. SO IN THIS CASE, THE MEDIATION LASTED ABOUT FOUR HOURS AND THE AGREEMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY COUNCIL ON JUNE 4TH, 2026. SO HERE IS FROM MY NOTES. GOING INTO IT, I MADE THE STATEMENT TO THE MEDIATOR RIGHT OFF THE BAT AT THE BEGINNING THAT WHATEVER WE AGREED TO IN MEDIATION HAS TO BE WRITTEN DOWN AND SIGNED BY THE COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE AND BEAR HUNTER HOLDINGS, THE DEVELOPER THAT WAS I DON'T DID NOT WANT TO WALK OUT OF THAT MEETING WITHOUT A WRITTEN AGREEMENT OF WHAT WAS SAID AND WHAT WAS DONE. SO WE DID ACHIEVE THAT IN THE END. POINTS FOR DISCUSSION THAT I RAISED WITH THE MEDIATOR VERY EARLY ON, THAT WE NEEDED TO TALK ABOUT PRIVACY, PUBLIC AMENITY, BEING ACCESSIBLE TO NEIGHBORS, DENSITY STREETSCAPE, INCLUDING THE LENGTH OF DRIVEWAYS, THOSE I THINK FELL INTO THE MAIN ISSUES THAT LED TO THE REJECTION ON COUNCIL'S PART OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. ON JANUARY 22ND, AND I THEY COULD BE RESOLVED. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY WILL BE. BUT GOING INTO THE MEDIATION, I BELIEVE THEY COULD BE RESOLVED IN THE DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT. THE DEVELOPER ALREADY PROPOSED, AS I INDICATED, A REDUCED DENSITY FROM 14 UNITS CONSISTING OF TRIPLEXES TO 12 UNITS WITH SIX TWIN HOMES INSTEAD OF TRIPLEXES. AND THAT INCREASED, OF COURSE, SPACE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, THEREBY CREATING A DENSITY OF 6.61 PER ACRE THAT WAS ALREADY ON THE TABLE GOING INTO IT, AND THAT WAS ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC RECORD. THEREFORE, THE MEDIATION BEGAN WITH THE DISCUSSION OF RELOCATING THE PLAYGROUND TO MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. THE CITY GROUP, MADE UP OF SOME STAFF MEMBERS AND THE TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS, PROPOSED THE PLAYGROUND BE IN THE SECOND LOT AND THE DEVELOPER, THROUGH THE MEDIATOR, PROPOSED TO BE IN THE FIRST LOT TO HELP ACHIEVE ACCESSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC AND TO ADD CONSTRUCTION EFFICIENCY. CITIGROUP RESPONDED WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE PLAYGROUND HAD TO MEET CITY PARKS DEPARTMENT STANDARDS, WHICH IS NOT NORMAL IN PUDS. THE DEVELOPER AGREED TO THAT AND OFFERED TO PUT UP A SIGN INVITING THE PUBLIC TO USE EQUIPMENT AND STATING THE HOA WOULD MAINTAIN IT. THE DEVELOPER REQUESTED THE RIGHT 
          [01:20:03]
TO NAME THE PARK. CITIGROUP ACCEPTED THAT THE DEVELOPER OFFERED TO MOVE ONE OF THE TWIN HOMES TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET. I THINK IT'S CALLED ZOE LANE. THE CITIGROUP ACCEPTED THAT BY THAT MOVE, THE CITIGROUP RECOGNIZED THE REDUCTION IN PARKING SPACES ON THE STREET AND THE ADVANTAGE OF BREAKING UP THE LINE OF HOMES ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET AND ACCEPTED THE SEAT, STRAIGHT SEATS, STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS BEFORE MEDIATION, THE DEVELOPER PROPOSED LENGTHENING THE DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAYS FROM 25FT FROM THE ORIGINAL 20FT BY REDUCING THE EAST SIDE BUFFER FROM TEN FEET TO FIVE. CITIGROUP ACCEPTED THAT AS A REASONABLE RESPONSE TO THE ORIGINAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE STREETSCAPE. THE REQUIREMENT OF A FENCE WAS DISCUSSED BY THE CITY GROUP, BUT IT RAISED ISSUES OF ACCESS TO AT LEAST ONE KEY UTILITY PIECE. THE DECISION NOT TO REQUIRE A FULL FENCE LEAVES THE WRITTEN STATEMENT BY THE DEVELOPER. SUBMITTED AT THE JANUARY 22ND, 2026, AS THE RESOLUTION OF THAT ISSUE, IN ORDER TO MOVE THE TWIN HOME AND TO PROVIDE STORMWATER RETENTION, CITIGROUP ACCEPTED THAT THE COMMON SPACE WOULD BE SLIGHTLY UNDER 25%. BUT I WILL ASK DIRECTOR SANDER TO EXPLAIN HOW THAT WAS RESOLVED ULTIMATELY. SO IT ACHIEVES THE 25%. I CAN SUMMARIZE A FOUR HOUR MEETING IN FIVE MINUTES, BUT THAT DOESN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY HOW THINGS UNFOLD IN A MEDIATION WHEN YOU ARE TALKING, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING TO ALL THESE KEY STAFF MEMBERS AND WE MAKE DECISIONS, AND SOMETIMES WE ASK THE MEDIATOR TO LEAVE THE ROOM SO WE CAN TALK PRIVATELY, AND THEN WE ASK HIM TO COME BACK. AND THEN THE SAME THING HAPPENS ON THE OTHER SIDE, I ASSUME. BUT WHAT CAN BE SAID IN FIVE MINUTES DOES ACTUALLY TAKE FOUR HOURS. AND ACTUALLY THAT WAS A FAIRLY EFFICIENT MEDIATION COMPARED TO OTHERS. SO WITH THAT COMMENT, YOU WANTED TO ADD TO THIS AND ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD THAT YOU REMEMBER FROM THE MEETING THAT I DIDN'T CATCH? NO, I APPRECIATE THAT SUMMARY. I THINK AS WE WENT INTO IT, AGAIN, OUR INTENT WAS TO DO OUR BEST TO TRY TO ENSURE THAT THE CONCERNS AND THINGS THAT HAD BEEN BROUGHT UP AND REASONS THAT WE WERE ADDRESSING THIS, THAT THEY HAD BEEN REASONABLY AND ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED. AND I FELT THAT THAT HAPPENED, PARTICULARLY BY HAVING MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF TO ENSURE THAT THE THINGS THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING MET THE NEEDED SAFETY REQUIREMENTS, THAT THAT HAD BEEN BROUGHT UP PREVIOUSLY IN OUR DISCUSSIONS, AND THAT SAFETY AND THE OTHER OTHER FACTORS THERE, ALL THE CITY DEPARTMENTS WERE IN CONCURRENCE AGAIN, THAT THOSE THOSE ITEMS, THOSE CRITICAL ITEMS HAD BEEN MET. SO WITH THAT. THE DEVELOPER IS IN THE ROOM AND CAN MAKE A CASE. I'M COLIN HUNTER AND I LIVE IN THIS TOWN I LIVE IN. YES, PLEASE. I LIVE IN TETONIA, IDAHO. OKAY. I'VE LIVED IN IDAHO FALLS FOR 15 YEARS, SO IT WAS FAIRLY RECENTLY MOVED AWAY. BUT WE WE LOVE THIS AREA. A LOT OF MY ANCESTORS ARE BURIED HERE, SO I'M A LONG TIME RESIDENT OF IDAHO AND WE DO LIKE DEVELOPING HERE IN IDAHO FALLS AND OTHER AREAS OF EASTERN IDAHO. AND WE, WE BUILD A LARGE RANGE OF, OF HOUSING NEEDS FOR, FOR PEOPLE IN IDAHO. WE HAVE REALLY HIGH END DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE BUILD, AND WE'VE GOT VERY AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS AS WELL. AND WE TRY TO CATER TO WHAT THE MARKET WANTS. AND IN DOING THIS PROJECT, I THINK THAT WE'RE MEETING A NEED FOR ENTRY LEVEL RESIDENTS. BOTTLE FALLS, AND I THINK WE'RE DOING A REALLY GOOD JOB OF MEETING THAT NEED AS WE AS WE DO OUR DEVELOPMENT. AND I APPRECIATE THE OPENNESS OF, OF THIS CITY IN, IN MEDIATING WITH US. I THINK WE'VE REACHED A, A GOOD PLAN THAT I THINK MAKES MEETS YOUR MEETS YOUR EXPECTATIONS. AND ALSO, I THINK FOR US TO, I THINK DOING THE TWIN HOMES INSTEAD OF THE TRIPLEXES WILL HAVE, YOU KNOW, GIVE THESE OWNERS THE ABILITY TO HAVE THEIR OWN YARD AND ALSO ALLOWS US TO, TO BUILD ENOUGH UNITS IN THERE TO MAKE IT AFFORDABLE FOR THEM TO, TO BUY, I GUESS. DO YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE TO KIND OF KNOW REALLY WELL? THIS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR MONTHS, SO I DON'T GO TOO MUCH INTO DETAIL. 
          I THINK OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY HAVE QUESTIONS. I THINK I'M GOOD GOOD AT THIS POINT. 
          ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. WE HAVE BEEN JUST FOR THE PUBLIC. WE'VE IF YOU LOOK TAKE A LOOK AT THE AGENDA. YOU CAN SEE THE TIMELINE AND THAT THIS IS WE WE KNOW A LOT ABOUT THIS 
          [01:25:02]
PROPERTY. AND I'VE RESERVED THE RIGHT TO ASK YOU A QUESTION LATER IF I DON'T GET IT FROM MR. SALMON. PERFECT. OKAY. OKAY. WITH THAT. I'LL SIT DOWN THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 
          COUNCIL, I'LL GO THROUGH JUST BRIEFLY. WE KNOW WHERE THE PROPERTY IS AND IT'S ON BELEN AND PULLMAN. I'LL GO THROUGH THE THE TWO DEVELOPMENT. THE FIRST IS THE INITIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. AND THEN I'LL GO THROUGH THE DETAILS OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. 
          THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R-1. IT'S IN THE SUBURBAN TRANSECT. THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL THAT WAS MADE BY THE APPLICANT. THE INITIAL REQUEST WAS FOR AN EIGHT UNIT PER ACRE DEVELOPMENT WITH SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED WITH 14 UNITS THAT WERE PROPOSED. WITH ZOE LANE BEING A PRIVATE DRIVE OF 26FT COMING UP THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. ALSO WITH THOSE UNITS, THE UNITS WERE 25FT, WHICH IS THE R-1 SETBACK FOR THEIR REAR SETBACK AND TO PROVIDE SEPARATION FROM THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST. R ONE REQUIRES THE 25. SO WHAT THEY WERE REQUESTING WAS WITHIN THE R-1 ZONE. THEY DID REQUEST AT THAT TIME A VARIANCE ON THE FRONT SETBACK FROM 25 TO 20FT. NOW YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE. USUALLY THERE'S A LITTLE ARROW, BUT IT'S LOOK AT THOSE GRAY RECTANGLES. IT'S TO THE EAST OF THAT. THEY WERE REQUESTING A SETBACK VARIANCE ON THAT WITH THEIR INITIAL PROPOSAL. AND THEY WERE REQUESTING TWO AMENITIES AT THE TIME, WITH THE PRODUCT PRIMARILY BEING A MIXTURE OF DUPLEX AND TRIPLEX. THE AMENITIES WERE THE PARK DOWN HERE ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER AND A BASKETBALL COURT ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER WITH THE BASKETBALL UTILIZING A A HAMMERHEAD TURNAROUND PER FIRE CODE. THE NEW PROPOSAL, JUST SO YOU CAN SEE IT, I. I TRIED TO MAKE THIS AS AS CLEAR AS WE COULD FOR THE PUBLIC. SO THE FIRST IS THEY TOOK THE AMENITY OF THE PARK. NOW REALIZE THIS IS THE PROPERTY RIGHT HERE. AND THEN THEY ALSO ARE SHOWING TO THE EAST THE CHURCH PROPERTY. 
          SO THEY'RE SHOWING PARKING OVER THERE. JUST REALIZE THAT THAT IS SEPARATE FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS ALMOST L SHAPED PIECE RIGHT HERE, JUST TO BE CLEAR. 
          SO THEY MOVE THE PARK FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER UP TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE DEVELOPMENT. BECAUSE OF THAT, IT ELIMINATED BASICALLY TWO UNITS ON THE PROPERTY. AND BECAUSE OF THIS, TO ANSWER, COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS, BECAUSE OF THIS, IT FREED UP MORE LAND OVER HERE TO CONTINUALLY MEET THE 25% REQUIREMENT FOR THE PUD. THEY DID REDUCE THE UNITS FROM 14 TO 12 UNITS. THESE ARE PROPOSED TO BE ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS. THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS. ALSO, THEY HAVE NOT PROPOSED A TRIPLEX PRODUCT. THEY'RE COMPLETELY DUPLEX PRODUCTS. 
          THEY'VE ALSO SHIFTED THE ROAD FIVE FEET TO THE EAST BECAUSE OF THAT. WHAT THAT ALLOWS IS THEY THAT'S WHY THEY'RE SHOWING THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE EAST. AND THE SITE PLAN IS A FIVE FOOT BUFFER ON THE EAST SIDE TO THE PARKING LOT FOR THE CHURCH. SO THERE'S A IT'S KIND OF HARD TO SEE, BUT IT'S THIS GREEN THIN STRIP RIGHT THERE FOR THAT BUFFER. BECAUSE OF THAT SHIFTING OF THE ROAD TO THE TO THE EAST, IT ELIMINATES THEIR NEED FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK. SO THEY ARE NOT REQUESTING A VARIANCE ON THAT. THAT ALSO ALLOWS THEM THEN TO HAVE A 25 FOOT LONG DRIVEWAY SO THEY CAN ACCOMMODATE A 25 BY 20FT WIDE DRIVEWAY, SO THEY CAN ACCOMMODATE TWO PARKING STALLS ON EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT. THIS THEN CAUSES THEM TO DIMINISH OR ELIMINATE SOME OF THEIR THEIR GUEST PARKING, WHICH THEY HAVE ACCOMMODATED SOME DOWN HERE, BUT IT'S AT A REDUCED RATE BECAUSE THEY CAN ACCOMMODATE MOST OF IT ON THE PROPERTY. 
          FURTHER, THEY HAVE SHIFTED THE IF YOU REMEMBER FROM THE PREVIOUS ONE, THEY HAVE SHIFTED THE ONE DUPLEX DOWN HERE SINCE THEY WERE ELIMINATING MOST OF THE DENSITY THROUGHOUT THIS AREA AND ALSO ELIMINATING IT ON THE NORTH SIDE BECAUSE OF THE THE MOVEMENT OF THE PARK. SO THERE'S STILL ACCOMMODATING THE TWO AMENITIES. THEY STILL ARE REQUESTING 12 UNITS ON THIS PROPERTY. THE DENSITY IS WITHIN THE R-1. EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS WITHIN A PUD AND 
          [01:30:02]
WHAT'S ALLOWED AND ALLOWED THE PROPERTY IS VACANT. I DO WANT TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF A TIMELINE. IT'S EXTENSIVE, BUT THIS DID GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 7TH OF 2025. IT PASSED THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION WAS SENT WITH A VOTE OF 5 TO 1. IT WENT TO CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 22ND OF 2026 IN THAT A VOTE OF DENIAL WAS MADE AND IT WAS 5 TO 0. ON THAT VOTE. THE. AND THIS IS JUST FOR THE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. THE OFFICIAL DENIAL IS ACCEPTED WHEN THE REASON STATEMENT AND RELEVANT CRITERIA ARE ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE OF A DENIAL. THIS ACTUALLY WENT TO THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING, WHICH WAS ON FEBRUARY 12TH OF 2026. AT THAT MEETING, THEY APPROVED THE DENIAL AND NOTHING LIKE GOVERNMENT WORKING BACKWARDS, RIGHT? SO THEY APPROVED THE DENIAL OF IT THROUGH THE REASON STATEMENT. ONCE THAT DENIAL AND THAT APPROVAL OF THE DENIAL OCCURS, THE APPLICANT THEN CAN, PER CITY CODE CAN REQUEST A RECONSIDERATION AND THEY HAVE 14 DAYS TO DO SO. IN THIS BECAUSE IT WAS ON THE 12TH OF FEBRUARY, THE APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED ON THE 26TH, SO THEY MET THEIR RECONSIDERATION DEADLINE OF 14 DAYS THROUGH THAT. SO THEY REQUESTED MEDIATION, AS WAS ALREADY STATED. I'M I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO DETAIL ON THAT, BUT THAT MEDIATION WAS HELD ON MAY 14TH OF 2026 AFTER MEDIATION, THAT THAT MEDIATION AGREEMENT CAME TO CITY COUNCIL. AND ON THE MAY 21ST, 2026 CITY COUNCIL HEARING. AND THAT MEDIATION AGREEMENT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL AT THAT TIME. HENCE THE RE SUBMITTAL BY THE APPLICANT OF THE NEW PROPOSAL, WHICH I WILL COME BACK TO AND. AND THAT'S WHY THIS IS A REVISED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND BROUGHT BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. SO THIS IS REVISED ACCORDING TO THE AGREEMENT THAT CAME THROUGH MEDIATION, WHICH WAS ALREADY EXPOUNDED ON BY COUNCIL. REFERENCES. WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER. OH, AND I FAILED TO MENTION JUST BECAUSE WE DID GET A LETTER FOR. WE GOT A VERY GOOD, WELL WRITTEN LETTER FROM ONE OF THE ADJACENT. ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS, AND IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING. THIS IS RELEVANT BECAUSE THERE WAS A MOTION ON THE OCTOBER 7TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF A REQUEST TO BUILD A FENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. THIS MOTION DIED IN PLANNING COMMISSION FOR LACK OF A SECOND. SO ACCORDING TO ROBERT'S RULES OF LAW, IF YOU DON'T HAVE A SECOND, IT AUTOMATICALLY THAT MOTION DIES. 
          FURTHER, I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT THE APPLICANT DID CONTACT THE PROPERTY OWNER. IT'S ACTUALLY A CANAL COMPANY OR A DITCH COMPANY. THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE CONTROL OF THAT PROPERTY, AND SO WE CANNOT IMPOSE ANY, ANY CONDITIONS OR ANY DEVELOPMENT ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY. SO THAT'S WHY THAT WAS WAS ONE THAT DIED BY SECOND AND PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THAT WAS ALSO NOT PURSUED BY THE DEVELOPER, BECAUSE HE OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T HAVE CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY. SO JUST THAT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO MY DEPARTMENT. THAT LETTER IS ATTACHED TO YOUR PACKET. IT'S IT'S I THINK 5 OR 6 PAGES LONG. 
          I HAVE READ IT. AND SO ANYWAYS, WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AT THIS POINT. I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM A POINT YOU MADE TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE KNOWS THAT EVEN THOUGH IT SHOWS LANDSCAPING IN THE CHURCH PARKING LOT, THAT IS NOT PART OF THIS REVISED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. YES, THEY'RE JUST SHOWING IT FOR REFERENCE, SO IT DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE I'M NOT AWARE THE DEVELOPER MAY MAY SPEAK TO THIS. I'M NOT AWARE OF A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT. TYPICALLY WITH CHURCHES, CHURCHES TEND TO OPERATE ON WEDNESDAY NIGHTS OR ON SUNDAYS, AND SOMETIMES IN COMMERCIAL AGREEMENTS. THERE'S AGREEMENTS THAT ARE MADE THAT WASN'T FACTORED INTO THIS. IT WAS SOLELY THE PROPERTY. BUT THEY DO USE IT AS A SOURCE OF REFERENCE. SO. QUESTION. I DON'T WANT AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, BUT I'D LIKE YOU TO KNOW THAT I WANT TO HAVE THIS INFORMATION LATER BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S RELEVANT TONIGHT. OKAY. BUT THE NEW STATE LAWS THAT WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON IN THE END OF THIS MEETING, I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW THAT WOULD HAVE IMPACTED THIS 
          [01:35:01]
VERY THING. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S RELEVANT. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE ANSWER, BUT I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I WOULD LIKE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THAT. YES. AND IF YOU TELL ME THE SPECIFIC STATE SESSION, THERE'S TWO THAT'S COMING TONIGHT. IN SHORT, THEY DO NOT IMPACT THIS DEVELOPMENT. OKAY. MOVING INTO PUBLIC COMMENT. WE'LL OPEN IT TO PUBLIC COMMENT. COUNCIL MAY IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, 1185 BLUEBIRD LANE. BY THE WAY. WELL DONE, I THINK. THANK YOU. BUT I AM CONCERNED. I'M A NEIGHBOR AND I DON'T HAVE A PRIVACY FENCE. AND IT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT EVERY SESSION FROM THE PRE-PLANNING MEETING WE HAD OVER THERE ON. HOLMES AVENUE, BACK IN THE LANDSCAPE, OR THE ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER BUILDING. I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE A PRIVACY FENCE BUILT ON ON THE END HOUSE. I DON'T HAVE A FENCE NOW, AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S MY OBLIGATION TO PUT UP A FENCE. AND I THINK TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND KEEP THEIR DOGS AND KIDS OUT OF MY YARD AND MY DOG OUT OF THEIR YARD. I THINK PRIVACY FENCE WOULD BE APPRECIATED. NUMBER TWO. THE THE PLAYGROUND. THE MAPS ARE TOO SMALL FOR ME TO SEE. IS THERE A FENCE BETWEEN THE PLAYGROUND AND ALUMINUM? DO WE KNOW? IF NOT, I WOULD THINK THERE SHOULD BE. AND THEN AS FAR AS THE FENCE ALONG THE CANAL. THE CANAL HAS 25FT OFF THE CANAL BOUNDARY, SO 26FT IN IS GOING TO BE A BIG BEAR HOLDING THIS PROPERTY. AND I DON'T THINK ANY ONE OF US HERE WANTS TO BE LIABLE FOR A CHILD FALLING IN THAT CANAL. AND LIKE I SAID, AT THAT EASTERN END OF THE CANAL, IT IS VERY STEEP. IT'S NOT A DEEP CANAL, BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU'RE ROLLING DOWN A CANAL. SO I WOULD LIKE THOSE CONSIDERED, BUT ESPECIALLY MY PRIVACY FENCE. THAT WOULD BE VERY NICE. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS KATE JOHN LIVE AT 2015 LAWRENCE LANE IN 1801, BLACKFOOT, IDAHO. I'M ORIGINALLY FROM HERE. WE MADE OUR WAY DOWN TO BLACKFOOT ON THE WAY TO NOW. I THOUGHT I'D LIKE IT. I BLACKED OUT A LOT MORE THAN I DO. WHAT KIND OF. HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE BURIED, BUT I. IT'S A GOOD TOWN, BUT YEAH, I'M HERE. THAT'S HOW I GOT TO KNOW COLIN. WE HAD PURCHASED A TOWNHOME DOWN THERE, AND HE. HE BUILT SOME GOOD TOWNHOMES. THEY WERE PROBABLY 20 TO 40 GRAND UNDER MARKET VALUE. AND SO THAT WAS VERY APPEALING WHEN WE MOVED DOWN THERE ORIGINALLY, HE HAD MENTIONED THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE BUILDING THESE ONES AND FALLS. AND YEAH, WE WERE LOOKING TO MAKE OUR WAY BACK HERE. YEAH, WE'RE JUST OBVIOUSLY A NEW FAMILY. AND IT'S NOT A SECRET THAT HOME PRICES HAVE EXTREMELY INFLATED. AND SO I FEEL LIKE I MAKE A GOOD WAGE. I MAKE A GOOD LIVING. I KNOW, BUT TO. PURCHASE A $400,000 HOME, IT'S IT'S EXPENSIVE. AND THESE PROVIDE A GOOD OPTION FOR US TO, TO REALLY FIND THAT MIDDLE GROUND AND RAISE OUR LITTLE FAMILY IN. IN THE MEANTIME, UNTIL WE CAN CAN SCALE UP AND BUILD SOME EQUITY. I, YOU KNOW, I, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, IT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU KIND OF IN THAT MIDDLE GROUND, I, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THERE'S, THERE'S HOMES THAT, YOU KNOW, 350,000, BUT IT'S STILL, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I DON'T WANT TO BE HOUSE POOR. AND IT'S STILL KIND OF HARD TO, TO SCALE UP FROM THAT. SO WE'RE JUST KIND OF LOOKING FOR LIKE A MIDDLE GROUND OPTION. LOVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. LIKE I SAID, WE'VE LIVED IN THESE UNITS IN BLACKFOOT THAT COLONIES HAS DEVELOPED DOWN THERE. THEY'RE EXCELLENT. I DON'T HAVE ANY COMPLAINTS. I, I DON'T HAVE A DOG. I PROMISE I WON'T LET MY DOG GO IN YOUR YARD OR, YOU KNOW, AND I FEEL LIKE I'M A PRETTY GOOD DAD TO KEEP AN EYE ON MY SON. AND I MAKE I MAKE A MEAN BRISKET. SO. YEAH, YOU 
          [01:40:01]
GUYS WANT ME TO HAVE A BACKYARD BARBECUE? I'M. I'M ALL FOR IT. BUT ANYWAYS, YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S MY PUBLIC OPINION ON THE MATTER. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT FIT FOR MYSELF, MY WIFE AND OUR GROWING FAMILY AND. PEOPLE IN OUR SIMILAR SITUATION. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. FOR THE COMMENT. HERE WE ARE AGAIN. MATT SMITH IN IDAHO FALLS. NOTHING'S CHANGED MUCH EXCEPT THE DENSITY. ALL THE OTHER THINGS ARE STILL PRETTY MUCH THERE. CONCERNS ABOUT THE PUD THAT ARE VOICED THERE STILL STILL OUT THERE. THE NEW REVELATION, THOUGH, WITH THIS ITERATION OF PUD, IS THAT THAT WAS NEVER BROUGHT UP BEFORE IN THE PAST MEETINGS. IS THAT AS BEING THE NECESSITY OF THE DEVELOPERS TO CLOSE OFF THE WEST ENTRANCE TO THE CHURCH PARKING LOT, THUS NECESSITATING NECESSITATING THE PARKING LOT MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE SHOWN? I WONDERED WHY THEY WERE SHOWING THE CHURCH OUT THERE, BUT ANYWAY, OTHERWISE ZOE ZOE LANE HAS TO BE MOVED BECAUSE IT'S TOO CLOSE TO THE WEST ENTRANCE OF THE CHURCH PARKING LOT, AND THAT THROWS THE WHOLE PLAN OFF. THEY COULD MOVE THE ROAD TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE PUD, WHICH MEANS THE CHURCH PARKING LOT WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE MODIFIED. IT WOULD ALSO MEAN THAT THE TOWNHOUSES WOULD BE 60 PLUS FEET AWAY FROM MY PROPERTY LINE. BENEFITS FOR BOTH THE CHURCH AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. MOVING THE ROAD WAS DISCUSSED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, BUT WAS QUICKLY DISMISSED AS AN OPTION, THOUGH PERSONALLY, I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA, NOT VERY TRANSPARENT ON THE PART OF THE DEVELOPER OR THE CITY, AND NOT DISCUSSING THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE CHURCH PARKING LOT AT THE VARIOUS MEETINGS, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS CRITICAL TO THE PROJECT BEING BUILT AS PLANNED. BUT AS THE DEVELOPER, WHY BRING UP THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE TO RELY ON THE CHURCH PARKING LOT TO BE TO BE MONITORED? MODIFICATIONS TO MAKE THE PUD WORK? IT'S JUST ANOTHER REASON FOR PEOPLE TO PUSH FOR DENIAL AT THE MEETING FOR RECONSIDERATION, THE DEVELOPER REPRESENTATIVE TOLD US THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HELP THE CHURCH BRING THEIR PARKING LOT UP TO CODE, IN AN EFFORT TO SHOW HOW THEY WERE BENEFITING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. HE DIDN'T MENTION THAT THE CHANGES WERE REALLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DEVELOPERS TO BUILD PUD. DISAPPOINTING THAT A KEY FACT ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUILDING OF THE PV WAS NEVER MENTIONED OR DISCUSSED, EVEN IN THE APPROVAL DOCUMENTS THAT ARE A PART OF THE. TONIGHT'S AGENDA. THE STREET DISCREETLY SHOWN ON THE SITE. PLANS FOR PUD IN THE PAST, BUT NOT SOMETHING YOU WOULD NOTICE BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE SHADED SECTION OF THE CHURCH PROPERTY AND NOT POINTED OUT UNTIL NOW. IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE NEW PUD WILL RELY ON THE CHURCH'S STORM STORM DRAINAGE POND FOR RUNOFF, EVEN THOUGH THE WATERSHED ON THE SITE PLANS FOR THE CHURCH PARKING LOT MODIFICATIONS ONLY SHOW THE CHURCH PROPERTY AS PART OF THE WATERSHED, BUT NO INFORMATION ON WHAT ADJUSTMENTS WILL BE HAVE TO BE MADE. IF THE DRAINAGE HOLE CAN BE LARGE ENOUGH FOR THE ADDITIONAL AREA BEING DRAINED TO IT. OF COURSE, WEST TO EAST DRAINAGE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED BECAUSE THE TOWNHOUSES ARE BUILT WHERE THE RUNOFF USED TO POOL UP. SINCE THE TOWNHOUSES WILL SIT HIGHER, THE WATER WILL EITHER FLOW BACK TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. IF THE CURRENT BERM WAS REMOVED AND OR FLOW DOWNHILL, CAUSING PROBLEMS FOR OTHER PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH, WHICH HAVE ALREADY EXPERIENCED FLOODING PROBLEMS. SO THESE ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT AT LEAST I'LL BRING UP WITH THE NEW ONE. THE OTHER, THE OLD ONES ARE STILL PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THINGS. 
          TERRY SMITH, BLUEBIRD LANE, IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO. AS I MENTIONED, A LOT OF THE SAME CONCERNS ARE STILL THERE, BUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE COME OUT WITH THIS LAST. AGENDA THAT WAS, WAS PUBLISHED IN SOME OF THE INCONSISTENCIES THAT I SEE WITH THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO ME AT THE TIME I WROTE THIS. NOW. DIRECTOR SANDER HAS ADDRESSED SOME OF THOSE, AND I'LL JUST KIND OF GLOSS OVER THOSE. BUT TO BEGIN WITH, I TRIED TO LOCATE LOCATE A COPY OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRANTED TO THE EAGLE ROCK BAPTIST CHURCH, THE ORIGINAL OWNERS AND BUILDERS OF THE CHURCH NEXT TO THE PROPOSED PUD. THE PERMIT IS NOTED AS BEING GRANTED IN THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING FILED ON JUNE 9TH, 1981. THE INABILITY OF OTHERS, AS WELL AS MYSELF TO FIND THIS DOCUMENT. AFTER CONTACTING THE CITY 
          [01:45:02]
PLANNING DEPARTMENT, MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE CONCERNING THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WAS THE SALE OF THE LAND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CUP? DOES THE PUD COMPLY WITH THE BINDING CONDITIONS OF THE CUP WHICH GOES WITH THE LAND? BECAUSE THE PUD IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ORIGINAL USE OF THE LAND, DID THE DEVELOPERS APPLY FOR THE APPROPRIATE REZONING OF THE CONDITIONAL USE OF THE LAND, OR DOES THE APPROVAL OF THE PUD VOID THE CUP? GOTTA GET THOSE ACRONYMS, RIGHT? YES. AND IF IT VOIDS THE CUP, IS THE CHURCH STILL IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING CODES OF THE R-1 ZONING? SO MAYBE MR. HUNTER CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CUP. THE OTHER I WILL USE THE FINDINGS OF FACT DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO THIS MEETING FOR MY NEXT STEPS. NUMBER TWO, THE DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE TWO AMENITIES. THIS IS TRUE, HOWEVER, AS NEAR AS I CAN TELL, THE TWO BASKETBALL STANDARDS IN THE CHURCH PARKING LOT WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED BY ONE AT THE END OF THAT LONG, NARROW PRIVATE ROAD. I DO NOT FEEL THIS OR THE SMALL PLAYGROUND BENEFIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY PROVIDING SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T ALREADY EXIST FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND NUMBER 15 IS SOMETHING THAT SAN OR CLARIFIED, AND THAT IS THAT IT. BUT THERE AGAIN, IT GOES WITH THE THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE INFORMATION THAT I HAD AVAILABLE TO ME. IT STATED THAT THERE WILL BE SIX GUEST PARKING SPACES. THIS IS NUMBER 15 IN THE PLANNING ALONG THE ROAD THEY SHOW UP ON MAPS, EXHIBIT A AND B, BUT NOT ON THE MAP POSTED BY THE ON THE PROPERTY OR THE MAP THAT WAS MAILED TO US. WHERE WILL THEY BE LOCATED AND WHERE FOR GUEST PARKING SPACES ELIMINATED UNDER STATE AND FOUR OF THE PROPOSED MEDIATION AGREEMENT. I THINK SANTA ANSWERED THAT. THE SAME WITH THIS NEXT ONE. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THE FRONT SETBACK TO BE VARIED FROM 25FT TO 20FT. NOW REMEMBER, THIS IS JUST BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE. IT WAS DISCUSSED AND RECORDED IN THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 21ST MEETING THAT THE SETBACK WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 25FT. HOWEVER, THAT DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE PROPOSED MEDIATION AGREEMENT. SO THEN MY QUESTION WAS, IS, IS THE SETBACK 25FT OR 20FT? THERE AGAIN, SANTA DID ADDRESS THAT ON THE MAP. IT APPEARED TO BE 20FT. THEN NUMBER 18. DEALS WITH THE CANAL PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE CANAL. THIS IS TRUE. 
          THE SCHOOL DOES NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE CANAL PROPERTY EITHER. HOWEVER, THEY INSTALLED THE SCHOOL A FENCE ON THE SCHOOL'S PROPERTY THAT RESPECTS THE CANAL PROPERTY EASEMENT. 
          THE DEVELOPER HAS CONTROL OVER HIS PROPERTY. WHY CAN'T THE DEVELOPER PUT A FENCE ON THE DEVELOPER'S PROPERTY THAT RESPECTS THE CANAL PROPERTY EASEMENT? AND I KNOW THAT THE CHURCH PARKING LOT ISN'T PART OF THE PUD, BUT IT DOES SHOW SOME OF THE CONFUSION OF THE OF THE REPRESENTATION OF OF INFORMATION. SO WE FOUND THE DOCUMENT TITLED AND EXCUSE MY SPANISH SITE PLAN FOR IGLESIA BAUTISTA, EL CALVARIO. THE THE CURRENT OWNERS OF THE CHURCH LOCATED NEXT TO THE PROPOSED PUD. IT WAS FILED IN DECEMBER OF 2025. IT SHOWS ALL OF THE CHANGES THAT WILL NEED TO BE MADE TO THE CHURCH'S PROPERTY TO ENABLE THE PRIVATE STREET AND ETC. OF THE PUD TO MEET CODE UNDER THE PARKING SECTION OF THE SITE. IT STATES THAT THERE ARE CURRENTLY 45 STALLS, AND THAT THE DEVELOPERS ARE PROPOSING AN ADDITIONAL SEVEN STALLS FOR A TOTAL OF 52 STALLS. I HAVE WALKED THAT PARKING LOT TWICE THIS WEEK AND COUNTED THOSE STALLS. THERE ARE CURRENTLY 19 STALLS ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE PARKING LOT, A DOUBLE ROW OF 14 STALLS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARKING LOT, SIX DOLLS NEXT TO THE CHURCH AND TWO HANDICAPPED STALLS ALSO NEXT TO THE CHURCH. THIS IS A TOTAL OF 55 EXISTING STALLS AS FAR AS I CAN TELL. THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE THREE STALLS WHEN THEY READ YOU THAT PARKING LOT. 
          ADDITIONALLY, AS HAD BEEN MENTIONED, THEY WILL LOSE THE SECOND ENTRANCE TO THE PARKING LOT, MAKING IT NECESSARY TO RECONFIGURE THE EMERGENCY TURNAROUND IN THE CHURCH. FOR THE CHURCH, IT'S ANOTHER PULL IN AND BACK UP OR HAMMERHEAD CONFIGURATION CONFIGURATION THAT IS LIKE THE PROPOSED ONE IN THE BASKETBALL COURT. AT THE END OF THAT LONG PRIVATE ROAD. 
          THIS EMERGENCY TURNAROUND APPEARS TO USE HALF THE WIDTH OF THE PUBLIC ROAD, PULLMAN STREET, TO ACCOMMODATE THIS TURNAROUND. NOW, IN HINDSIGHT, I GUESS I CAN SEE WHY THE CITY COUNCIL WAS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT BEING SUED BY THE DEVELOPER THAN THE CITIZENS LIVING IN THE CONTINGENT NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE I, FOR ONE, DON'T STAND TO GAIN A MILLION OR MORE DOLLARS, AND IT WOULD COST ME MORE TO HIRE A LAWYER THAN THE $10,000 IS GOING TO 
          [01:50:05]
COST ME TO LOSE MY ADVERSE EASEMENT TO MY BACKYARD. GOOD EVENING COUNCIL. MY NAME IS TRISTAN PHILLIPS. 2695 DARRYL LOOP AND IO83406. COLIN WAS OUR DEVELOPER FOR THE CITY OF TOWNHOMES ON THAT END OF TOWN OVER ON SUNNYSIDE. THAT HAS BEEN CRITICAL FOR MY WIFE AND I. 
          WE BOTH GRADUATED LAST YEAR. WE JUST WELCOMED OUR SECOND BABY 11 DAYS AGO, AND THAT TOWNHOME HAS BEEN INCREDIBLE FOR THE GROWTH OF OUR FAMILY. WHEN WE WERE FIRST LOOKING AT FINANCES AND PLANNING OUT WHEN WE WOULD BE ABLE TO OWN A HOME, WE REALIZED IT WAS GOING TO BE AT LEAST FIVE YEARS. I'M A CPA, I WORK AT A LOCAL ACCOUNTING FIRM, AND SO I HAD RUN THE NUMBERS A THOUSAND TIMES, AND THERE WAS JUST NO WAY THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO MOVE IN SOONER THAN THAT. IT WAS AT THAT TIME WE WERE ABLE TO CONNECT WITH COLIN. HE WAS ABLE TO HELP US FIND A TOWNHOME THAT WAS GOING TO FIT WITHIN OUR BUDGET, THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO US EARLIER THAN WE COULD HAVE FORESEEN. EVENTUALLY, WE DO WANT TO MOVE INTO A HOME WITH A BACKYARD, BUT FOR NOW, BEING ABLE TO PURCHASE A HOME FOR $200,000 LESS THAN WE WOULD HAVE FOR SIMILAR STANDARDS HAS BEEN A HUGE HELP TO US. THESE TOWN HALLS ARE CRITICAL FOR THE UP AND COMING GENERATIONS THAT ARE MOVING INTO IDAHO FALLS. THESE ARE THE FUTURE OF OUR WORKFORCE THAT ARE DEVELOPING THEIR SKILLS TO BETTER, BETTER THE CITY AS AS LONG AS EVERYTHING GOES WELL, I THINK THESE TOWNHOMES WILL BE A GREAT ADDITION TO IDAHO FALLS. GOOD EVENING COUNCIL. MY NAME IS BRAD CAMPOS. YOU HAVEN'T HEARD MUCH FROM ME YET, BUT I AM THE SECOND HALF OF BEAR HUNTER HOLDINGS. WE PUT THIS IN PLACE. I GUESS IT'S BEEN GOING ON 18 MONTHS OR SO NOW. WILLOWS PLACE IS MY FAMILY'S DEVELOPMENT, SO WILLOW IS MY 12 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER. SHE GOES TO EAGLE ROCK RIGHT THERE DOWN THE ROAD. ZOE. AS YOU CAN SEE, ZOE LANE IS MY SENIOR AT SKYLINE HIGH SCHOOL. SO WE ARE WE ARE VERY CLOSE IN PROXIMITY TO THIS. MY FATHER PASSED AWAY A FEW YEARS AGO, AND IT WAS OUR INTENT TO INVEST IN PROPERTIES AND DEVELOP THINGS IN THE CITY BY THE FALLS, BECAUSE HE LOVED IT AND HE WORKED HERE, AND HE WAS A CONSTRUCTION GUY WITH PACIFIC WEST CONSTRUCTION, AND THEN LATER JACOBSON CONSTRUCTION. 
          HIS LIFE INSURANCE POLICY IS WHAT PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY. AND THAT'S THAT'S NOT FOR FAIL SAFE, THAT THAT'S FOR THE LEGACY THAT I'M TRYING TO BUILD IN HIS NAME. AND THAT'S WHY WE NAMED IT AFTER HIS GRANDKIDS. I'M NOT OUT OF STATE. YOU KNOW, I'M FROM HERE. I'M LOCAL. I'VE BEEN IN REAL ESTATE FOR, FOR MANY YEARS, RENOVATING HOUSES. I'M PROBABLY 100 HOUSES DEEP SINCE ABOUT 2019 AND FIX AND FLIPS. I'M ALSO A REAL ESTATE AGENT AND I HELP, HELP PEOPLE. 
          SO I'M REALLY HAVE A FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE IN UNDERSTANDING HOUSING IN THE COMMUNITY AND WHAT WE NEED HERE IN IDAHO FALLS. I'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR WELL OVER A DECADE. EVERY DOLLAR MADE AT THIS PROJECT, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A MILLION, BUT EVERY DOLLAR MADE IN THIS PROJECT WILL STAY IN IDAHO FALLS. THESE TOWNHOUSES ARE DESIGNED TO BE ATTAINABLE FOR FAMILIES FOR FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS THAT ARE GETTING HARDER AND HARDER TO FIND EVERY DAY. 
          OUR ENGINEERS WORKED DIRECTLY WITH YOUR STAFF SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS, AND PUT THE ORIGINAL BEAUTY TOGETHER. NOT THIS. I MEAN, THIS ONE'S LATER AND WE'RE ACCEPTING IT AND WE'RE TRYING TO TO WORK AND DO THINGS AS BEST WE CAN WITH THE CITY AND TRY AND WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY AS BEST WE CAN. AND, AND PUT IN SOMETHING THAT DOES, IN FACT, IMPROVE THE WHEAT PATCH THAT EXISTS TODAY. WE'VE WORKED THROUGH THIS PROCESS. WE'VE MADE ALL THESE CHANGES 
          [01:55:03]
THROUGH MEDIATION AND ADDRESSED ALL THE CITY'S CONCERNS. THIS PROVIDES PLAN. IS THAT GOOD FAITH EFFORT? WE BELIEVE THAT WILL PLACE REFLECTS THAT KIND OF THOUGHTFUL AND LOCALLY DRIVEN, DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT, AND WOULD ASK YOU FOR YOUR APPROVAL TODAY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRANCIS. YES. JUST BECAUSE THIS WASN'T REBUTTAL AND IT'S TOTALLY FINE. BUT SINCE THAT WAS ANOTHER STATEMENT BY THE DEVELOPER, I WOULD I WOULD ADVISE THAT YOU ALLOW ANYBODY, ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO HAS PREVIOUSLY SPOKEN THAT THEY CAN COME UP IF THEY IF THAT PROMPTED ANY FURTHER COMMENT FROM ANYBODY. I'M GOOD WITH THAT. OKAY. 
          THINKING THAT WAS KIND OF A TWO PART STATEMENT. SO IT WASN'T IT WASN'T I REALIZE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. OKAY, SO YES, BUT SHOULD WE GO AHEAD WITH THE DEVELOPERS REBUTTAL AND THEN GIVE PEOPLE A CHANCE, EVEN THOUGH I OPEN REOPEN IT UP TO ANYBODY? OKAY, SO ANYBODY, IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN RESPONSE TO ANYTHING YOU HEARD, NOW'S THE TIME. IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE MAYBE SOMEBODY'S FIRST TIME TO. YEAH. I'M JUST READ WHAT YOU SENT US. NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY SHOULD BE ASSOCIATED TO THE POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE PETITIONS. SORRY, MR. SMITH, JUST FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS MR. SMITH. MAX SMITH. OKAY, OKAY, JUST JUST SO WE KNOW WHO'S WHO'S SPEAKING AT THIS TIME. YEAH. I'M SORRY. SORRY TO INTERRUPT. WELL, SORRY, I'M JUST READING THE NOTE ON THE LETTER THAT WE RECEIVED. NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY SHOULD BE ASSOCIATED TO THE POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCES, PETITIONS, OPINIONS AND REPETITIVE TESTIMONY IS DISCOURAGED AND TESTIFYING? NO, THE LAW. BE INFORMED AND SPEAK ON POINT. 
          TRAFFIC CONCERNS AND ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. WHAT OCCURRED HERE IS PUBLIC TESTIMONY ABOUT THE GOODNESS OF THE DEVELOPER, AND THAT DIDN'T APPLY TO ANY OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE TOLD THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT, AND HOW IT APPLIES TO ZONING LAWS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. SO I JUST WANT TO STATE THAT. HI, I'M ALEX, I LIVE AT THE END OF PULLMAN HERE, JUST A BLOCK OR TWO DOWN THE STREET. OUR FIRST HOME WAS A TOWNHOME. GREAT. YOU STILL OWN IT IN POCATELLO? LOVE IT. DEFINITELY. I THINK WHERE I STRUGGLE WITH SOME OF THESE THINGS IS, MAN, THERE'S LIKE TWO BLOCKS AWAY. THERE'S 65 UNITS GOING IN, YOU KNOW, SO 80, WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, IT'S I THINK THAT'S WHERE I LIKE WHERE THE WHERE I WANT THE RESIDENTS TO BE HEARD, YOU KNOW, AND NOT THAT I THINK PEOPLE MOVING INTO THESE TOWNHOMES, IT'S, IT'S GOOD FOR YOUNG FAMILIES. I HAVE THREE KIDS, A FOUR YEAR OLD, A THREE YEAR OLD AND A ONE YEAR OLD. I THINK THEY'RE GREAT PLACES TO START YOUR FAMILY, RAISE YOUR FAMILY, WHATEVER. 
          WHERE MY CONCERNS LIE WITH THE RESIDENTS CONCERNS THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY THERE, RIGHT? THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE IMPACTED, AND ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS ACCESS TO OTHER TOWNHOMES, I THINK THERE IS OPTIONS OR MAYBE, YOU KNOW, AND OBVIOUSLY I LESS UNITS. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE. AND I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, I UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE'S LAND AND IF THEY WANT TO USE IT HOW THEY WANT TO USE IT, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          BUT WITHIN THE REALM OF LAWS AND THE AGREEMENTS AND WHATEVER GOES ON HERE. BUT I JUST WANT US TO BE HEARD, YOU KNOW, AND IF IT'S GOING TO IMPACT US, THEN LET'S JUST MAKE SO ALL PARTIES CAN BE BENEFITED. YOU KNOW, THE MEDIATION AND I HAVEN'T FOLLOWED THIS DIRECTLY OR MISSED SOME OF THE STUFF DRIVING OVER HERE, BUT IT'S LIKE HOW I MEAN, THIS IS A, THIS IS ENOUGH TO GET ME HERE. AND I'VE NEVER BEEN HERE. I'VE NEVER WATCHED ONE OF THESE. AND I WATCHED THE LAST ONE AND IT WAS LIKE PULLING OUT MY HAIR. BUT I APPRECIATE US HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS AND BEING OPEN TO THIS. AND THE MORE WE CAN MAKE THIS TRANSPARENT ALONG THE WAY, THE WHOLE PROCESS, THE MEDIATION AND BEING INVOLVED IN THAT AND THE ACCESS, I JUST APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. COUNCIL. KERRY MCKAY. I LIVE ON NEWMAN DRIVE AND I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 19 YEARS. I FEEL LIKE APPROVAL OF THIS IS PUNISHING THESE RESIDENTS THAT HAVE PROBABLY LIVED HERE 30, 40 YEARS IN THESE HOMES, YOU KNOW, AND THEY KEPT THE NEIGHBORHOOD VERY NICE. I LOVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE ALREADY MENTIONED. AND I'VE BEEN TO MOST OF THE MEETINGS, INCLUDING 
          [02:00:03]
THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING LAST FALL, BUT THE FIRE TRUCK ACCESS, THE TURNAROUND, I KNOW THAT WAS QUESTIONED AND I'M NOT SURE MAYBE THAT'S BEEN ANSWERED. THE CANAL, I WALK AROUND WEST SIDE NEARLY EVERY DAY. IT IS A VERY STEEP CANAL, AND I THINK THE DEVELOPER COULD PUT A FENCE UP ON HIS PROPERTY TO PROTECT CHILDREN, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU MENTIONED ONE TIME ABOUT, YEAH, A DOG CAN EVEN CLIMB OUT. AND I AGREE THAT IT IS VERY STEEP AND NARROW. ALSO, PARKING IS. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, AS WE KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE IN IDAHO, WHEN THEY MOVE HERE, THEY WANT, YOU KNOW, THEY GET A PLACE AND THEN THEY WANT AN RV AND THEN THEY WANT A BOAT AND THEN A TRUCK TO PULL IT AND THEY GET, YOU KNOW, SNOWMOBILES OR WHATEVER. AND THAT ENDS UP PARKING USUALLY ON THE STREET. A LOT OF THESE APARTMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT, YOU SEE PEOPLE PARKING, YOU KNOW, THE ONE NORTH OF OFF OF PIONEER ROAD, THEY PARK ALONG PIONEER ROAD, AND I'M THINKING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO THINK, OH, WELL, THE CHURCH ONLY MEETS ON SUNDAYS, MAYBE ON WEDNESDAY NIGHTS. WELL, WE'LL JUST PARK OVER THERE IF THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, REDUCING PARKING SPOTS. SO I JUST HOPE YOU'LL ADDRESS THAT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS GIVEN THE CHANCE FOR THE APPLICANT TO REBUTTAL. THANK YOU. I'M COLIN HUNTER AND TEACH AT HOME TRYING TO GET TO SOME OF THESE HERE. MR. ROCK TALKED ABOUT THE FENCE. AND AS I RECALL, THERE'S SEVERAL NEIGHBORS THAT ALREADY HAVE FENCES UP. AND I THINK HIS IS ONE OF THE ONLY ONES THAT DOESN'T HAVE FENCE. SO I THINK THAT WE'LL WE'LL HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT. BUT WE MIGHT ALSO ASK YOU TO HELP US PAY FOR THAT. IF WE PUT A FENCE UP WITH HIM BENEFITING FROM THAT. ALSO, WE'RE NOT AFRAID OF PUTTING FENCES UP AROUND CANALS. YOU KNOW, JOHN TALKED EARLIER TONIGHT ABOUT LIVING IN ONE OF MY TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENTS IN BLACKFOOT. AND THERE WAS A CANAL THERE THAT WE WE PUT A FENCE UP ALONG THAT WHERE IT MADE SENSE. AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT ON THIS ONE, THIS THIS CANAL IS ABOUT TWO FEET DEEP WHEN IT'S RUNNING WATER. AND SO WE'LL LOOK AT THAT. AND I THINK IT'S I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE THE DISCRETION TO PUT ONE UP IF IT MAKES SENSE. BUT LIKE I SAY, WE'RE NOT AFRAID OF PUTTING PUTTING THEM UP TO PROTECT SAFETY OF THE KIDS AND THE RESIDENTS THERE. LET'S SEE, THERE WAS SOME TALK ABOUT THE CHURCH PARKING LOT AND BEING US BEING DEPENDENT ON THE CHURCH. AND THAT'S ONE THING THAT WE MADE VERY, VERY WE WERE VERY PURPOSEFUL ABOUT MAKING THAT COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF OUR OF OUR PROJECT. BUT WE ALSO, LIKE WE MENTIONED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, WE DID IN FACT, WE'VE DONATED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO THEM TO IMPROVE THEIR, THEIR SITUATION. 
          AND WE ALSO PLAN ON IMPROVING THEIR PARKING LOT TOO, AS WE GET UNDERWAY ON THIS. WE ALREADY HAVE WORKED WITH THE CHURCH TO DONATE GROUND TO THE CITY FOR THE EXPANSION OF. OF. 
          IT'S NOT PULLMAN, BUT IT'S BELEN. YEAH. SO WE WE'VE ALREADY EXECUTED THAT AGREEMENT AND CREATED THAT SPACE FOR THAT EXPANSION FOR, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY. WE'VE ALSO GOTTEN RID OF SEVERAL. EASEMENTS THAT WERE OLD AND NOT BEING USED ANYMORE. AND, AND WORKED WITH THE CITY ON HELPING, GETTING THAT ALL CLEANED UP WITH THE CHURCH'S PROPERTY AT OUR EXPENSE. SO, SO VERY MUCH BEING NEIGHBORLY, DOING WHAT WE CAN TO, TO CREATE A GOOD SITUATION FOR, FOR US AND THE NEIGHBORS. LET'S SEE. I DON'T KNOW ANY NEIGHBORS I'VE EVER WORKED WITH THAT ARE EXCITED ABOUT A TOWNHOUSE PROJECT GOING IN NEXT TO THEM. AND, AND THERE'S ARGUMENTS SAYING, WELL, LET'S NOT PUNISH THE PEOPLE THAT WERE HERE FIRST. BUT THE ULTIMATE PERSPECTIVE I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT HERE IS, IS WHEN WE GO TO BUY A PIECE OF PROPERTY, IT'S, IT'S OUR LEGAL RIGHT. IT'S OUR, IT'S OUR RIGHT AS LANDOWNERS TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT PROPERTY, WHAT CODE ALLOWS. AND WHEN WE GO TO THE CITY BEFORE WE BUY THE PROPERTY AND SAY, WHAT CAN WE DO WITH THIS? AND THE CITY MAPS OUT EXACTLY WHAT WE CAN DO. AND THEY GIVE US A CODE AND SAYS, HERE'S THE CODE, HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH IT. THAT'S THE EXPECTATION. 
          AND THIS WAS A WHEAT PATCH FOR 20 PLUS YEARS. AND YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORS DIDN'T GO AND 
          [02:05:01]
BEAUTIFY IT. THEY DIDN'T GO PUT A LAWN IN AND, AND MAKE IT NICE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T OWN IT AND THEY SHOULDN'T BE EXPECTED TO. BUT WHEN WE OWN IT, WE SHOULD ALSO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT WE WANT WITH OUR PROPERTY AND IMPROVE IT AND CREATE A BENEFIT FOR THE CITY AS WELL. WE'RE CREATING HOUSING FOR RESIDENTS THAT THAT ARE TRYING TO GET AHEAD IN LIFE AND, AND IMPROVE THEIR SITUATION, TO TALK ABOUT TEN HOUSES IS JUST NOT VERY FAR AWAY GOING IN AS WELL. THERE'S LIKE 60 SOMETHING OF THEM OR 80, 80 OF THEM. AND IT'S A GREAT POINT. BUT ALSO THE OTHER FACTOR THAT IS THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS IS GROWING. AND WHAT USED TO BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, LIKE ROCKWELL, WHEN I GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL OR COLLEGE, THERE WAS HUNDREDS OF HOUSES, HOUSING PROJECTS GOING IN ALL OVER IDAHO FALLS AND AMMON. AND WHAT WE'RE SEEING NOW IS TOWNHOUSE PROJECTS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE CAN AFFORD. THAT'S WHAT'S GOING IN. 
          SO THERE'S 80 GOING IN, NOT VERY FAR AWAY, BUT BUT THE REALITY IS WE NEED WE'RE GOING TO NEED THOUSANDS MORE TO KEEP UP WITH THE GROWTH THAT IDAHO FALLS IS IS DOING. THERE WAS TALK ABOUT THE LACK OF PARKING. AND WHEN WE WERE MEDIATING, WE GOT RID OF SOME OF THE EXCESS PARKING TO HELP MAKE THAT NOT LOOK LIKE A GIANT PARKING LOT ON OUR ON OUR DEVELOPMENT. SO WE WERE JUST ANSWERING THE, THE REQUEST OF THE CITY ON THAT LOOK AND FEEL. AND THERE WAS TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO RV, THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO GET A BOAT, ETC. BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THEY CAN'T AFFORD RV OR A BOAT RIGHT NOW IN THIS STAGE OF THEIR LIVES. SO THIS IS GOING TO BE A STEPPING STONE FOR THEM. WHEN THEY GET A HOUSE, THEY'LL GET AN RV AND THEY'LL GET A BOAT AND THEY'LL GET THE OTHER THINGS THAT THEY THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY NECESSITIES FOR, FOR SUSTAINING LIFE. BUT, BUT RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE MOST PEOPLE THAT ARE BUYING THIS. TOWNHOUSES ARE JUST IN SURVIVAL MODE AND ARE JUST TRYING TO JUST TRYING TO OWN SOMETHING FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THEIR LIVES. AND I THINK THIS IS A GREAT WAY OF BEING ABLE TO DO THAT FOR THEM. AND IT'S A GREAT BENEFIT TO THE CITY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. OKAY. AT THIS POINT, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE HEARING AND STEP ASIDE FROM THE DAIS AND COUNCIL. DINGMAN WILL TAKE OVER AS CHAIR, SO THERE WILL STILL BE A QUORUM BECAUSE COUNCILOR FRIEDMAN IS ONLINE. SO THERE'S STILL BEFORE ME. CAN WE JUST CONFIRM THAT, COUNCILOR FREEMAN, THAT YOU'RE STILL HERE? I AM STILL HERE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. MAYOR PRO TEM FRANCIS. 
          ALL RIGHT, FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS, AS HAS BEEN HIGHLIGHTED, WE HAVE LOOKED AT THIS ITEM ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, AS WELL AS STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS WONDERING IF WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS RIGHT NOW FROM COUNCILOR RADFORD, LARSON OR FREEMAN. I'M HAPPY TO TAKE A MOTION AS WELL, BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THE FOLKS THAT HAVE BEEN. OH, GO AHEAD. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND LET COUNCILOR FREEMAN SPEAK FIRST. THANK YOU. GREETINGS FROM BOSTON. IT'S A IT'S A LITTLE LATER THAN THIS AT HOME. I'M PRETTY IMPRESSED WITH THE DEVELOPER'S WILLINGNESS TO CHANGE THEIR PLAN AND ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF COUNCIL. YOU KNOW, I VOTED TO APPROVE THE LAST TIME WE WENT THROUGH THIS BECAUSE OF THE THE CHANGES THAT THEY. THAT WE HAD DESIGNED AND DECIDED THAT THE RETAILER WAS A REDEVELOPMENT PROPERTY. AND SO I THOUGHT THAT A QUALIFIED TO APPROVE IT. SO I VOTED IN FAVOR BEFORE. AND I'M GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF AGAIN THIS EVENING. 
          THEY'VE DONE A REMARKABLE JOB, I THINK, OF ADDRESSING A LOT OF THE CONCERNS. I HEARD THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE FENCING TONIGHT. I THINK THAT'S A THAT'S A SMALL CONCERN THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED. AND I THINK THAT THEY THEY SHOWED THE WILLINGNESS. THEY WILL LOOK AT THAT. I THINK THE STREETSCAPE IS BETTER WITH THE NEW PLAN. THE. THE PLAYGROUND IS MORE ACCESSIBLE. THE SIX UNITS PER ACRE RATHER THAN EIGHT. IT. IT ALL HELPS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S STILL LESS THAN TWO ACRES. WE APPROVED THESE. THAT'S. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE AT THE TIME TO DO A PUD BECAUSE IT IS UNDER TWO ACRES. BUT THEY HAVE MADE ALL THE OTHER CONCESSIONS AND THEREFORE I'M SUPPORTING THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILOR FREEMAN. APPRECIATE YOU STAYING UP TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING. COUNCILMEMBER LARSON, FIRST, I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR EVERYBODY THAT'S BEEN HERE TODAY. I'VE SPOKEN. AND IN THE PRIOR MEETINGS, SOMEBODY TOLD ME NOT ALL THAT LONG AGO, WHEN YOU'RE SITTING UP THERE AND YOU'RE LISTENING TO ALL THE 
          [02:10:04]
FOLKS THAT ARE IN THE ROOM, REMEMBER ALL THE VOICES THAT AREN'T IN THE ROOM, AND WE REPRESENT EVERYBODY WHO LIVES IN THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS. LAND USE IS A TOUGH SITUATION. 
          I REMEMBER SITTING IN A IN A MEETING A FEW YEARS, A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, AND THE QUESTION WAS RAISED ABOUT ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE MOVING AND ALL THE HOUSING THAT'S BEING BUILT. AND SOMEBODY SAID, WHO'S GOING TO LIVE IN ALL THESE HOUSES? AND A WISE PERSON WHO WAS SITTING NEXT TO ME WHO SHOUTED MY NAME, WAS LEANED OVER AND SAID, OUR CHILDREN. THOSE ARE SOME OF THE VOICES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN IN THE ROOM IN THE PAST. AND IT WAS ADDRESSED TONIGHT THAT THIS IS A HOUSING THAT YOUNG FAMILIES CAN AFFORD, AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE HEAR A LOT AS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS IS, WHY CAN'T YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING? THERE AREN'T A LOT OF OPTIONS THAT CITIES HAVE. WE CAN'T TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO BUILD, BUT WE CAN HELP THEM BE SUCCESSFUL. AND I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER LARSEN. 
          COUNCILOR RADFORD, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? OKAY. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS ALWAYS PARTICULARLY CHALLENGING, I THINK, WHEN YOU'RE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL IN IDAHO IS UNDERSTANDING THAT OUR ROLE ISN'T PERSONALLY WHETHER OR NOT WE LIKE A PROJECT, WE THINK IT'S A QUOTE UNQUOTE GOOD IDEA, BUT WHETHER OR NOT IT DOES COMPLY WITH THE ADOPTED ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS, BECAUSE IN IDAHO, WE HAVE A LONG STANDING PRINCIPLE FOR THE RESPECT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT I'M NOT GUARANTEED WHAT MY VIEW IS OUTSIDE MY WINDOW. I'M NOT GUARANTEED IF I LIKE THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR, I'VE GOT A NEIGHBOR, GOD BLESS HER WITH CHICKENS. LEGALLY, I DON'T GET A SAY ON THAT BECAUSE SHE'S COMPLYING WITH ORDINANCES. AND I KNOW THAT THAT IS, YOU KNOW, BUT I, I KNOW THESE ARE REAL. IT'S REAL PEOPLE. IT'S REAL LIVES ON BOTH SIDES. IT'S REAL CHANGES. I VERY MUCH UNDERSTAND THAT. I DO LIVE VERY CLOSE TO A RECENT DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ABOUT SEVEN TIMES THE SIZE OF THIS ONE. AND I'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE HAVING THESE TYPES OF CONVERSATIONS. AND SO I REALLY UNDERSTAND IT AND I REALLY RESPECT EVERYONE'S PARTICIPATION. I ALSO APPRECIATE THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO ATTENDED MEDIATION HAVE BEEN VERY TRANSPARENT ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCE HERE, SO THAT THEY CAN HELP US MAKE A DECISION AND THAT THEY DID UTILIZE THE PROCEEDINGS THAT WE CAN PROPERLY REFER TO IN NEGOTIATING AND TRYING TO, TO MEDIATE TO A, A, A POINT THAT THAT COUNCIL DIRECTED. SO WITH THAT, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO HEAR A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL. 
          I MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPROVED THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD FOR WILLOWS PLACE TOWNHOMES AS PRESENTED. AND SECOND, A SECOND FROM COUNCILOR BRADFORD. ROLL CALL PLEASE. OKAY. LARSON. 
          YES. DINGMAN. YES. FREEMAN. YES. AND RADFORD. I. MOTION CARRIES. SECOND, I MOVE THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE RECENT STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WILLOWS PLACE TOWNHOMES AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION TO THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. DAIMON. YES. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. RADFORD. AYE. 
          MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, CITY CLERK. WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT. YOU DON'T NEED TO READ ANYTHING. CORRECT? YEAH. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. INVITE MAYOR PRO TEM FRANCIS TO RETURN TO THE DAIS, AS WELL AS COUNCILOR LEE. I BELIEVE WE HAVE THREE MORE ITEMS, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST WE TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK OKAY. WE CALL THE MEETING BACK OVER. YEAH. THAT'S TRUE. THEY DO? YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. BECAUSE THE PICTURES IN IT SHOW. 
          [5.F.6) Amendment to Title 11, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Table 11-3-7, Dimension Standards for Special Zones, Section 11-4-2,  Design and Development Regulations, and 11-7-1, Definitions  related to Park and Recreation Facilities and the standards that  apply at the time of development. ]
YEAH. HE HAS A MOTIVE. WE ARE ON TO AMENDMENT TWO. TITLE 11 COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. 
          [02:15:08]
DIRECTOR. SANTA. I'M SORRY. SORRY. AMENDMENT TITLE 11. THAT WAS JIBBER JABBER IN THERE. SO. 
          YEAH. SO THIS FIRST CODE. SO THE LAST THREE ITEMS ON THE DOCKET ARE THREE CODE REVISIONS TO OUR ZONING CODE. THE FIRST ONE SORRY, I'M JUST GOING TO GET TO WHERE I AM. ANYWAY. DO YOU MIND CLICKING ON THE POWERPOINT. THANK YOU I THINK. WELL. YEAH. YOU GOT IT. THERE YOU GO, I GOT IT. THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. YEAH. OKAY. THE FIRST ITEM BEFORE YOU, THIS ACTUALLY COMES FROM A WORK SESSION THAT WE HAD BACK ON APRIL 6TH OF 2026. THIS IS AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR THE PARK AND REC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. AND I'LL JUST SHOW YOU JUST FOR THE PUBLIC, BUT ALSO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IN REVIEWING OUR ZONING ORDINANCE AND OUR LAND USE REGULATIONS, WE CAME TO FIND THAT THERE'S ONE ELEMENT OF OUR LAND USE FORM, OR OUR URBAN FORM IS WHAT THEY SAY PROFESSION. BUT THEY, WE, WE FOUND THAT THE PARKS AND REC FACILITIES WERE KIND OF WERE AN ANOMALY TO OUR GENERAL LAND USE. EACH PARK, AS MANY PEOPLE KNOW AS THERE'S A DIFFERENT FEEL OF FRIEDMAN PARK AND OFFICE PARK OF A HERITAGE PARK. ALL OF THEM HAVE DIFFERENT FEELS TO THEM, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY. AND IN DOING THAT, WHAT WE FOUND IS OUR ZONING REGULATIONS DIDN'T REALLY ADDRESS THAT ELEMENT OF PARKS AND REC. SO BECAUSE OF THAT, WHAT THIS IS DOING IS WE DEFINE WHAT A PARK AND REC FACILITY IS IN OUR ZONING CODE. SO THAT'S WHAT THE BLUE IS. AND THIS IS IN YOUR PACKET. BUT THEN WHAT WE ALSO DO IS PARKS ARE FOUND UNDER OUR PUBLIC ZONING AND REALIZE THAT PUBLIC ZONING COULD INCLUDE CITY WELLS. IT COULD INVOLVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS. SO WE JUST FELT LIKE THIS WAS A VERY CONVOLUTED LAND USE. AND TALKING WITH THE PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR AND, AND TALKING WITH THE PUBLIC, WE FOUND THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER JUST TO HAVE PARKS TO BASICALLY BE THE MASTERS OF THEIR OWN DESTINY. 
          SO WHAT THE CODE DOES IS IT DEFINES PARKS AND REC, AND THEN IT ALSO EXEMPTS THEM FROM THE ZONING CODE REGULATIONS. BUT IN DOING THAT, WHAT WE ANTICIPATE IS THAT EACH PARK AND REC FACILITY THEN, AS IT'S DEVELOPED, WOULD ACTUALLY DEVELOP A PARK AND REC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO EACH PARK WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT PLAN, DIFFERENT SET OF CODES FOR EACH PARK TO MAKE IT ADAPTABLE TO WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS. SO THAT'S WHAT THIS FIRST CODE REVISION IS DOING. SO IT'S DEFINING PARKS AND REC FACILITY AND THEN EXEMPTING THEM. SO THEN THEY DO A MASTER PLAN FOR EACH PARK. SO THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING THERE. BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT. WHEN WHEN A NEW PARK IS IS. ANTICIPATED IN THIS MASTER PLAN THAT COMES TOGETHER, WHO APPROVES IT? YES. SO THAT GOES THROUGH THE PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT. THEY HAVE, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, IT WAS COMING TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. 
          SO THEN YOU WOULD HAVE SAY ON THOSE DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING ON ONE FOR I FORGET THE NEW PARK RIGHT NORTH OF CM. YES. MEFFIN PARK THEY'RE CURRENTLY WORKING ON. THAT'S THE NEWEST PARK THAT WE HAVE AND THAT THEY'RE IN DEVELOPMENT OR IN THE VERY PRELIMINARY STAGES THEY'RE NOT DEVELOPING. ULTIMATELY, THAT DECISION WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL TO SEE IF I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY. THAT'S CORRECT. YES. THANK YOU. SO COME TO THE PARKS AND REC COMMISSION AND THEN THEY WOULD RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL, JUST LIKE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. YES. SIMILAR. YEAH. SORRY. I'M TRANSITIONING MY MY BRAIN. SO WE ALL ARE TALKING BUILDING ON ONE SIDE. YES, YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. THE PARKS AND REC COMMISSION WOULD BE LIKE THE PLANNING AND ZONING, AND THEY WOULD GIVE YOU A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION OR A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION. THEY PARKS AND REC COMMISSION IS ALSO MADE UP SIMILAR TO PLANNING COMMISSION. THEY'RE AN APPOINTED BOARD OF CITIZENS, SOME PROFESSIONALS, SOME LAY CITIZENS AS WELL. SO WE GET A GOOD SWATH OF WHAT THOSE PARKS SHOULD LOOK LIKE. ANY OTHER 
          [02:20:03]
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I'LL JUST COMMENT TO THANK. THERE'S KIND OF A LOT OF PEOPLE INVOLVED. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT FOR QUITE SOME TIME, AND I'M JUST REALLY HAPPY TO SEE IT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE HEART OF OF WHY WE WENT DOWN THIS ROAD WAS BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE, YOU KNOW, WE UNDERSTAND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BEING STEWARDS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND UTILIZING THOSE WISELY TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC IN THE PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT AND THE THINGS THAT GET BUILT. WE HAVE CHALLENGES THAT PRIVATE DEVELOPERS SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE. AND SO WHY IS THERE DIFFERENT? WHY? WHY SHOULD WE HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS? BECAUSE WE ARE WE ARE IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WORLD, RIGHT? WE HAVE LIMITED FUNDS. WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO USE THEM WISELY. WE HAVE A LOT LESS SAY HONESTLY IN THE KIND OF SPACE THAT WE HAVE TO DEVELOP. YOU KNOW, WE DON'T JUST GO OUT AND WILLY NILLY BUY A BUNCH OF PROPERTY. WE'RE OFTENTIMES USING WHAT'S BEEN DONATED TO US OR THAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TRADE OR ACQUIRE RESPONSIBLY AND LEGALLY. AND SO, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE MASTER PLANNING THAT WE'RE DOING IS PROPERTY THAT WE'VE HELD FOR DECADES AND DECADES AND DECADES, RIGHT? AND SO WE HAVE THOSE LIMITATIONS. AND I THINK THAT THE PUBLIC IS GOING TO SEE THE BENEFIT OF, I THINK, MORE IMPROVEMENT OVER TIME, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THE DOLLARS THAT WE DO HAVE WISELY TO IMPROVE MORE SPACE FASTER. SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE AT THE END OF THIS. AND I'M JUST I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS. YEAH, I'LL JUST ADD TO COUNCIL MEMBER DINGMAN'S COMMENTS THAT THE OTHER REAL DISADVANTAGE WE HAVE WITH PARKS THAT WE'VE DISCOVERED OVER OUR DECADE OF TRYING TO WORK ON THIS, IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO INDEBT A FUTURE COUNCIL BY GOING OUT AND MORTGAGING FOR 30 YEARS AND TO DIVERSIFY THOSE COSTS OVER THAT TIME FRAME. AND WE LIKELY WOULDN'T WANT TO. BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, JOHN, WE DO NOT HAVE THAT OPTION. AND SO TO BE ABLE TO PUT IN MONEY UP FRONT AND THEN GET THAT BACK THROUGH REVENUE IS NOT AN OPTION FOR US. 
          AND SO WE HAVE TO PAY FOR THINGS AS THEY COME UP. AND TO DO THAT, WE NEED TO DO THAT OFTEN IN ZONES OR IN ITERATIONS. AND SO THIS WILL MATCH THAT ABILITY. IF I COULD, I'D ADD JUST ONE OTHER THING TO WHAT I REALLY LIKE ABOUT THIS IS THAT IT ALLOWS US TO MORE UTILIZE THE TALENTS OF OUR PARKS AND REC COMMISSION. HAVING SAT ON THAT FOR SEVEN YEARS PRIOR TO COUNCIL, THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE HAS A TRULY A WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE AND TALENT, AND FOR THEM TO BE THE ONES WHO HELP KIND OF MOLD AND PREPARE THE BASIC PLAN TO COME FOR US BEFORE US. I FEEL LIKE THAT THAT'S A VERY THAT'S A WONDERFUL USE OF THEIR TALENT AND MORE MEANINGFUL SERVICE FOR THEM TO PERFORM FOR THE CITY. AND I'LL MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT. 
          IT'S SO LOGICAL THAT THERE IS QUITE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CITY'S COMMUNITY FARM AND WHAT YOU NEED THERE, AND WHAT YOU NEED IN OFFICE, PARK, ETC. IT'S EVERY PARK IS UNIQUE AS DIRECTOR SANDERS SAID. SO I'M READY FOR A MOTION. I'D LOVE TO. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE. EXCUSE ME, THAT WE APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 11 COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, TABLE 11-3-7 DIMENSION STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL ZONES. SECTION 11-4-2 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND 11-7-1 DEFINITIONS RELATED TO PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES AND THE STANDARDS THAT APPLY AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. UNDER A SUSPENSION OF THE RULES REQUIRING THREE COMPLETE AND SEPARATE READINGS REQUESTS THAT IT BE READ BY TITLE AND PUBLISHED BY SUMMARY. SECOND. LARSON. YES. DINGMANN. YES. FRANCIS I. FREEMAN. YES. LEE. 
          YES. RADFORD. I MOTION CARRIES. I'LL READ THE ORDINANCE. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, AMENDING TITLE 11 COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE. TABLE 1137 DIMENSION STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL ZONES. SECTION 11-4-2 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND 11-7-1 DEFINITIONS. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY PUBLICATION BY SUMMARY AND ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE. ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE ON TO 
          [5.F.7) Amendment to Title 11, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance,   Section 11-2-6(N) Dwelling, Accessory Unit and Table 11-4-2; Off Street Parking Requirements to comply with state legislation  adopted in Legislative Session. ]
AMENDMENT TITLE TWO, TITLE 11 COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. THANK YOU. THESE NEXT TWO ITEMS, AND I FAILED TO MENTION EACH ONE OF THESE WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON JUNE THE 6TH. SO JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE, PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED ALL OF THESE AND ANY INPUT WE GOT FROM THERE, WE ALSO INCLUDED. SO I DID MAKE 
          [02:25:01]
MENTION OF THAT. THAT APPLIES TO ALL OF THEM. AND THEY ALL. OBVIOUSLY WE WOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN THEM TO YOU IF THIS HAD PASSED. SO THE NEXT ONE IS ACTUALLY IT'S IN REFERENCE TO. 
          SENATE BILL 1354. SO. A LITTLE EXPLANATION HERE. IF IF YOU REMEMBER FROM YOUR HISTORY CLASSES IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, A THE POWER THAT WASN'T EXEMPT OR THE POWER THAT WASN'T DULY STATED IN OUR FEDERAL CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY GOT DELEGATED TO THE STATES. SOME OF THOSE POWERS THAT ARE DELEGATED TO THE STATES ARE ACTUALLY THE LAND USE AUTHORITY IN WHICH WE OPERATE. OUR ZONING AUTHORITY IS ACTUALLY DELEGATED TO US FROM THE STATE. SOME STATES CHOOSE TO OPERATE WHERE MUNICIPAL JURISDICTIONS, COUNTY JURISDICTIONS, THEY DELEGATE THAT POWER, THEN TO THEM TO ENFORCE AND APPLY AND CREATE THEIR OWN ZONING CODES. SOME STATES DO NOT DO THAT. FOR EXAMPLE, THE STATE OF HAWAII HAS MAINTAINED THAT THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS ON THE COUNTY LEVEL. SO THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS CITY ZONING. IT'S ACTUALLY COUNTY ZONING. SO I SAY ALL THAT BECAUSE IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE BECAUSE THAT POWER IS DELEGATED TO US, THEN THE STATE ACTUALLY CAN MANDATE THINGS TO US AS WELL IN OUR ZONING AND MAKE SURE THAT THINGS ARE INCLUDED IN OUR ZONING. WE'RE NOT INCLUDED IN OUR ZONING. SO THERE'S MANY THINGS THROUGHOUT. ONE EXAMPLE IS IN OUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT WE MAKE WITH DEVELOPERS, THERE'S TWO PROVISIONS FROM THE STATE THAT WE HAVE TO INCLUDE IN THOSE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. ONE IS THAT THE DEVELOPER IS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, AND ANOTHER ONE IS THAT THE DEVELOPER IS NOT WORKING WITH THE COMMUNIST REGIME OF CHINA. SO THOSE ARE THINGS THAT ARE ACTUALLY MANDATED TO US. SO I JUST USE THAT AS AN EXAMPLE. THESE ARE PROVISIONS OF OUR ZONING CODE THAT ACTUALLY ARE COMING DOWN FROM THE STATE. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT WE HAVE ADDRESSED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN OUR ZONING CODE. THE STATE IN THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION, HAS CHANGED THOSE PROVISIONS AND MANDATED THEM TO US. SO I'LL GO FIRST WITH THE FIRST ONE THAT WE HAVE IS IN REGARDS TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WE HAD. WE HAD TO STRIKE QUITE A BIT OF OUR CODE, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO ADJUST IT TO REFLECT THE STATE, THE STATE STATUTE. SO ONE EXAMPLE IS THE SIZE REQUIREMENT. THE STATE IS REQUIRING THAT ADUS NOW BECOME MORE PROLIFIC IN OUR ZONING CODE. SO THEY'VE ADDRESSED ELEMENTS OF SIZE. AND TO THEIR CREDIT, I DON'T MEAN TO DISCREDIT THE STATE. THEY'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGH THESE STATE OR STATE STATUTES. SO ONE OF THEM IS THEY'RE REQUIRING THAT THE SIZE. SO FIRST OFF, OUR CODE IS REFLECTIVE OF THE CHANGES THAT ARE REQUIRED. I'LL JUST GO THROUGH THOSE BECAUSE THERE THERE ARE ELEMENTS THAT THEY DON'T ALLOW FOR US TO HAVE A PARKING REQUIREMENT. THEY'VE INCREASED THE MINIMUM SIZE OF THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT TO 1000, WHERE OURS WAS 750FT■!S. I REALIZE THIS IS VERY TEXT HEAVY, BUT IT GOES THROUGH EACH OF THESE PROVISIONS. YOU'RE WELCOME TO READ SENATE BILL ONE, THREE, FIVE, FOUR, AND THAT'LL TELL YOU WHAT THESE ARE, ARE BEFORE YOU. SO THERE ARE PROVISIONS ON, FOR EXAMPLE, SETBACKS. THEY ARE IN THERE. FOR EXAMPLE, THEY GIVE A 15 FOOT SETBACK. WE ALLOWED SOME VARIATION IN THAT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, LIKE AN ALLEYWAY ON THE BACK OF THESE. THEY ALSO DEAL WITH ALLOWABLE DENSITIES THAT THEY DO HAVE TO MEET THE BUILDING CODE. SO THEY'RE NOT EXEMPT FROM THE BUILDING CODE. 
          SO I WOULD SUGGEST THOSE. BUT IN SHORT, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT TONIGHT IS REALLY WE'RE SCRATCHING QUITE A LOT OF PROVISIONS OF OUR ADU CODE BECAUSE IT NO LONGER WAS MATCHING. WE HAD TOO MUCH FLEXIBILITY IN IT. WHERE THIS IS NOW CREATING SOME MORE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR IT. SO THIS IS THE BULLET POINT OF REQUIRING 12 NO, NO LESS THAN 12 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THAT'S WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO EARLIER. OH, THAT THIS SO WHAT THE NEIGHBORS COULD HAVE LOOKED FORWARD TO, THANKS TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE, WAS 24 UNITS IN THAT TWO ACRE SPOT. YOU COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE ADUS GOING BACK TO THE WILLOWS PLACE. 
          YOU'RE CORRECT THERE. NOW WE HAVE TO ALLOW ADUS ON THOSE. THAT'S CORRECT. AND IS IT ONLY 
          [02:30:04]
ADUS OR ALL R-1 HOUSING UNITS? THIS ALLOWS FOR A USE ON ON SINGLE FAMILY ESTATES. IT RIGHT HERE. WHAT IS IT? THIS IS THE STARTER HOME. BUT I HAVE THE WRONG. LET ME GO TO THE ACTUAL CODE. I HAVE THE WRONG BULLET POINTS. I'M SORRY. I PUT THESE SLIDES TOGETHER VERY LATE IN THE DAY AND I WAS JUST FINE. I JUST THAT'S WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO. AND I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT YEAH, WHAT WAS AND I AM CONFUSED BY THE ADU VERSUS THE JUST ALL R-1 BEING 12 UNITS PER ACRE. YEAH. MAYBE IT'D BE EASIER FOR ME TO READ SOME OF THE STATE STATUTE. SO WE HAVE TO IMPLEMENT THIS BY OCTOBER 1ST OF 2026. WE THERE'S A COUPLE PROVISIONS THAT THEY HAVE. ONE ALLOW FOR ONE INTERNAL ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WITHIN THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ONE, A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PER LOT. SO WE HAVE TO ALLOW THEM ON ANY SINGLE FAMILY HOME. SO IN OUR DEFINITIONS, A DUPLEX IS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. WE PROHIBIT REQUIRING ANY OFF STREET PARKING OR GUEST PARKING. THAT'S WHY YOU SEE A SCRATCH THAT, BECAUSE WE USED TO REQUIRE THAT. THEN IT WASN'T A BURDEN ON OUR STREET SYSTEM. WE CAN'T IMPOSE IMPACT FEES ON THEM. THEY HAVE TO BE A MINIMUM SIZE OF 1000FT■S. WE CANNOT PROHIBIT IMPOSING A SETBACK REQUIREMENT GREATER THAN FOUR FEET FROM THE SIDE AND REAR LOT LINES. SO JUST MANDATES OUR SETBACK. IT ALSO PROHIBITS AN OWNER OCCUPIED REQUIREMENT FOR PRIMARY DWELLING. WE HAD THAT IN OUR CODE. SO WE SCRATCHED THAT. AND THE REASON WE HAD THAT IN WAS BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE OWNER OCCUPIED YOU CAN HAVE BETTER CODE COMPLIANCE. SO I THINK THE OTHER FEAR IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO CREATE MOTELS, RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE LOOKED AT THAT, WAS TO MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T HAVE 15 UNITS OF ADUS BUILT IN SOMEONE'S SITUATION. AND NOW SUDDENLY YOU HAVE A, WHAT WE CALL THE OLD MOTOR VIEWS, RIGHT? YEAH, YEAH. SO THE, THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE, THESE ARE ACCESSORY TO THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE. NOW WE DON'T HAVE TO BE OWNER OCCUPIED. SO YOU COULD IN ESSENCE HAVE TWO RENTALS. YES. THAT'S TRUE. YOU CAN'T LIMIT THE BUILDING HEIGHT ONLY AS TALL AS THE AS THE HOUSE. SO SOME PEOPLE, SOME MUNICIPALITIES TRIED TO MAKE THEM LESS LIKE A ONE STORY SO THAT THEY WERE MORE OR LESS. YEAH. YOU CAN'T RESTRICT ANYTHING MORE THAN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. SO YOU HAVE TO BASICALLY ALLOW THEM. THAT'S WHAT THAT PROVISION IS. SO SO ANYWAYS, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS DOING. WE'RE JUST DEFERRING. WE'RE STRIKING ARE WHAT WE HAVE LOCAL CONTROL OVER. AND WE'RE NOW TURNING IT BACK TO WHAT THE STATE REQUIREMENT IS. SO THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THIS CODE IS PLANNING TO GO THROUGH THAT RATHER QUICKLY. BUT IT PROBABLY IS GOOD FOR THE PUBLIC TO HEAR WHAT'S GOING ON. SO. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT. 
          I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, BUT I THINK CULTURALLY, DO YOU WANT I'LL MAKE JUST A COMMENT. I RECOGNIZE I FULLY RECOGNIZE WHAT DIRECTOR SHANNON HAS SAID AND THAT WE LIVE IN A RURAL STATE. I RECOGNIZE ALL OF THOSE THINGS. I RECOGNIZE THE PROCESS THAT IS IN PLACE. HOWEVER, MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT THIS IS A LARGE OVERSTEP BY OUR STATE LEGISLATURE. I HAVE READ THIS BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY BEFORE IT WAS PASSED. IT WAS PASSED WITH GREAT OPPOSITION. I BELIEVE THAT IT IS ACTUALLY. OUR RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD BE OUR. MY OPINION IS IT WOULD BE OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO HELP LEAD THE CHARGE FOR REVISIONS TO THIS LEGISLATURE. CITIES LIKE OURS HAVE TAKEN AND SPENT THE TIME TO REFLECT THE NEED AND THE APPROPRIATE WAYS TO HAVE ADUS WITHIN THEIR CODE, AS WE ALREADY HAVE. AS YOU CAN SEE, ALL THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING REQUIRED. THOSE CHANGES ARE BEING STRUCK AFTER COUNTLESS HOURS AND REASONS OF STRATEGIC DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD IN PREVIOUS COUNCILS TO ARRIVE AT THE WAY WE HAVE, THE WAY WE HAVE BEEN WRITTEN. AND AGAIN, I BELIEVE IT IS AN OVERREACH AND AN OVERSTEP BY OUR STATE LEGISLATURE. I WILL BE VOTING NO THIS EVENING. MY QUESTION IS FOR THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES SHOULD WE SAY NOW? WELL, WE LOOK THROUGH THE BILL REAL QUICK AND SEE, I MEAN, I DON'T I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WOULD DO IS WE'D BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW. AND YOU AND I'M KIND OF SHOOTING FROM THE HIP A LITTLE BIT RIGHT HERE. WERE WE TO NOT BRING OUR CODE UP TO COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, IF A PERSON WANTED TO GET AN ADU AND THEY APPLIED FOR IT, AND THEY WOULD HAVE QUALIFIED UNDER THE STATE CODE, BUT THEY DON'T QUALIFY UNDER OUR CITY CODE, THEN I THINK THEY COULD FAIRLY BRING A LAWSUIT OR A TAKINGS CLAIM AND SAY, HEY, THE STATE UNDER THE STATE CODE THAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW AND THAT YOU'RE PREEMPTED, I'M ENTITLED TO THIS. 
          [02:35:04]
ADU. SO I THINK SHOOTING FROM THE HIP, THAT'S WHAT WOULD BE THE CONSEQUENCES. WOULD I CONCUR? YEAH. AND WE WOULD HAVE TO PERMIT THEM AS WELL. YEAH. BECAUSE YOU'D HAVE TO FOLLOW THE STATE STATUTE. SO MY NEXT QUESTION IS DID YOU SAY THIS DOESN'T TAKE EFFECT TILL OCTOBER 1ST. YES THAT'S CORRECT. SO WHAT IF WE MADE A STATEMENT NOW AND THEN FIXED IT ON SEPTEMBER 30TH. YOU COULD CHANGE THE EFFECTIVE DATE IF YOU WANTED TO TO OCTOBER 1ST. 
          LET ME JUST DOUBLE CHECK. HERE'S MY REASONING. COUNCIL. AND THAT IS A I SEE HAS LONG TAKEN THE STANCE OF NOT RESISTING WHAT'S CALLED PREEMPTION. WE CALL IT PREEMPTIONS, WHERE THE STATE, EVEN THOUGH IT HAS THE POWER TO DO IT, OVERRIDES DECISIONS THAT ARE BEST MADE LOCALLY. WE MADE THE DECISION TWO YEARS AGO OR THREE YEARS AGO, THAT ADUS WOULD BE ALLOWED IN ALL ZONES, AND WE DID THAT ON PURPOSE TO TRY TO HELP THE HOUSING DEMAND IN THE CITY. AND WE MADE THAT VERY CAREFULLY. AND WE WE DID A LOT OF DISCUSSION OF WHAT THE SETBACKS SHOULD BE IN ORDER TO THINK ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS AS WELL AS THE PERSON WHO WANTS IT, AS WELL AS PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO KEEP THEIR THEIR HOMES BY EITHER RENTING OUT AN ADU OR BE ABLE TO KEEP THEIR HOME BY HAVING THEIR MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILY STAY OR THEIR PARENTS AGE OUT. AND THAT THAT WAS ALL REASONED OUT IN THAT VERY CAREFULLY. AND NOW THE STATE COMES IN AND SAYS, WELL, YOU YOU HAD A GOOD IDEA. GET ALL THOSE THINGS. BUT NOW WE'RE GOING TO RUIN YOUR PLANS BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE SETBACKS. WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THEM BIGGER, WHICH WE DELIBERATELY DID NOT WANT TO DO BECAUSE WE WANTED THEM TO BE ADU. AND, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY IN MY MIND IS WE SAID THE OWNER HAS TO LIVE ON THE PROPERTY. 
          THEY COULD LIVE IN THE ADU OR THEY COULD LIVE IN THE MAIN BUILDING, BUT THEY HAVE TO LIVE THERE. AND THERE WAS A REASON FOR THAT THAT WAS CAREFULLY PUT TOGETHER. AND NOW THEY THEY KNOCK IT OUT. SO MY SUGGESTION IS WE MAKE A STATEMENT. WE ARE NOT APPROVING THIS OR WE WILL ONLY LET IT GO INTO EFFECT ON SEPTEMBER 30TH AT MIDNIGHT. ON THE REASONING THAT THIS IS A WAY TO SAY TO THE PUBLIC, IF YOU DON'T LIKE THIS, AND WHAT COULD HAPPEN IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THEN YOU NEED TO TALK TO YOUR LEGISLATORS RIGHT NOW. I'M SORRY, BUT THAT WOULD BE MY MESSAGE. I HAVE A CLARIFICATION. SENATE BILL 1354. YES. OKAY. SO I'M LOOKING AT SENATE BILL 1354. AND ACTUALLY, TO CORRECT THE RECORD, IT'S IT IT'S REQUIRED BY FEBRUARY 1ST, 2027. UNLESS. ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE. THAT'S WHAT I HAVE ON THEIR WEBSITE. I THINK THAT IT'S A, IT'S A, AN APPROACH TO THAT CITIES HAVE TIME TO IMPLEMENT THIS. AND SO IT DOES A LAW PASSED JULY 1ST. YEAH. AND 67, JULY 1ST, 18676541. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS BY OCTOBER 1ST, 2026, BY RESOLUTION ORDINANCE ADOPTED AND AMENDED ON APPEAL. WHERE ARE YOU? IT. 
          FEBRUARY 1ST IS THE ONE. THE OTHER ONES ARE COMING UP. THIS IS. DO YOU HAVE ENGROSSMENT OR IS THIS THE. BECAUSE I HAVE ENGROSSED. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. NO, NO, YOU'RE THE ATTORNEY. I DON'T PLAY THIS. WHAT? THIS ONE WAS AMENDED. YEAH, THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL BILL WAS OCTOBER 1ST. SORRY. OH THAT'S OKAY. CORRECT ME. ENGROSSMENT. YEAH. SO IT IS VERY FIRST. 27 SO THEY GAVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT WAS FEBRUARY 1ST, 2027. SO YES, YOU SAID IT MARCH 30TH TO TAKE EFFECT MARCH 31ST, 2027 IF YOU WANTED TO. BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE NO AND THEN HAVE SOMETHING TAKE EFFECT. I THINK YOU HAVE TO VOTE YES AND SAY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE IT TAKEN EFFECT. WELL, I COULDN'T VOTE NO AND THEN TAKE IT UP THE DAY BEFORE. RIGHT. EXCEPT FOR THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO. THAT'S WHAT I'LL PROBABLY DO VOTE NO AND SAY, WELL, WE CAN PICK IT UP WHEN WE AT THE LAST SECOND. SOMETHING TO NOTE. THIS HAS BEEN NOTICED. AND WE WOULD HAVE TO RE NOTICE IF WE WERE TO BRING IT BACK. SO WE HAVE UNTIL 2027. RIGHT. AND MAYBE BY THAT TIME PRESSURE OF CITIES AND THE PUBLIC WILL SAY, YEAH, I THINK THAT GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME POTENTIAL REVISIONS TO MAKE THIS HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE COMMON SENSE VERSUS WHAT IT IS TODAY. IT'S, IT'S SO FRUSTRATING TO ME THAT WE SO CAREFULLY WORKED THIS OUT. I KNOW, AND WE'RE TRYING TO DO 
          [02:40:05]
THE SAME THING THEY'RE DOING, BUT WE DID IT BETTER. I'M SORRY. I THINK WHAT'S REALLY JUST REALLY UNIQUE ABOUT THIS, AND I THINK THAT OUR LOCAL LEGISLATORS, MANY OF THEM UNDERSTOOD THIS, WAS THAT. THE CONSTITUENTS OVERWHELMINGLY WANTED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO CREATE SOME PARAMETERS FOR. THEY WANTED THEM TO BE AVAILABLE, BUT THEY WANTED PARAMETERS AND. AND NOW AGAIN, YOU CAN IMAGINE WHAT COULD HAPPEN WITH ENOUGH LAND. YOU CAN HAVE AN AIRBNB AND THEN 50 ADUS BEHIND YOU. I MEAN, THERE'S A. RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT OVERWHELMINGLY OUR CONSTITUENTS ARE JUST NOT INTERESTED IN THAT KIND OF BUILDING. WELL, WE'RE BASICALLY THE ELECTED BOARD THAT PASSED THIS. SO I, I SEE NO REASON TO DO IT NOW WHEN THE BETTER MESSAGE IS NO, JUST TO PUSH BACK AS A DEVIL'S ADVOCATE. I MEAN, WE LOST THE CONVERSATION IN THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION. IT WAS IT WAS A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS THEN. AND WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY AND WE ALL WENT AND TESTIFIED. I SENT LETTERS. AND SO, I MEAN, I'M IN FAVOR OF HAVING IT GO INTO EFFECT FEBRUARY 1ST. BUT I THINK A NO VOTE JUST SHOWS THAT YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE RULE OF LAW AND THE, AND THE PEOPLE WHO, WHO ACTUALLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY IN THIS IN THIS SITUATION, IT'D BE AKIN TO US PASSING SOMETHING AND THEN PLANNING AND ZONING, JUST SAYING NO. WELL, LET ME ASK ONE MORE QUESTION OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. IF WE SAY YES TODAY, THEN THIS TAKES EFFECT TODAY. YOU CAN ALWAYS AMEND THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE EFFECTIVE DATE TO WHATEVER DATE YOU COUNCIL DESIRES. AND I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. SO YOU COULD SAY, OKAY, MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE, YADA YADA. WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF MARCH 31ST, 2027. AND THAT WAY THE CDS WOULD NOT UPDATE OUR ONLINE CODE UNTIL FEBRUARY 1ST, 2027. THEY WOULD APPLY OUR CURRENT CODE UP UNTIL THAT DATE. 
          WELL, THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION IN MY MIND, BECAUSE IT STILL GIVES THE SAME MESSAGE AND YOU'D STILL HAVE THE CHANCE TO GO TO THE LEGISLATURE IN THE NEXT SESSION. YEAH, I BELIEVE THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO CREATE ENOUGH MOMENTUM TO HELP. AGAIN, REASON TAKE COURSE, AND IT ALLOWS US TO KEEP OUR WHAT WE DID WORKED HARD. YEAH, WE KEEP IT UNTIL FEBRUARY 1ST. AND SO FEBRUARY. SO WE'D HAVE TO MAKE IT TAKE EFFECT ON MIDNIGHT ON JANUARY 31ST. MARK. MARCH 1ST. 
          OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO. OH, SORRY. YEAH. WELL, I THOUGHT IT WAS FEBRUARY 1ST. YES. YOU'RE RIGHT, JANUARY 31ST. I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WAS DOING. SO I'M TALKING ABOUT MARCH. OKAY, SO IT'S JANUARY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT. WHEN? WHEN COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS MADE THE COMMENT ABOUT AIC, JUST FOR THE FOLKS THAT ARE HERE, AIC IS THE ASSOCIATION OF IDAHO CITIES, AND THAT IS AN ORGANIZATION THAT PRETTY MUCH EVERY CITY IN THE STATE. I THINK THERE'S A FEW MISSING, BUT NOT VERY MANY. AND I DON'T THINK THEY'RE VERY LARGE. POINT BEING IS THEY HAVE A LOBBYING EFFORT. THEY HAVE A WAY TO INFLUENCE US. SO IF ENOUGH CITIES PUSH BACK, THERE'S ANOTHER AVENUE WHERE THAT PUSHBACK GETS SENT TO THE LEGISLATURE. SO. AND THE PRIMARIES THAT HAPPENED IN MAY, I MEAN, THERE IS SOME HOPE. I THINK. SO. ARE WE READY FOR A REVISED MOTION? SOMEBODY'S READY TO DO THAT. I'M STILL GOING TO I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 11 COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 11-2-6, ANY DWELLING ACCESSORY UNIT. TABLE 11-42 OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO COMPLY WITH THE STATE LEGISLATION ADOPTED IN LEGISLATIVE SESSION UNDER A SUSPENSION OF THE RULES REQUIRING THREE AND COMPLETE SEPARATE READINGS. REQUEST THAT IT BE READ BY TITLE AND PUBLISHED BY SUMMARY, AND TO TAKE EFFECT AT MIDNIGHT ON JANUARY 30TH 1ST TO 2027. 
          SECOND. FRANCIS, A DINGMAN. YES. LI. NO. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. RADFORD. A. MOTION CARRIES. 
          I'LL READ THE ORDINANCE. ZACH. DO I NEED TO READ THAT EFFECTIVE DATE THEN? ALSO, AS 
          [02:45:01]
PART OF THAT? YES. TYPICALLY, YES. OKAY. YES. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO. 
          A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. AMENDING TITLE 11, COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE, SECTION 11-2-6N DWELLING ACCESSORY UNIT AND TABLE 11-4-2. OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CHANGES TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY PUBLICATION BY SUMMARY AND ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE BY MIDNIGHT, JANUARY 31ST, 2027. AND, MADAM CLERK, IF YOU'LL JUST IN THE ORDINANCE RIGHT IN. THERE'S AN EFFECTIVE DATE AT THE. SECTION FOUR OF THE ORDINANCE. YOU'RE JUST GONNA NEED TO WRITE IN. I'LL WORK WITH YOU AFTERWARDS. 
          WE CAN JUST AMEND THAT TO REFLECT WHAT COUNCIL IS SAYING HERE TONIGHT. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE 
          [5.F.8) Amendment to Title 11, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance,   Sections 11-2-6(AA) Short Term Rental and 11-7-1 Definitions to comply with State Legislation. ]
ON TO SHORT TERM RENTAL. ANOTHER AMENDING TITLE 11 COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. 
          YES. THIS IS IN THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO HOUSE BILL 583. SO THIS WAS THE SHORT TERM RENTAL ONE. AND MAYBE I HAVE THE GET ME THINKING ON THIS, ZACH. I MAY HAVE THE PROPOSED ONE THAT I PRINTED OFF AND IS MAKING. IT'S ALL OVER. SO HOPEFULLY THIS IS CORRECT. SO THIS ONE IS JUST, THIS ONE IS VERY SHORT FOR US. IT'S JUST AMENDING OUR CODE TO DEFINE SHORT TERM RENTALS. INITIALLY WHAT WE HAD IS AS A MEANS OF POLICY WAS THAT WE WOULD LIMIT THESE TO 30 DAYS. AGAIN, THE STATE STATUTE COMES DOWN AND IT ACTUALLY DOES NOT ALLOW US TO REGULATE THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT A SHORT TERM RENTAL CAN BE. SO WE JUST SCRATCH THAT AS WELL AS WE WERE LIMITING THE IT WAS THE AMOUNT OF OCCUPANTS. AND IN THIS NEW HOUSE BILL, IT IT ACTUALLY DOESN'T ALLOW US TO DO THAT ANYMORE. SO WE CAN'T RESTRICT IT TO THE AMOUNT OF TIME WE CAN'T TO RESTRICT IT TO THE OCCUPANTS. IT ALSO GOES THROUGH A COUPLE OTHER FUNCTIONS. THESE DO HAVE TO MEET FIRE AND BUILDING CODE. AND MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE EXPLAINED WHAT A SHORT TERM RENTAL IS. HOW WE DEFINE IT IS ANYTHING LESS THAN 30 DAYS. SO SOMETIMES PEOPLE WILL USE AN ENTIRE HOUSE AND THEY WILL RENT IT OUT FOR JUST OVERNIGHT. SOME PEOPLE WILL USE IT FOR DUPLEXES, ANYTHING. THIS JUST BASICALLY ALLOWS THEM THROUGHOUT OUR CITY, AND THEY'RE NOT RESTRICTED BY TIME. SO THAT'S WHAT THIS CODE DOES. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE JUST ADAPTING IT TO, TO REFLECT WHAT THE COUNTY OR THE STATUTE STATES. COUNCIL. SO THE TERM SHORT TERM STILL EXISTS IN OUR CODE IN THE STATE CODE. IS THERE ANYWHERE IN STATE LAW THAT SOMEHOW STIPULATES WHAT THAT MEANS? I MEAN, APPARENTLY IT DOESN'T LET US DO IT HERE. BUT IS IT IS IT DEFINED SOMEWHERE ELSE? DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA ON THAT? YEAH. I'M JUST LOOKING BACK THROUGH IT. NO, IT JUST SAYS NEITHER A COUNTY NOR CITY SHALL ENACT OR ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE THAT HAS THE EXPRESS PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF PROHIBITING ANY TYPE OF SHORT TERM RENTAL. SO THEY JUST CALL IT OUT. BUT THEY I DON'T KNOW IF THEY DEFINE IT. SO THEY IN THEIR INFINITE WISDOM, THEY SAID SHORT TERM, IT GAVE NO DEFINITION. I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S DEFINED. I COULD BE I COULD BE INCORRECT. I UNDERSTAND. IN THAT IN THAT ASSESSMENT, I'M JUST LOOKING BACK THROUGH. IT WAS DEFINED IN THE IN THE BILL MIGHT BE SOMEWHERE ELSE. I DON'T SEE A DEFINITION OF IT BECAUSE THE ONE THAT WILL BE COMING TO YOU IS THE STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION. 
          THAT ONE WE'RE GOING TO TAKE TO WORK SESSION, BECAUSE THAT'S A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED. AND THEY DO DEFINE START STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION. THEY DEFINE THAT BY THE BILL. BUT THESE ONES I DON'T SEE IT IN SHORT TERM RENTAL. OKAY. WHAT THAT MEANS. WE'VE ALWAYS DEFINED IT AS LESS THAN 30 DAYS. SO I HAVE A CLARIFICATION QUESTION THEN. DID I HEAR YOU SAY THAT IT REMOVES THE 30 DAY DEFINITION THAT WE HAVE? YEAH. YOU CAN'T IMPOSE A TIME LIMIT ON THE DAYS OF PROPERTY CAN BE RENTED. SO WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THE PACKET HERE, IT DOESN'T STRIKE THAT OUT IN THE DEFINITION. AM I MISSING SOMETHING? IT'S LIKE I LOOK AT 117-1 DEFINITIONS AND 
          [02:50:08]
IT STILL SAYS IT'S A GOOD CATCH. YEAH THAT'S A GOOD CATCH. SO IT SHOULD BE STRUCK. THAT SHOULD BE STRUCK. YEAH. YEAH. SO THIS WE'RE REFERRING TO IS THIS RIGHT HERE. THAT SHOULD HAVE A LINE THROUGH IT. YEAH. OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW HOW I'M GOING TO VOTE ON THIS ONE, BUT I'LL SAY SOMETHING RIGHT AWAY. CAN WE DELIBERATION? WE AT LEAST I IN TERMS OF COMPLAINTS OF NEIGHBORS ABOUT SHORT TERM RENTAL, THE BIGGEST COMPLAINT IS MORE THAN ONE PARTY IN A HOUSE. AND THAT IS A BIG STRIKEOUT IN RED. THIS IS A MESSAGE TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY. YOU HAVE TO SPEAK UP ON THESE ISSUES, BECAUSE COUNCILS ALONE AND THE ASSOCIATION OF IDAHO CITIES ALONE CAN'T CAN'T STOP THIS UNTIL THEY HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC AND SAY, THESE ARE OUR THESE ARE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE BEING CHALLENGED HERE. 
          SO THAT IS THE BIGGEST COMPLAINT THAT I HAVE GOTTEN ON SHORT TERM RENTALS IS JUST LIKE IT'S RELATED TO NOISE, ETC. BUT MORE THAN ONE PARTY IN THE HOUSE. I JUST LIKE TO SAY AMEN TO THAT BECAUSE I'VE LEARNED AND READ AND WHATEVER OVER TIME THAT UNTIL ENOUGH PEOPLE. PUSH BACK ON SOMETHING, THE LEGISLATORS AREN'T GOING TO ACT ON IT UNLESS THEY FEEL LIKE THERE'S ENOUGH SUPPORT TO REALLY FEEL COMFORTABLE, THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. SO IT GOES BACK TO EXACTLY WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS IS SAYING. THAT'S GOT TO COME FROM MORE THAN JUST THE PEOPLE SITTING HERE. SO WHEN DOES THIS ORDINANCE STATUTE TAKE EFFECT? DON'T ASK ME HARD QUESTIONS. I ONLY THOUGHT ABOUT THE LAST ONE. I DON'T SEE A DATE. I THOUGHT THIS ONE TOOK EFFECT AT THE SAME TIME, BECAUSE THAT'S WHY WE PUSHED THESE TWO. FIRST, BECAUSE THERE WAS A TOTAL OF SIX AND THE OTHER FOUR WERE BRINGING THE WORK SESSION BECAUSE THEY'RE A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED, LIKE THE MANUFACTURED HOME ORDINANCE, THE STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION, I IT DOES NOT SAY AN EFFECTIVE DATE THAT I CAN SEE. THE EFFECTIVE DATE IS JULY 1ST, 2026. THANK YOU. YEAH. AND THIS ONE IS REALLY INTERESTING BECAUSE THE STATE HAD DONE THIS FIVE YEARS AGO AND TOLD US THEY COULDN'T REGULATE SHORT TERM. 
          SO THIS ISN'T REALLY AN AS NEW HOLD ON IF THERE IS A DEFINITE SORRY. YEAH. SORRY. GO AHEAD. I FOUND A DEFINITION FOR SHORT TERM. YES. SO IN THE BILL IT REFERS C TWO THREE. AND LET'S SEE 67-6539 SUBSECTION TWO B. IT SAYS THE TERMS DEFINED IN SECTION 63-1803. IDAHO CODE SHALL FLY TO THIS SECTION. WHEN YOU GO TO THAT SECTION OF THE CODE, IT SAYS SHORT TERM RENTAL OR VACATION RENTAL MEANS ANY INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY OWNED SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE OR DWELLING UNIT, OR ANY UNIT OR GROUPS OF UNITS IN A CONDOMINIUM, CONDOMINIUM, COOPERATIVE OR TIMESHARE OR OWNER OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL HOME THAT IS OFFERED FOR A FEE AND FOR 30 DAYS OR LESS. AND IT CONTINUES ON. A SHORT TERM RENTAL OR VACATION RENTAL DOES NOT INCLUDE A UNIT THAT IS USED FOR ANY RETAIL, RESTAURANT, BANQUET SPACE, EVENT CENTER OR OTHER. ANOTHER SIMILAR USE. AND SO IT IS DEFINED AS SOMETHING THAT'S 30 DAYS OR LESS. SO WE CAN KEEP THE DEFINITION THE SAME. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO REVISE IN MY OPINION. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO REVISE THE DEFINITION. SO I THINK WE CAN KEEP THE WAY THAT CDS HAS PRESENTED IT BECAUSE IT'S MATCHING THE THE STATE DEFINITION. BUT A DEFINITION DOESN'T SET LIMITS. AND THAT'S WHAT THE STATE STATUTE IS BASICALLY SAYING IS YOU CAN'T LIMIT THEM IN CERTAIN WAYS. SO IT STILL KEEPS THE SAME DEFINITION. IT'S JUST SAYING THIS THING YOU'VE DEFINED, YOU CAN'T LIMIT IT IN CERTAIN WAYS. WE CAN'T LIMIT IT. THANK YOU. 
          CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF DIRECTOR SALMON? I'M FASCINATED BECAUSE THIS SEEMS LIKE THIS HAS EFFECTIVELY BROUGHT BACK BOARDING HOUSES. IF YOU CAN'T LIMIT HOW MANY PEOPLE, IF YOU HAVE A HOUSE WITH FOUR BEDROOMS AND. AND THERE IS A. I DON'T HAVE MY DEFINITIONS IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN GROUP HOMES. BUT IT'S A VERY GRAY AREA. IT'S A VERY GRAY AREA. OH, I THINK I, I CAN'T REMEMBER IF WE DEFINED IT AS BOARDING, BOARDING HOUSE OR. I THINK IT'S A GROUP LIVING. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE. IT'S IN THE VERY LAST. IT'S IN APPENDIX OF CHAPTER 11. I WOULD JUST HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT. YES. IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU WOULD 
          [02:55:02]
CALL IT AN AIRBNB AND THEN RUN IT THROUGH THAT. AND THEN YOU COULD HAVE PEOPLE LIVE THERE AS LONG AS YOU WANT IT, AND YOU CAN MAKE THEM MEALS AND DO EVERYTHING THAT A BOARDING HOUSE WOULD WANT, AS LONG AS YOU'RE RUNNING UNDER AIRBNB MONIKER. YEAH, I'D BE HESITANT TO ADD TOO MUCH. NO, BUT THAT'S THE DANGER WE WOULD HAVE TO FIGURE OUT INTERNALLY. THERE'S ALSO A DIFFERENCE IN GROUP HOUSING. GROUP HOUSING TENDS TO FALL UNDER A PROTECTED CLASS UNDER ADA. SO LIKE THE LIVING ARRANGEMENTS OF VARIOUS PEOPLE. OH, YEAH. AWESOME. THANK YOU. 
          YEAH. SO HOW WOULD WE DEFINE BOARDING HOUSE THINK IS THAT IT SAYS A BUILDING OTHER THAN A LODGING FACILITY, A BED AND BREAKFAST OR MEALS OR SLEEPING ACCOMMODATIONS ARE PROVIDED FOR COMPENSATION FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS. SO THAT'S THE CAVEAT IS THE MORE THAN 30 DAYS. SO THERE'S MORE OF A LONG TERM. THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. BUT IF YOU IF YOU BUY YOUR ROOM AT 30 DAY PERIODS, RIGHT. I MEAN, THAT'S THE DILEMMA WITH WHAT THEY DID IS THE LEGISLATION. YOU CAN JUST REALLY SEE HOW THE WRONG PERSON COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SITUATION. I THINK THAT'S JUST THE THE POINT AND THE SAD IMPACT HERE. YEAH. NO, WE CAN TAKE IS THAT TEXTURE OF TEXT OF THE CODE. SO THAT'S HOW WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO INTERPRET IT. AND WE DON'T ALWAYS KNOW THE INTENT SOMETIMES, BUT WE'RE JUST LEFT TO OUR INTERPRETATION AS MUCH AS WE CAN. SO WE'RE BACK TO THE CHANGES TO WHAT'S STRUCK ON WHAT HAS BEEN STRUCK. YES. SO YEAH, COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS. SO OUR DEFINITION AS AS OUR LEGAL COUNSEL HAS SAID, IT MEETS THE STATE DEFINITION. IT'S OKAY. IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE STRUCK. BUT THEY DO STAY IN THE IN THE BILL AND IN THIS STATE STATUTE THAT WE CAN'T LIMIT THE TIME. SO EVEN THOUGH IT SAYS 30 DAYS, WE CAN'T LIMIT IT TO 30 DAYS. CORRECT. SO WE WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO STRIKE THAT BECAUSE IT SAYS 30 DAYS, RIGHT? NO, BECAUSE IT'S ACCORDING TO WHAT THE STATE IS. 
          THE STATE HAS DEFINED IT AS AN OWNER OCCUPIED RESIDENCE THAT IS OFFERED FOR A FEE FOR 30 DAYS OR LESS. SO THAT'S HOW THEY DEFINE IT. SO WE'RE OKAY. WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT. 
          YEAH, IT'S A GOOD CATCH. I MEAN THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. I DIDN'T THINK OF THAT WHEN I WAS PUTTING THIS TOGETHER. SO THAT'S GOOD. WELL WE DO LOSE. WHAT WE DO LOSE IS THE ONE PARTY. YES. THE AMOUNT OF TIME WE CAN'T REGULATE THE AMOUNT OF TIME. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? IS ANYONE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION? DO I NEED TO MAKE A CHANGE HERE? IF YOU WANT TO, YOU COULD MAKE IT EFFECTIVE JUNE 30TH, MIDNIGHT OR JUNE 30TH. 25TH. YEAH. OKAY. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 11, COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTIONS 11-2-6A, A SHORT TERM RENTAL, AND 11-7-1 DEFINITIONS TO COMPLY WITH THE STATE LEGISLATION UNDER SUSPENSION OF THE RULES REQUIRING THREE COMPLETE AND SEPARATE READINGS AND REQUESTS THAT IT BE READ BY TITLE AND PUBLISHED BY SUMMARY. SECOND. LARSON. YES. DINGMANN. 
          YES. FRANCIS. I. FREEMAN. YES. LEIGH. YES. BRADFORD. I. MOTION CARRIES. I'LL READ THAT. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, AMENDING TITLE 11 COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE, SECTION 11-2-6AA SHORT TERM RENTAL AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY PUBLICATION BY SUMMARY AND ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE. IS IT JUNE 30TH OR JUST IT JUST IT JUST DIDN'T SPECIFY A DATE. SO JUST TO SAY THAT TO DATE, THAT'S FINE. YES. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. I JUST SENT. LETTERS. WELL, THERE'S AN EMAIL RIGHT NOW. IS THAT WHERE YOU JUST. AM I ALLOWED? I HAVE A QUESTION. DID WE RECEIVE SOMETHING FROM YOU THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH? OH, JUST AS A REMINDER, BECAUSE THERE'S A 14 DAY PERIOD TO, TO FOR THE APPLICANT OR AN AFFECTED PERSON TO FILE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE DECISION ON THE WILLOWS PLACE PUD. SO TECHNICALLY, IT'S STILL A LIVE ISSUE BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY FILED A REQUEST TO RECONSIDER, THAT WOULD TRIGGER A NEW HEARING. AND THEN THE BASICALLY THE EX PARTE RULES ARE STILL IN PLACE. SO WE DON'T TALK TO EACH OTHER OUTSIDE THIS MEETING, ETCETERA, ETCETERA. WE DON'T TALK TO ME AND WE TALK TO NEIGHBORS OR THE DEVELOPER OR. 
          [03:00:06]
CORRECT. YEAH. DON'T TALK TO THE DEVELOPER. DON'T TALK TO 14 DAYS AFTER 14 DAYS. IF A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS NOT FILED WITHIN 14 DAYS, YOU'RE FREE TO TALK WITH WHOMEVER YOU WILL. IF YOU DO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE, JUST MAKE SURE YOU TAKE, YOU KNOW, IF SOMETIMES PEOPLE REALLY WANT TO TALK. PLEASE TAKE NOTES OF IT SO THAT IF THERE IS A SUBSEQUENT HEARING, YOU CAN DO AN EX PARTE DISCLOSURE. SO IT'S ADEQUATE. 
          SO IF YOU DO THAT, PLEASE DO THAT. BUT AGAIN, DON'T DON'T RESPOND ON THE TELEPHONE CALLS AND ALL THAT KIND OF THING, IF YOU CAN, PLEASE. OKAY. OKAY. THAT'S MY ADVICE. NO THAT'S 
          [6. Announcements ]
GOOD. THAT WAS GOOD. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANNOUNCEMENTS. OH, YOU CAN YOU CAN REFER THEM TO STAFF. YEAH. THEY IF THEY IF THEY DON'T SPEAK TO STAFF. THAT'S RIGHT. RIGHT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT IN MIND, SOMEBODY SHOULD MAKE A NICE SPIEL ABOUT WHAT'S COMING UP ON JULY 4TH. ARE YOU GUARANTEEING NO RAIN? YES. AND NO SNOW EITHER. GOOD. APPRECIATE IT. 
          WITH THAT IN MIND, TELL US THE ADVENTURES OF JULY 4TH AND IDAHO FALLS. SOMEBODY WE. WE HAVE A LOT GOING ON IN THIS COMMUNITY ON THE 4TH OF JULY. OF COURSE, WE HAVE. THE FIREWORKS. WELL, I MEAN, WE START AT THE BEGINNING. WE HAVE THE INDEPENDENCE DAY PARADE THAT'S HOSTED BY THE GREATER FALLS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. THAT DOES BEGIN PROMPTLY AT 9 A.M. 
          YOU CAN GO TO THE IDAHO FALLS CHAMBER WEBSITE TO SEE A ROUTE, BUT THAT DOES KICK OFF BY THE FOURTH STREET POST OFFICE AND THEN HEADS WEST DOWN FOURTH STREET AND THEN DOWN BOULEVARD. 
          SO THOSE ARE KIND OF YOUR TWO MAIN ROADS IF YOU'VE NEVER BEEN TO THE PARADE BEFORE. IT'S THE LARGEST PARADE IN THE STATE OF IDAHO IS THE LARGEST, REALLY THE LARGEST PARADE IN THE STATE OF IDAHO FOR A POLITICAL CANDIDATE. SAY THEY WERE COMING OUT OF FALLS BECAUSE IT'S THE LARGEST. THAT'S AMAZING. IT IS REALLY INCREDIBLE. AND IT'S JUST EVERYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO SEE ON THE 4TH OF JULY. I THINK IT'S VERY AMERICANA. IT'S VERY AMERICANA. THEN THERE'LL BE THE RIVERFEST DOWN AT SNAKE RIVER LANDING, AND THEN THAT IS GOING TO BE BASICALLY TAKING PLACE ALL DAY LONG HEADING INTO THE FIREWORKS, WHICH ALWAYS START AS AT DUSK. SO IF YOU WANT A SPOT, GET TO SNAKE RIVER LANDING EARLY. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT ALWAYS HAS GOTTEN ASKED A LOT THIS YEAR IS ABOUT RV PARKING. SNAKE RIVER LANDING DID DECIDE NOT TO HOST RV PARKING THIS YEAR, SO THAT IS NOT AN OPTION. I KNOW THE CITY HAS BEEN CALLED ON THAT AS WELL, BUT YOU CAN SEE THE FIREWORKS FROM TRULY A REALLY WIDE SWATH OF IDAHO FALLS. SO VERY GRATEFUL FOR MELALEUCA AS THE PRIMARY. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE PERHAPS THE FINAL YEAR AND HOST OF THE FIREWORKS. SO THIS IS NOT THE YEAR TO MISS. WHAT ELSE DID I FORGET? ANYTHING? NO, BUT IT'S PROBABLY NOT ONLY THE LARGEST IN THE STATE, BUT THIS MIGHT BE THE LARGEST IN IDAHO FALLS HISTORY. RIGHT? I THINK IT WILL BE LARGEST BALLS HISTORY. YEAH. YEAH. SO YEAH, I THINK GIVEN THAT IT'S THE LAST AT LEAST OF THIS ITERATION, PROBABLY GOING TO BE A LOT OF FOLKS THERE. WE'RE JUST HEARING TO FROM CHIEF OF STAFF. YEAH. THAT THERE'LL BE ON THE CITY WEBSITE TOMORROW A LIST OF ALL THE ACTIVITIES THAT ALL THE ACTIVITIES. OKAY, OKAY. BECAUSE I'LL GO TO IDAHO FALLS.GOV TOMORROW AND CHECK OUT OUR 4TH OF JULY ACTIVITIES PAGE. ANY OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS? AND JUST I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE FIREWORKS SHOW NEXT YEAR. MAYOR BERT SHAW HAS ALREADY COMMENTED IN PUBLIC THAT WE'RE GONNA WE'RE GONNA GET RIGHT ON THAT AND START PLANNING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR NEXT YEAR'S FIREWORKS. OKAY,
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.