Sentinel Media records · public agendas and minutes, text only, refreshed nightly from each body's own site · not a newspaper
minutes meeting date 2026-07-09 · fetched 2026-09-17 · 50654 characters · read by OCR, check numbers against the source · official file · plain text
City Council Meeting Minutes 1 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Thursday, July 9, 2026 6:30 PM City Council Chambers 1. Mayor Burtenshaw Called the meeting to Order at 6:30 PM Present: Mayor Lisa Burtenshaw Council President Jim Francis Councilor Michelle Ziel-Dingman Councilor Jim Freeman Councilor Kirk Larsen Councilor John Radford Councilor Brandon Lee (via Teams) Also present: Chris Canfield, PW Director Lisa Farris, CDS Grants Administrator Zack Jones, City Attorney Linda Lundquist, City Clerk 2. Pledge of Allegiance Chris Lee led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance. Opening Clarification/Discussion: At the beginning of the meeting, Mayor Lisa Burtenshaw acknowledged that many attendees were present to comment on the proposed alcohol ordinance and said the Council wanted to respect the public's time by addressing the issue early. She thanked Council President Jim Francis for the extensive work he had done since the January meeting with City staff, community members, nonprofits, and other stakeholders to revise the ordinance. Council President Francis provided background on the ordinance revision, explaining that a City workgroup including Legal, Police, Fire, the City Clerk's Office, Building Department, and elected officials had been working since January 2026 to consolidate four separate alcohol ordinances into one. He said the goals were to: • Eliminate inconsistencies between the existing ordinances. • Modernize outdated and overly restrictive provisions. • Improve public safety at events involving alcohol. • Make the code easier for the public to understand. • Address overpouring concerns. • Reduce penalties for first-time violations where appropriate. • Create regulations that could be enforced by City departments consistently. CP Francis emphasized that the City is required to comply with Idaho state law, which takes precedence over local ordinances. He quoted guidance from an Idaho State Police Alcohol Beverage Control detective explaining that businesses open to the public must have an alcohol license or catering permit to sell or serve alcohol, regardless of whether an event is considered public or private. City Council Meeting Minutes 2 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID He noted that the workgroup had spent months gathering public input and had already made numerous revisions based on stakeholder feedback. However, because of the volume of recent public comments, he said the Council needed additional time to review and consider the feedback before moving forward. Francis also addressed recent social media claims, stating that: • The ordinance was not being "fast-tracked." • The City was not proposing the ordinance to generate revenue. • Claims that the ordinance would create new felony offenses were false because municipalities cannot create felony crimes under Idaho law. • Misinformation circulating online had undermined public trust in the process. Ordinance Removed from the Agenda Following his statement: Motion: Remove agenda item, Ordinance amending Title 4, Chapter 2, and Title 8, Chapter 3, Sections 4 and 5, and repealing Title 4, Chapters 3 and 4, City’s Alcohol Ordinances. o Moved by: Councilor Francis o Second: Councilor Dingman o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Radford. Nay: none. (Abstain: Lee - not audible via Teams) o Motion carries. Mayor Burtenshaw stressed that removing the ordinance from the agenda did not eliminate public comment. She encouraged everyone who had come to speak to provide testimony so the Council could incorporate the feedback into future revisions. She acknowledged the ordinance was lengthy and thanked residents who had taken the time to review it and submit comments. Before opening public testimony, the Mayor asked the City Attorney to provide an update on the City's Flock Safety camera contract. The City Attorney reported that: • The City is working with Flock Safety to amend its contract to remove language allowing Flock to use Idaho Falls camera data to train its AI systems. • The Idaho Falls Police Department is expected to present alternative license plate reader options to the Council in the future. Decorum and Social Media Clarification The Mayor asked attendees to refrain from applauding during the meeting and emphasized that the Council and the public were all working through the democratic process together. Councilor Radford then clarified a social media post he had made criticizing the ordinance. He acknowledged that he had mistakenly referred to a potential felony in his original post, corrected it to a misdemeanor, and explained that he intended to encourage residents to review the ordinance and provide public input. He reiterated concerns about government overreach, impacts on event centers and landlords, and whether the ordinance expanded City authority, while emphasizing that he had not claimed the ordinance was being fast-tracked. Mayor Burtenshaw responded that while she appreciated the correction, much of the subsequent online discussion had spread misinformation. She reiterated that the ordinance had been under City Council Meeting Minutes 3 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID development for months with significant public outreach and concluded by welcoming everyone to provide their comments during the public hearing. 3. Public Comment Patricia Pequin Desautel (IF Resident) • Shared her experience with a 2024 DUI conviction, including significant penalties, costs, probation requirements, and impacts on her driver’s license despite having no prior criminal history. • Questioned whether additional alcohol-related restrictions are necessary, arguing that existing DUI consequences are already substantial. • Encouraged the Council to consider the real-life impacts of alcohol-related enforcement decisions on residents. Chris Lee (IF Resident) • Raised concerns that the alcohol ordinance could negatively affect Idaho Falls’ business climate, investment opportunities, and economic development reputation. • Expressed concern that landlord liability provisions could discourage commercial property owners from leasing or investing in properties. • Asked the Council to consider the ordinance’s potential effects on business growth, redevelopment, and property values. Miranda Marquit (IF Resident) • Supported responsible alcohol regulation but expressed opposition to limits on catering permits, saying they could harm community events and local businesses. • Said alcohol laws are already complex and that catering permits are an important tool for successful events. • Supported alcohol server training requirements as a reasonable approach to improving compliance. Brad Strand (IF Resident) • Spoke against the City’s use of Flock automated license plate reader cameras, citing concerns about privacy, surveillance, and Fourth Amendment protections. • Acknowledged that technology can assist law enforcement but argued that broad data collection creates risks for residents’ privacy. • Encouraged the City to balance public safety goals with constitutional protections and limits on government surveillance. Maria Alvarez (IF Resident) • Asked the City to improve communication and transparency regarding sidewalk enforcement, federal enforcement questions, and alcohol ordinance enforcement. • Raised concerns about inconsistent communication after sidewalk notices and asked for clearer explanations of City processes. • Requested clarification on whether alcohol ordinance-related citations were being issued before the ordinance was adopted and whether enforcement was consistent. City Council Meeting Minutes 4 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Alicia Jensen (IF Resident) • Expressed concern that the alcohol ordinance could create unintended economic impacts, including discouraging businesses and affecting property values. • Asked the Council to evaluate whether the proposed regulations would effectively address the problems they are intended to solve. • Encouraged consistent enforcement and consideration of impacts on residents, businesses, and investors. Finn Garren (IF Resident) • Raised concerns that the City’s Flock Safety contract may conflict with Idaho law governing automated license plate reader data use. • Questioned Flock’s ability to use collected data for AI development and expressed concerns about data security and overseas processing. • Requested that the City provide a public timeline for addressing concerns and potential contract changes. Brian McKellar (Ammon Resident) • Asked the City to provide a timeline by July 29 regarding the future of Flock cameras and requested that cameras be temporarily disabled while concerns are reviewed. • Argued that the system may violate state law and constitutional privacy protections due to the amount of license plate data collected. • Warned that he may file a tort claim and encourage others to do the same if concerns are not addressed. Antonio Meza (IF Resident) • Asked the City to provide a clear summary of the alcohol ordinance revisions because the changes had become difficult for residents and businesses to follow. • Supported responsible alcohol service and public safety efforts but expressed concern about government overreach and excessive regulation. • Encouraged continued collaboration between the City and affected businesses. Terri Ireland (IF Resident) • Spoke on behalf of the Idaho Falls Downtown Merchants Association in opposition to the alcohol ordinance as written. • Raised concerns about access to business records, constitutional issues, and increased complexity caused by repeated revisions. • Argued that the ordinance does not address the primary problems associated with alcohol- related incidents and urged further review. Amy Stewart (IF Resident) • Supported combining alcohol regulations into one clearer ordinance but encouraged additional revisions before adoption. • Supported server training but noted challenges with availability, scheduling, and realistic compliance timelines. • Encouraged businesses and residents to submit written feedback as the Council continues reviewing the ordinance. City Council Meeting Minutes 5 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Angela Swissina (IF Resident) • Supported consolidating alcohol regulations but expressed concern that broad restrictions could unfairly impact businesses that follow the rules. • Raised concerns that catering permit limits could harm restaurants, caterers, and event centers by forcing them to turn away customers. • Suggested stronger enforcement of existing rules may be more appropriate than additional restrictions. Diamond Garcia-Alvarez (IF Resident) • Said his concerns focused on how the City exercises regulatory authority rather than opposition to alcohol safety measures. • Encouraged the City to review existing enforcement practices before creating additional regulations. • Asked the City to consider accessibility issues and ADA concerns, particularly regarding sidewalks and residents with disabilities. Savannah Kim (IF Resident) • Spoke as a bartender, Realtor, and parent concerned about the future of Idaho Falls and community involvement. • Asked the City to improve communication and outreach so residents and businesses can provide input earlier in the process. • Encouraged greater public awareness before major regulations are finalized. Colby Hatton (IF Resident) • Introduced Stronger Idaho Falls, a civic group focused on creating a more walkable, accessible, and safe community. • Supported infill development, transportation options, and a City design that serves residents who do not drive. • Expressed interest in working collaboratively with the City on long-term improvements. Chris Wiersema (IF Resident) • United Way CEO expressed relief that the alcohol ordinance would not be voted on that evening. • Explained that approximately 40 nonprofits are concerned proposed alcohol permitting changes could reduce fundraising and event revenue. • Asked the City to include nonprofits in future ordinance discussions. Dan Barker (IF Resident) • Spoke as an HR Director about the costs and administrative challenges associated with employee training requirements. • Explained that training involves systems, certifications, tracking, licensing, and repeated costs due to employee turnover. • Encouraged the Council to consider the practical burden new training requirements may place on businesses. Carlos Luna (Ammon Resident) City Council Meeting Minutes 6 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID • Opposed the alcohol ordinance, arguing it creates unnecessary restrictions on businesses and private events while going beyond public safety goals. • Shared concerns about enforcement actions affecting private cultural events and small business owners. • Asked the Council to slow the process, work with businesses, and reconsider provisions he believes create unfair burdens. Ricco Lanauze (IF Resident) • Spoke as a longtime restaurant and bar industry professional opposing catering restrictions and additional compliance burdens. • Explained that catering provides important revenue for small businesses, especially during slower seasons. • Encouraged the City to work directly with business owners to develop regulations that support both safety and small businesses. 4. Consent Agenda A. Municipal Services 1. 26-229 Treasurer’s Report for April 2026 B. Idaho Falls Power 1. 26-232 Idaho Falls Utility Board Minutes – May 2026 C. Public Works 1. 26-236 Bid Award – Idaho Canal Path; Sunnyside Road to 49th South for $205,010.00 D. Airport 1. 26-238 Commercial Ground Lease and Agreement with Pacific Fighters, Inc. Motion: Approve, accept, or receive all items on the Consent Agenda according to the recommendations presented. o Moved by: Councilor Dingman o Second: Councilor Larsen o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Lee, Radford. Nay: none. o Motion carries. 5. Regular Agenda A. Community Development Services 1. 26-241 Resolution - Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) plans, projects, and activities for the 2026-2030 CDBG Five Year Consolidated Plan, 2026 Annual Action Plan, and the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. Presentation/Discussion (Grants Admin Farris): • The request included approval of three related planning documents: o The 2026–2030 Five-Year Consolidated Plan. City Council Meeting Minutes 7 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID o The 2026 Annual Action Plan, including the recommended list of projects to receive 2026 CDBG funding. o The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. • Staff noted that the recommended 2026 funding allocations had been reviewed with Council during the previous work session and asked for approval of the complete package. • Council members asked no additional questions. One councilor commented that reviewing and prioritizing projects was a difficult process and expressed appreciation to staff for their work preparing the plan and recommendations. Motion: To approve the resolution for the 2026-2030 CDBG Five Year Consolidated Plan, and the CDBG PY-2026 Annual Action Plan, and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the necessary documents o Moved by: Councilor Francis o Second: Councilor Freeman o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Lee. Nay: none. Recused: Radford. o Motion carries. B. City Attorney *Motion made and carried to remove this from the agenda* 1. 26-240 Ordinance Amending Title 4, Chapter 2, and Title 8, Chapter 3, Sections 4 and 5, and Repealing Title 4, Chapters 3 and 4, City’s Alcohol Ordinances C. Public Works 1. 26-234 State Local Agreement (Construction) and Resolution with the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) for the Elm Street, Yellowstone to South Boulevard Project Presentation/Discussion (Director Canfield): • Public Works presented a State/Local Agreement and resolution with the Idaho Transportation Department for the Elm Street reconstruction project between Yellowstone Highway and South Boulevard. • The project is a federally funded roadway improvement that will reconstruct Elm Street from the railroad tracks to South Boulevard. Design has been completed, and the agreement authorizes the construction phase. • The project is estimated to cost $1.8 million, with the City providing a 7.34% local match for the federal funding. • In response to Council questions about ongoing construction in the area, staff explained that construction is planned for summer 2027 and that the schedule was selected to minimize impacts on the nearby charter school by completing work during summer break. City Council Meeting Minutes 8 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Motion: Approve the State Local Agreement and Resolution with ITD for the Elm Street - Yellowstone to South Boulevard Project and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the documents o Moved by: Councilor Larsen o Second: Councilor Dingman o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Lee, Radford. Nay: none. o Motion carries. 2. 25-235 Grant Agreement - 2025 Safe Streets and Road For All Grant Program Presentation/Discussion (Director Canfield): • Public Works presented a $500,000 federal Safe Streets for All planning grant with a 20% local match ($100,000) to develop a comprehensive roadway safety plan for Idaho Falls. • The study will analyze traffic crashes, pedestrian safety, speeding, roadway design, enforcement, and access management to identify strategies for reducing serious injuries and fatalities. • Staff explained that this is a planning effort, not a construction project. The completed study will identify priority safety improvements—such as roundabouts, pedestrian beacons, signal timing changes, and visibility enhancements—and position the City to compete for future federal safety implementation grants. Motion: Approve the Grant Agreement with the Federal Highway Administration for the Safe Streets and Roads For All (SS4A) Safety Grant Program and authorize the Mayor to sign the document. o Moved by: Councilor Larsen o Second: Councilor Dingman o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Lee, Radford. Nay: none. o Motion carries. 3. 26-237 State Local Agreement and Resolution with the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) for the Idaho Canal Trail; Lovejoy Street to Lincoln Road project Presentation/Discussion (Director Canfield): • Public Works presented a State/Local Agreement for the Idaho Canal Trail Project, funded through the Transportation Alternatives Program, to extend the trail and help complete a pedestrian and bicycle loop connecting the canal, Lincoln Road, Pinecrest Golf Course, and North Tourist Park. • The project includes both design and construction, with a total cost of just over $500,000 and a 7.34% local match. City Council Meeting Minutes 9 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID • Staff explained that the project will widen a section of sidewalk along Lincoln Road, improve connectivity, and include wayfinding signage and landscaping where possible. One segment is not included because the City does not have the necessary right-of- way. • Construction is scheduled for 2027, and Council expressed support for the project as another step toward expanding the City's interconnected trail system. Motion: Approve the State Local Agreement and Resolution with ITD for the Idaho Canal Trail; Lovejoy Street to Lincoln Road project and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the documents o Moved by: Councilor Larsen o Second: Councilor Dingman o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Lee, Radford. Nay: none. o Motion carries. 4. 25-239 Negotiated Contract - Yellowstone Lighting Upgrade Presentation/Discussion (Director Canfield): • Public Works presented a negotiated contract for the Yellowstone lighting upgrade project, replacing aging lighting circuits between Sunnyside Road and Broadway, with improvements extending across the river. • After two unsuccessful bid solicitations, the City received approval to negotiate directly and secured a contract for approximately $1.13 million, which is below the engineer's estimate of nearly $1.3 million. • The project is fully reimbursed through an agreement with the Idaho Transportation Department and complements a future sidewalk improvement project along Yellowstone. Motion: Approve the plans, specifications, and negotiated contract with Kesler Companies LLC, in the amount of $1,131,846.77; and give authorization for the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the necessary documents o Moved by: Councilor Larsen o Second: Councilor Dingman o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Lee, Radford. Nay: none. o Motion carries. 5. 26-244 Easement Vacation - Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 of Broadway Commercial Plaza Presentation/Discussion (Director Canfield): City Council Meeting Minutes 10 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID • Public Works presented a request to vacate a storm drainage easement on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 of Broadway Commercial Plaza. • Staff explained that the easement is no longer needed because changes to the area's storm drainage system eliminated its original purpose. • Vacating the easement would allow the property owner to pursue other uses for the property. Motion: Approve the Ordinance vacating an easement under a suspension of the rules requiring three complete and separate readings and request that it be read by title o Moved by: Councilor Larsen o Second: Councilor Dingman o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Lee, Radford. Nay: none. o Motion carries. Ordinance 3665: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF PORTIONS OF TWO EASEMENTS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1 OF THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING THAT TITLE TO SAID VACATED EASEMENTS SHALL VEST AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 3 OF THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT FROM AND AFTER PASSAGE, APPROVAL, AND PUBLICATION ACCORDING TO LAW. 6. 25-243 Easement Vacation - Lots 31 through 36 and 49, Block 1 of Cassiopeia Parks Subdivision Presentation/Discussion (Director Canfield): • Public Works presented a request to vacate a portion of an easement in the Cassiopeia Park subdivision after a structure was inadvertently built over it. • Staff explained that the easement adjustment would not impact existing utilities and would accommodate the completed construction. • In response to Council questions, staff noted that such situations are uncommon and typically result from surveying or construction errors. Property owners may still face significant consequences if utilities are affected, and easement adjustments are only considered when they do not interfere with public infrastructure. Motion: Approve the Ordinance vacating an easement under a suspension of the rules requiring three complete and separate readings and request that it be read by title o Moved by: Councilor Larsen o Second: Councilor Dingman o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Lee, Radford. Nay: none. o Motion carries. City Council Meeting Minutes 11 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID Ordinance 3666: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF AN EASEMENT LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1 OF THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING THAT TITLE TO SAID VACATED EASEMENT SHALL VEST AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 3 OF THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT FROM AND AFTER PASSAGE, APPROVAL, AND PUBLICATION ACCORDING TO LAW. 7. 25-233 Easement Vacation of a portion of the public utility easements within Lots 1,2,3, Block 2 in Hodson Addition and within Lots 14 and 15, Block 2 of the First Amended Plat of Hodson Addition Presentation/Discussion (Director Canfield): • Public Works presented a request to vacate a portion of a public utility easement in the Hudson Addition after discovering that an existing building encroached on the easement. • The issue was identified during review of a nearby development. Staff recommended correcting the easement since the encroachment had existed for many years. • Staff noted they were unsure whether the building predated annexation but said the easement adjustment would resolve the longstanding conflict. Motion: Approve the Ordinance vacating an easement under a suspension of the rules requiring three complete and separate readings and request that it be read by title o Moved by: Councilor Larsen o Second: Councilor Dingman o Vote: Aye: Francis, Dingman, Freeman, Larsen, Lee, Radford. Nay: none. o Motion carries. Ordinance 3667: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF AN EASEMENT LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1 OF THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING THAT TITLE TO SAID VACATED EASEMENT SHALL VEST AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 3 OF THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT FROM AND AFTER PASSAGE, APPROVAL, AND PUBLICATION ACCORDING TO LAW. 6. Announcements • Council members commented on the successful 4th of July Creek Walk, noting the large, enthusiastic crowds and strong community participation. (Did we say July Creek Walk?) • Council members were reminded about opportunities to volunteer at the Farmers Market, with available dates shared by email. City Council Meeting Minutes 12 680 Park Avenue Idaho Falls, ID • The Council received details about the upcoming Sister Cities youth delegation visit, including: o A welcome reception at the Friendship Garden. o City Day activities at City Hall, including photos and presentations, with the Police Department preparing demonstrations for the visitors. o A Friendship Garden sign dedication hosted by Parks & Recreation, recognizing the Sister Cities partnership. • The Mayor shared that the City's presentation to the youth delegation will focus on what daily life is like for a teenager in Idaho Falls, highlighting how young people use City services and amenities. • The meeting concluded with thanks to the Council, staff, and members of the public who participated. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:32 PM. /s/ Linda Lundquist_________________ /s/ Lisa Burtenshaw _____________ Linda Lundquist, City Clerk Lisa Burtenshaw, Mayor July 8, 2026 To Idaho Falls City Council: Tonight you may be voting on a proposed alcohol ordinance change intended to “improve public safety, strengthen enforcement, and create a clearer, more consistent regulatory framework.” | have had personal experience with the ABC in regard to enforcement of the codes or statutes regarding alcohol control. Let me share: As a land developer, | owned a license to serve alcohol. | had leased out this license to a restaurant. The restaurant caught fire and the owner of the restaurant lost its lease on the building. The restaurant owner was required by contract to keep the alcohol license renewed annually. He became distracted by the horrible circumstance suddenly surrounding his business and overlooked the renewal date on the license. As owner of the license, | was not made aware of the unfortunate circumstances and the license expired. | hired the attorney who actually wrote the licensing law for the State. My attorney and | met personally with the ABC, the Governor and his secretary, and the Chief of the State Police in the Governor’s office. The fire, building lease, and liquor licensing were the issues discussed. The statute provided that in unusual circumstances such as described, that there would be a period to restore the license. The ABC disagreed with the language in the statute. My attorney explained that HE himself wrote the statute for the State, understood the context behind what was written into the statute, and that | should have the license restored. They refused and chose to interpret the statute in a way that served their own purposes, despite knowing and hearing the detailed process and purpose in the formation of the statute as described by its author. The Governor and State Police kowtowed to the ABC. |’m happy to share the lengthy detail of this incident if you should request. My attorney called the outcome an “absurdity under the law.” My point is this: Giving more authority to the ABC, the City, or any other government body can at times be like giving a bat to a bully. I’ve seen firsthand what can happen when power over the people is unreasonably exercised by some. It is my opinion that our City Council better serves its people by focusing on preserving and expanding the rights of its people, not tightening then policing them. Lorin Walker 1070 Riverwalk Dr. Ste 200 Idaho Falls, ID. 208 524-3341 Linda Lundquist From: Tawna Groom <tawnagroom@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2026 3:04 PM To: City Clerk Subject: Written Testimony - Alcohol Ordinances Caution: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The agenda was posted July 7, 2026 at 2:50pm. "Written comments must be received no later than forty- either (48) hours prior to the date of the hearing to ensure inclusion in the permanent City record." With all due respect, 3.5 hours is NOT enough time for the public to know/review/comment on the agenda, especially considering the agenda is 579 pages long. However, | would still like to comment on the Alcohol Ordinances: First of all, the summary of ordinances reads like they were created to unfairly target a specific business/owner, and | fail to understand what the community's benefit is for each objective. 1. Combining three separate chapters-one each for liquor, beer, and wine-into one unified chapter to create a more cohesive ordinance structure. This seems unnecessary, but reasonable. If changes are being made to each section, it makes sense to consolidate. 2. Restricting the sale or consumption of alcohol at commercial establishments unless permitted by law. Why? There's already an Idaho law for this. Why was the 20-maximum selected at the cut-off? Why isn't it 100, more in line with the event tiers? This number seems arbitrary or created to target a business of around 25-50. Trying to hold the landlord liable if they knowingly rent to someone who won't adhere to the rules? That's insane and impossible to enforce. The landlord doesn't "know" unless the business that rents the space is an idiot and literally says they won't follow the rules. | strongly disagree with this section. 3. Allowing the City Attorney and Chief of Police to compel certain documents and video from alcohol licensees to enforce the alcohol ordinance, ascertain compliance, or investigate a criminal matter. | strongly disagree with this section. The police are already able to obtain "certain documents and videos" as needed to aid with investigations. This objective gives the police too much control. | don't see how this section benefits the community. Conversely, | think it's more reasonable to assume that the police can unfairly target certain businesses in the name of "ascertaining compliance". 4. Diminishing over time the number of alcohol catering permits allowed at certain locations. Why? | strongly disagree. | couldn't find which locations are targeted for a goal of permit reduction. This seems unfairly targeted, and | don't see the benefit to the community of having fewer options available for an alcohol catering permit. 5. Establishing an alcohol server training program. This seems reasonable. 6. identifying the grounds and the process for suspending and revoking alcohol licenses. Why doesn't 4- 2-20(B)(2) & (3) also have fines associated with suspension/revocation? No other comments at this time. 7. Providing a process for appeals regarding alcohol licenses, alcohol catering permits, charitable event permits, and permits issued for permitted events held at City locations. No comment at this time. Thanks, Tawna Barnes Linda Lundquist From: Carla Thinnes Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2026 9:04 AM To: brad Cc: City Clerk Subject: RE: Omnibus Alcohol Ordinance Thank you for your outreach and for sharing your perspective. Your email has been shared with the City Clerk and will be printed for the record for today’s City Council Meeting. Sincerely, Carla IDAHO FALLS Office of the Mayor Carla Thinnes | Executive Assistant to the Mayor 308 Constitution Way Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 Work: (208) 612-8235 cthinnes@idahofalls gov From: brad <brad.a.whipple@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2026 8:31 AM To: Office of the Mayor <Mayor@idahofalls.gov>; James Francis <JFrancis@idahofalls.gov>; Michelle Ziel-Dingman <MDingman@idahofalls.gov>; Brandon Lee <blee@idahofalls.gov>; John Radford <JRadford@idahofalls.gov>; James Freeman <JFreeman@idahofalls.gov>; Layne Larsen <klarsen@idahofalls.gov> Subject: Omnibus Alcohol Ordinance Caution: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Members of the City Council, | respectfully ask that you take the following comments into consideration ahead of your vote on July 9th regarding the omnibus alcohol ordinance. | would prefer to comment in person but my schedule prevents me from attending. Restructuring This makes sense. Merging the City’s scattered alcohol-related ordinances into a single, unified chapter is common sense and should make the code easier for both businesses and residents to navigate. New ban on unlicensed alcohol use at businesses 4-2-2(E) 1 The intent here appears to be closing a loophole for businesses operating without a required license. As drafted this provision effectively criminalizes an ordinary, non-public company party where alcohol is served. The exemption only covers alcohol “dispensed to or consumed by only twenty (20) or fewer employees,” with no mention of spouses, family, or other guests commonly invited to these gatherings. A typical holiday party open to employees’ families, or one with more than 20 employees, would fall outside the exemption entirely and expose the business to a misdemeanor charge for hosting what has always been considered a lawful private event. The provision also creates a significant burden-of-proof problem. Read literally, it requires proof that alcohol was actually consumed by 20 or more employees, not merely that 20 or more employees were present. That means the City would need to establish, for a misdemeanor charge, exactly how many employees, not just attendees, drank or were served alcohol, which is an intrusive and difficult standard. I’d ask the Council to reconsider whether this level of proof is workable and whether the city should be in the business of intruding on the private lives of residents to this degree. | know many of my neighbors reject the idea of a ‘nanny-state’ this provision seems to create. Server/security training mandate This might be a good idea, but where it’s implemented matters. A patchwork of city-by-city training standards, certifications, and record-keeping requirements creates real inconsistency for an industry and workforce that regularly crosses city lines. I'd encourage the Council to consider pressing the state legislature to adopt a uniform statewide standard instead of implementing this at the city level. It seems preferable for the state to set one bar rather than for every city to become its own island of rules, requirements, and enforcement practices. Phase-down of catering permits | don’t understand what problem this provision is meant to solve. Catering permits are a routine and necessary tool for exactly what the name implies... catering. Wedding venues are the first example that comes to mind, where outsourcing alcohol catering sounds like wise business sense. Capping the number of permits issued per location, phasing down to just 12 per year by 2030, appears to remove a practical, low-friction option that serves customers and event venues alike. Before adopting this cap, I’d ask the Council to identify what specific harm it addresses. These provisions read like a solution looking for a problem; more of a power and/or revenue grab than reasonable provisions meant to protect widespread health and safety of the community. I’d ask the Council to weigh that before your vote. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Brad Whipple Linda Lundquist From: Carla Thinnes Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2026 9:04 AM To: Chris Pelkola Lee Cc: City Clerk Subject: RE: Council Consideration of changes to the Liquor Laws Thank you for your outreach and for sharing your perspective. Your email has been shared with the City Clerk and will be printed for the record for today’s City Council Meeting. Sincerely, Carla IDAHO FALLS Office of the Mayor Carla Thinnes | Executive Assistant to the Mayor 308 Constitution Way Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 Work: (208) 612-8235 cthinnes@idahofalls gov From: Chris Pelkola Lee <chris@simpleehome.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2026 7:56 PM To: Michelle Ziel-Dingman <MDingman @idahofalls.gov>; James Freeman <JFreeman@idahofalls.gov>; James Francis <JFrancis@idahofalls.gov>; John Radford <JRadford@idahofalls.gov>; John Radford <JRadford@idahofalls.gov>; Layne Larsen <klarsen@idahofalls.gov> Cc: Office of the Mayor <Mayor@idahofalls.gov> Subject: Council Consideration of changes to the Liquor Laws Caution: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Esteemed Council Members, | apologize for the late email and that | missed the 48-hr deadline to submit this into the public record. As my first correspondence to Council, | speak against the proposed liquor law changes. | read the overview of the changes being proposed to the liquor laws in front of the City Council for consideration from the City Council agenda today. With that glance over, it seemed reasonable — my take away was emphasis on training for servers and some administrative cleanup. Upon seeing further discussion in the community, it seems there will be a greater negative impact on small businesses and property owners in the City. | did return to the full document and it disturbs me that the summary that I relied on did not tell the complete effects to the community and our businesses, should this be enacted. The City needs to be taking actions that promote Idaho Falls as a place for industry success and position the City as a partner in the success of our local businesses. A rising tide raises all boats. In order to remain a business friendly community and be able to offer a variety of amenities to its residents, the City should be working to promote, attract, and retain small businesses to the City vs other attractive and similar regional locations businesses are weighing as opportunities. Any laws or ordinances that produce added liability to small businesses and/or property owners detracts from the attractiveness of locating (or staying) in Idaho Falls. | would add that any further restrictions to catering permits affect not only those small businesses, but the residents hosting events for their own business, gatherings and community events. Idaho's liquor laws are already plenty restrictive compared to other states; creating further restrictions for only our community will create unnecessary confusion, liability and sentiment of further government overreach in our community. As a REALTOR®, | actively promote the reasons businesses and residents move and remain here — ample job opportunities, recreation, increasing housing opportunities and expanding cultural venues and experiences. Idaho Falls will no longer be able to compete with surrounding areas in Eastern Idaho if we have more restrictive social laws than other locations within the state. This goes beyond the tourism hit that caused Utah to repeal the bulk of its unusually restrictive liquor laws. This is about commerce and small business owners that have poured countless hours and dollars into their community — who may now rethink their investments should they be subject to additional indirect liabilities. And on a personal note as a commercial property owner within the City, | am extremely concerned as to the additional liability | will incur on behalf of a future tenant should this go into effect. It will absolutely cause me to reconsider my own personal investment within Idaho Falls. | ask that you vote down this proposal as it will have unintended consequences. If the true goal is to reduce DUls and drunken driving as stated, this is neither a net positive nor effective solution. Thank you for your continued service to the residents of Idaho Falls. Chris Pelkola Lee, simpLEE HOME (hy HOVE Chris Pelkola Lee | Broker/Owner, simpLEE HOME® 2023 National President Women's Council of REALTORS® 208-201-2034 simpleehome.com chris@simpleehome.com Serving the Idaho Falls MSA chris pelkola lee realty, llc | equal housing opportunity Ro Rin] Certified Residential Specialist RE ecu 7AABR #LeadersMadeHere Rate my services: How was your overall experience with me? Google 20 reviews Linda Lundquist From: Carla Thinnes Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2026 9:04 AM To: Matt Jacobsen Cc: City Clerk Subject: RE: Alcohol Ordinance Thank you for your outreach and for sharing your perspective. Your email has been shared with the City Clerk and will be printed for the record for today’s City Council Meeting. Sincerely, Carla IDAHO FALLS Office of the Mayor Carla Thinnes | Executive Assistant to the Mayor 308 Constitution Way Idaho Fails, Idaho 83402 Work: (208) 612-8235 cthinnes @idahofalls .gov From: Matt Jacobsen <matt@100proofidaho.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2026 10:58 AM To: James Francis <JFrancis@idahofalls.gov>; John Radford <JRadford@idahofalls.gov>; Michelle Ziel-Dingman <MDingman@idahofalls.gov>; Brandon Lee <blee@idahofalls.gov>; James Freeman <JFreeman@idahofalls.gov>; Layne Larsen <klarsen@idahofalls.gov>; Office of the Mayor <Mayor@idahofalls.gov> Subject: Alcohol Ordinance Caution: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Members, After listening to the work session the other day and the limited time with the vote coming up, I wanted to bring up two provisions I don't think have gotten enough attention. These don’ t directly affect my businesses, but I think it’ s important to look wholly at the code and the impact to the community. Both provisions, I believe, are narrow fixes. 1. The private-property reach in 84-2-2(E)-(G). As written, these subsections don't just regulate the sale of alcohol, they prohibit "dispensing" or “knowingly permitting the consumption" of any alcohol at a "Commercial Establishment" (defined as essentially any business open to the public) unless the business holds a license or permit. The only exception is for 20 or fewer employees. That sweeps in ordinary, harmless hospitality and makes it a misdemeanor: e Arealtor pouring wine at an open house e Asalon offering clients amimosa e Acar dealership with a beer in the waiting area e Abarbershop handing a customer a beer e Anattorney or accountant toasting a closing with a client None of those involve selling alcohol, and none involve employees, so none fit the carve-out. | don't believe criminalizing them is the intent, but it's what the wording does. On the "knowingly" language some have flagged as too broad: I'd respectfully suggest it's actually a protection worth keeping. "Knowingly" means an owner or landlord is only liable if they actually know unpermitted service will occur. Strike it, and you create strict liability, an owner on the hook even when they had no idea. The problem isn't the mental-state standard; it's the scope of conduct being regulated. Keep "knowingly"; narrow what's covered. And on the penalty, making this a misdemeanor (84-2-2(H)) is a large step for what is often just social hospitality. A civil or administrative remedy would be a better fit than a criminal charge. Suggestions: e Limit 84-2-2(E)-(G) to the sale of alcohol, or to businesses whose operations involve alcohol service — not incidental, no-charge hospitality. e Expand the "20 or fewer employees" exception to also cover invited guests and clients. e Keep “knowingly” in the landlord and tenant provisions. e If any penalty is retained, make it civi/administrative rather than a misdemeanor. 2. The catering-permit cap and the A-2-only exemption in §4-2-16. | understand the goal, making sure venues that host alcohol events sit in buildings that meet the right occupancy, egress, and fire-safety standards. That's a legitimate public-safety aim. But the phase-down (52 > 26 > 12 permits per location) exempts only buildings classified Assembly Group A-2, and | think that misses how the building code actually classifies these spaces. Under the 2018 International Building Code that Idaho enforces, a building's occupancy is determined by its primary intended use — not by whether food or alcohol happens to be present. A-2 is for spaces whose purpose is food and drink service, like restaurants and taverns: A-3 covers assembly spaces for events and gatherings, and it is a full, code-compliant assembly classification with its own egress and fire-safety requirements. For most event centers, the primary purpose is hosting the event, a wedding, a reception, a fundraiser, a meeting. The food and alcohol are secondary to that purpose, not the reason the space exists. Under the IBC, that keeps the venue in A-3, and the code expressly allows an A-3 space to serve food and drink incidentally without being reclassified; the presence of food, or even a kitchen, does not convert an A-3 into an A-2. That distinction matters here, because as written the ordinance would throttle a legitimate, code- compliant A-3 event center to 12 alcohol events a year, penalizing exactly the kind of safe assembly building the ordinance says it wants, purely because the exemption names one assembly class and not the other. And whether a venue's use has genuinely crossed the line into A-2 is a determination the building code assigns to the Building Official under defined criteria, not something a flat number in the alcohol code should decide. Suggestions: e Broaden the §4-2-16(C) exemption from "Assembly Group A-2" to "Assembly Group A-2 or A-3," so all code-compliant assembly occupancies are treated consistently. e Recognize that for an event venue, food and alcohol service are incidental to the location's primary assembly purpose — which is what keeps it in A-3 under the IBC. e Leave the question of whether a venue's actual, ongoing use has become A-2 to the Building Official under the building code's own standards, rather than fixing it with an arbitrary permit cap. e Ifafrequency limit is the real concern, apply it consistently — an A-2 venue currently faces no cap at all, which suggests the true issue is occupancy classification, not the number of events. These are two narrow fixes: one keeps the City out of regulating a hosted glass of wine on private property, and the other makes sure a safe, code-compliant event venue isn't penalized over a single occupancy letter. I'd welcome the chance to be a resource as you finalize the language. Thank you for your time and for your work on this. : Matt Jacobsen : President/COO ' 408-623-5160 Linda Lundquist From: goosesc@verizon.net Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2026 11:27 AM To: City Clerk Subject: City Council Agenda (July 9, 2026) Item B.1 Caution: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. | would like to state my disapproval of the presented Ordinance Amending Title 4, Chapter 2, and Title 8, Chapter 3, Sections 4 and 5, and Repealing Title 4, Chapters 3 and 4, City's Alcohol Ordinances (26-240) These changes will do nothing more than restrict the rights and privileges of private owners to operate within their scope of business and personal operation on their premises. It limits and unduly burdens individuals and small businesses in having celebratory gatherings for a private event, especially when there is no selling of alcohol on the premises. This ordinance smells of government overreach to the tune of becoming a "nanny state." | left that failed environment and moved to Idaho Falls, because of the freedoms that are inherent in this State, that recognize individuals rights to live, work and play. | admit that there are always consequences for bad behavior, but | believe that those can be addressed and the appropriate punishments applied when needed. These ordinance changes will not only remove the individual freedoms, but create more enforcement and legal matters, as the city will now have to police private businesses and individuals whenever these private gatherings are taking place. This will encourage an environment of mis trust with the city government and cause individuals to re examine their level of accountability, because the government now wants to dictate and guide people's behavior. In my opinion, this is a flawed ordinance and | implore you to vote it down for the sake of the individual freedoms that we enjoy in this great city and state. Respectfully, Glenn Guzman Citizen of Idaho Falls (310) 251-7812
Text is extracted by machine from the official file linked on each page; the official file is the record. Sentinel Media, LLC.