[0:11] Call the meeting in order and welcome
everybody to the August 2020 August
[0:15] 24th, 2026 council work session. Can I
get a roll call, please?
[0:19] » Councelor Dow
>> here.
[0:22] » Councelor Fischer
>> here.
[0:23] » Councelor Leidge here.
>> Councelor Waterman
[0:27] » here. Councelor Blank,
Councelor Nelly,
[0:32] Councelor Walker
>> here,
[0:34] » Councelor Gabrielle, Mayor Hunter
>> here. We have one item on the agenda
[0:39] this evening, city-owned downtown
parking lot, rental and residential
[0:43] block parties. Before I get to that
item, um I'd like to actually move
[0:48] forward with public comment this
evening. And I know we have a few folks
[0:51] here uh that may like to speak. And so,
uh, we'll open it up to anyone wishing
[0:57] to address the council. Please step to
the mic and state your name. Uh, and if
[1:02] you're online, raise your hand.
[1:06] » Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Welcome home.
And thank you to all the counselors for
[1:10] giving us this opportunity. My name is
Lorraine Clarno, and I'm president and
[1:14] CEO of the Callispel Chamber of
Commerce. I was with you a week ago uh
[1:19] for the meeting and as um you probably
read in my email to you quite surprised
[1:25] at the outturn um and uh how things
worked out. So uh with respect for
[1:30] hopefully your threeminut timer we've
divvied up some things we'd just like to
[1:35] share with you and highlight um for your
consideration. We thought it'd be good
[1:39] to start with a little um backpedaling
on downtown Callispell forward and the
[1:45] process that we went through as partners
with the city to put together the part
[1:48] the parking study and so forth. So, as a
reminder, um, Downtown Callis Forward
[1:55] was, um, started in 2025
after we found ourselves in a similar
[2:00] situation with the Safe Streets for All
grant when we learned, um, from public
[2:05] sentiment that the downtown businesses
did not feel that they were heard
[2:09] properly or effectively. And so that
initiative came and was spurred by that.
[2:16] Um, in November of 25, uh, we got
together as a steering committee and we
[2:22] did a business walk and we walked into
and spoke with 135 businesses. And, um,
[2:29] out from that, we learned their number
one top priority, what keeps them up at
[2:34] night, what their biggest concern is, is
downtown parking. Employees fill the
[2:39] streets. They don't have places for
their customers to park. and it was
[2:43] above and beyond the number one concern.
So, we moved forward then with a
[2:48] reception to capture anybody we'd missed
and we had 42 participants at that and
[2:54] we did a sticky storm exercise and no
surprise we not only found out parking
[2:59] again was the number one concern but
they also offered up some tremendous
[3:02] ideas and solutions.
Um March we launched an online survey
[3:08] because we wanted to capture as many
opinions in downtown Callispell as
[3:11] possible and we got 19 responses. So a
total of 196 downtown voices identified
[3:19] parking um as the number one issue and
provided ideas that then got
[3:25] incorporated into uh the parking
strategy which we presented. We first
[3:30] went to the um advisory parking advisory
board. We we presented to them. We came
[3:35] back the next month, followed up. May
26, you folks had a great work session.
[3:41] You heard recommendations from the
parking advisory board that had made
[3:44] some tweaks to what we had recommended.
You then went through the first and
[3:49] second reading process. There was uh
talk of the enforcement uh piece of this
[3:55] in the police budget meeting. you had
your general budget meetings and at that
[4:01] point um of course we thought all
systems were go and so uh from the
[4:06] downtown forward group uh we had people
from the communication and engagement
[4:10] team met with city staff to start
mapping out a process of what this
[4:15] outreach and communication would be
starting in September so that folks
[4:19] would be very prepared come January for
the changes that were going to be
[4:23] implemented. Um, so staff was working on
the kind of the FAQs.
[4:28] Chamber and DKF staff were working on
what that process would look like,
[4:32] setting up a business walk for
September, designing postcards and
[4:36] mailers, getting ready for when we had
the go. Um, last Monday things changed.
[4:42] No enforcement means no parking plan
really. And so tonight, we would love to
[4:48] um just ask what the plan going forward
will be and what that is going to look
[4:53] like. So, um, thank you for this time
and you're going to get some more
[4:58] detailed information from the folks that
follow. Appreciate it.
[5:01] » Thank you, Miss Cler.
[5:09] » Good evening. My name is Erica Wordella.
I am uh speaking tonight as a member of
[5:14] the Callispell Chamber and the Downtown
Forward Callispell um working group. And
[5:20] so, um, before all this happened, I
really had no idea of what a flock
[5:25] camera was and what a LDR, license plate
reader was. So, this has been very
[5:30] educational to me along the way. And I
just thought I'd share some of the
[5:34] results of what I found um, and the
difference between what a lot of the
[5:39] public comment has been about flock
cameras, data centers, AI, and what a
[5:44] license plate reader really is. So the
LPR
[5:50] system is just general technology
category. It's any camera system that
[5:54] uses computer vision to automatically
read license plates and log vehicle
[6:00] passage um and log vehicle passage. So
that falls under that umbrella. LPR has
[6:05] existed for decades. Um and it's used by
toll systems, parking garages, police
[6:11] cruisers, gated communities, and traffic
enforcement. used in most municipalities
[6:16] across the country and in Montana
already in existence for many years in
[6:21] Helena, Missoula, Billings, but here in
Whitefish to our neighbor to the north
[6:27] here. So, Flock cameras are different
and that is a brand name Flock um whose
[6:34] main product is a type of LPR camera for
sure, but it is stationary. It's
[6:40] positioned as part of a broader platform
rather than just a a camera that is
[6:45] mounted maybe on the side of a parking
enforcement vehicle, could be one of
[6:49] those little carts, could be the side of
a police cruiser. So, the flock camera
[6:54] is standardized and um unlike standard
CCTV cameras that record continuous
[7:00] video to a network video recorder, a
flock camera is or excuse me, a LPR is
[7:06] just um doing, you know, the driveby
that the parking enforcement is doing.
[7:12] Uh, Flock has a vehicle footprint
feature, so they could identify things
[7:17] like um the vehicle's make, color,
model, other distinguishing attributes
[7:22] like um if it had a bumper sticker on
it, and it claims it's much more
[7:26] detailed than LPR that is just reading
the license plates from that. Um, I
[7:31] brought a copy of the MCA code that
details uh the use of LPRs. Um, it
[7:39] prohibits all surveillance technology on
public property except LPRs because LPRs
[7:45] are a closed database. So, these are not
available for anybody to get into. And
[7:50] anyone that has access to the data must
be identified. So, it must be your
[7:54] police force and all of that. This is
not about AI or data centers. And as was
[7:59] raised in last week's public comment
multiple times. Um, every one of those
[8:03] that testified from the last meeting had
cell phones in their pockets. And there
[8:08] you go. If you want to be tracked and
have everybody know where you're at and
[8:11] what you're doing, just carry your cell
phone with you and and that will do the
[8:15] work there for you. You don't need a
flock camera. So, um those cell phones
[8:19] know where you live, where you work,
what you had for dinner, and where you
[8:24] shop and and everything. So, downtown
Forward Calispel or downtown Calispel
[8:29] Forward steering committee and
infrastructure team worked on this uh
[8:34] topic for more than 40 hours. And I must
say at very early morning hours if you
[8:39] add up all those meetings and this
doesn't include the business walks, the
[8:43] reception at the um art gallery and the
postcards and surveys that were um
[8:50] solicited for outreach and feedback. So
um we've spent quite a bit of time on
[8:55] that. We've spent time talking with the
parking commissioner and bringing this
[8:58] forward to you. This is a critical
component to that plan that was adopted.
[9:02] Thank you very much.
>> Thank you, Miss Floa.
[9:14] Hi, Mayor Council. I'm Kisa Davidson,
and for the sake of this conversation,
[9:20] um, I'm representing the business, I'm
sorry, not the business, but the
[9:24] building owners, the property owners in
our downtown bid district. Um, I know I
[9:29] spoke last week when the actual council
meeting adopted the budget and I'm here
[9:33] tonight to ask you to please consider an
amendment to that budget specifically
[9:37] for those LPRs. Um, I don't know that it
was made clear the other two times that
[9:43] prior to this during the prior work
sessions that we as a downtown Calpel
[9:49] forward actually surveyed not only the
business owners but as many property
[9:52] owners as we could possibly survey
downtown. And by and large, the number
[9:57] one concern for everyone was parking.
So, y'all did a great job. We you took
[10:02] what recommendations we made and you
shredded the ones you didn't like and
[10:07] you kept the ones you did. Um, but now
we don't have any enforcement for those.
[10:12] So, the option for enforcement, as it
was relayed to me, or as we all went
[10:17] through last Monday, was simply to add
more staff. I don't know that that's the
[10:22] cost-effective solution that downtown
property owners are looking for
[10:26] specifically or particularly because
we're all faced with these tremendous
[10:31] increases to our property taxes. We are
looking for any and every opportunity to
[10:35] save money. Obviously, um we're not
looking to throw out people's privacy or
[10:40] safety with all of that, but we do have
to be reminded that every penny counts.
[10:47] So, please tonight um I know this is not
a decision-making, but as we talk about
[10:52] parking lots and events and all the
things that we know could bolster
[10:56] business and bolster the value of the
properties downtown, please don't
[11:02] disregard um what the decisions that
you've already made to help downtown.
[11:07] Thank you.
>> Thank you, Miss Davidson.
[11:13] » My name is Bill Mosley. the CEO of GL
Solutions, a Calispell business that
[11:17] employs about 80 people here and also
the past chair of the chamber and the
[11:22] current chair of the downtown Calispel
Ford and a former city councelor. Uh so
[11:26] I know what it's like to sit where
you're sitting. I've written numerous
[11:29] studies on these parking kind of things.
It seems to be a hot topic. Um there was
[11:34] some reference that maybe the last one
was paid for. Nope, that except in my um
[11:38] two of my Saturdays it was not paid for.
the one that we presented from the
[11:42] downtown Calispel Ford. Um, but I wanted
to talk to you about it. When I first
[11:46] came and presented to in the work
session, I made the point that parking
[11:50] discussions are easy to derail. Everyone
knows something about parking just like
[11:55] they do driving and roads and so they
have a lot of critique about it. They're
[11:58] not necessar there actually is a whole
science behind parking um, believe it or
[12:02] not. But it's easy to find something you
don't like and it's easy to find all the
[12:05] little bitty things and actually have it
pile on top of one another until there's
[12:09] nothing done at all. Um I think focusing
on just one component of this overall
[12:14] plan can obscure the larger objective we
have. Uh the downtown call forward was
[12:19] never about license plate reader
technology per se. The objective was
[12:23] downtown revitalization.
customers need better accesses to the
[12:28] businesses or they won't shop there and
they're not shopping there for this
[12:31] exact reason. Uh we want a stronger
downtown businesses and if it's not
[12:36] convenient to go downtown, they're going
to go to the mall. So we have a choice.
[12:40] Do we want to drive business up to the
mall or do we want to drive it towards
[12:43] our local entrepreneurs and the downtown
Calispel Ford Coalition wants the
[12:48] business downtown? It's the heart of our
community. It's where we should shop.
[12:52] the people that own those um those
stores are all local people providing
[12:56] jobs to to local Calpell residents. We
went through an extensive process in the
[13:01] development of the parking study. We did
two business walks. I personally went
[13:04] door todoor from businesses um all
throughout downtown. We vis literally
[13:08] walked in and visited every single
business in the whole radius trying to
[13:12] collect input. We did um two surveys. We
had probably 20 public meetings on the
[13:17] topic. Uh we went to two of the parking
advisory board meetings um that were
[13:23] conducted on this on this topic. We went
to a council work session and had a
[13:27] public hearing. Um consistently
throughout all of that outreach, uh we
[13:33] found that parking management is the
number one economic development tool
[13:37] that concerned business owners downtown,
bar none. It was like 60% and then
[13:41] everything else fell away after that. um
parking was the key issue and it was the
[13:45] most cited concern of struggling
business owners. My concern tonight
[13:50] isn't necessarily that a particular
recommendation was rejected. It's that a
[13:54] year of work and public input and the
advisory review was set aside at the
[13:59] final stage without notice despite the
fact that the counselors themselves said
[14:03] that they were in support of this
measure just not weeks before that. Um,
[14:08] if you're someone who is investing your
time and talent without uh without
[14:13] really any reward other than seeing the
community that you love grow, it's very
[14:17] disheartening to to have that kind of a
process take place. Um, the process
[14:22] matters u because you have volunteers,
businesses, boards, and staff
[14:26] participating because they believe that
their input actually counted for
[14:28] something. The confidence that the
community has in civic education and the
[14:32] council's ability to lead our community
depends upon a regular thoughtful
[14:37] process that people can participate in
it, not last minute decisions. If you
[14:41] want to harness the the talent of people
like those that participate in this
[14:44] process, then you need to provide a a
fair and open means for them to to
[14:48] participate. It can't be done randomly
like that. Um the question now is really
[14:54] what enforcement strategy replaces the
one that was removed. It's fine that we
[14:59] have a parking policy, but if there's no
means to to implement that policy, if
[15:03] there's no effective enforcement, it's
not going to matter at all. People are
[15:06] going to park wherever they want to. The
employees are still going to occupy the
[15:09] the surface street parking directly in
front of the the businesses. Um the
[15:14] question really for council is that we
need an alternate approach. How are you
[15:17] going to It is the council's job. You we
received direction from many counselors
[15:21] that economic development downtown was
important to them. How are you going to
[15:25] further that objective? Now, it's very
easy to say no to something. It's a lot
[15:29] harder to show leadership on this
particular issue, and that's what we're
[15:32] asking for. I ask that you preserve the
momentum on downtown re revitalization.
[15:38] Um, we can't wait a year. Our businesses
need um their patrons to be able to park
[15:43] in front of their shops now, not in a
year. Um, and I again, I just say that
[15:48] tonight isn't really about reloitating
a technology decision by itself. It's
[15:53] about really preserving the integrity of
the community participation process that
[15:57] was really quite extensive up until a
week ago. Thank you.
[16:01] » Thank you, Mr. Mosley.
[16:14] » Okay.
[16:21] Hello, council, mayor, city staff, and
members of the business community. Um,
[16:26] my name is Byron Kringle. Uh, I am from
Whitefish currently, but my loyalties
[16:31] lie with the cheapest rent, so we'll
see. Uh, I was here last week during the
[16:37] rather contentious meeting uh, regarding
the cameras and really the hard work
[16:43] that you guys put into the parking
situation downtown. Uh, we did get to
[16:48] hear from Miss Miss Cassie, right? Is
your name?
[16:52] » Kissa. My apologies. It was nice to be
able to hear from you. I wish that we
[16:55] had been able to hear a little bit
sooner. Um, but you guys asked for
[17:00] people to come back with some ideas and
some feedback next week. Unfortunately,
[17:04] I don't think uh I think most by the
time that was said, most people were
[17:08] walking out the door, unfortunately. Uh,
but I had a few couple little feedback
[17:14] things to give.
Uh, first of all, um, I did not know
[17:19] until the meeting last week that just
any member of the public could actually
[17:22] get a permit in the permit parking lot.
I I heard that and I actually had to
[17:26] come to this building, get sent
downstairs, then across the street to
[17:30] confirm that that was accurate. I tried
looking on the website. I tried googling
[17:34] it. I didn't know that. I thought that
if you weren't an employee of one of the
[17:38] businesses, then you just figure out
where to park. So maybe put a couple
[17:43] hyperlinks on the website would be good.
You know, a little bit more
[17:48] communication of, hey, the permit
parking is something that anybody in the
[17:52] public can do. Um, let's see.
Parking in place.
[18:00] Um, also I didn't I couldn't find a uh
councelor Waterman mentioned offhand the
[18:06] parking garage that had been in the
works for a few years and I kind of got
[18:09] a laugh from a few people. I didn't know
anything about it. I also couldn't find
[18:14] any updates to it online, but I thought
that was also a very compelling
[18:18] uh I thought it was a very compelling
thing because I live in Whitefish and I
[18:22] think the parking garage down there does
a really good job of what it is. I don't
[18:27] know where that's sitting as I'm a
member of the uninformed public. Uh but
[18:34] I just wanted to give those couple
things to you and say that I do
[18:39] appreciate the work that the business
community has come to. I'm sorry that
[18:42] most of the public wasn't there for
those initial meetings. I think when it
[18:45] comes to local government, a lot of
people don't really think about it or
[18:49] care until something major hits them and
then everybody wants to come up all at
[18:53] once. Um I didn't even know about the
meetings, all the different meetings
[18:57] regarding the cameras and stuff myself
until the last meeting. That's why I
[19:02] that's the first one that I came to. Um
but I don't think that the work you guys
[19:06] did should go to waste. I do think that
it should be taken into account to give
[19:10] the customers, myself included. I shop
downtown at least twice a week, proper
[19:14] access and also the um
business employees proper access. So, I
[19:22] wish the council luck. Um this has
clearly been a contentious issue with
[19:25] the public even though they didn't show
up tonight when you guys wanted more
[19:28] ideas. Um but I also don't want to see
the work go to waste. I think the most
[19:33] important thing you guys could do is get
a policy in place first because I know
[19:38] that uh the the policy was going to be
finalized after a vendor was selected.
[19:44] There was some contention in that. I
think the policy is the most important
[19:47] thing that would help the public have
more trust in these systems that as was
[19:52] pointed out they had a lot of
misunderstandings about. So thank for
[19:58] thank you guys for your work. Thank you
for listening last week and taking a
[20:02] breath to say, "Hey, let's make sure
we're doing this right." I really
[20:05] appreciate it. I hope you guys have a
good night.
[20:08] » Thank you, sir.
[20:21] Hi, I'm Bella Brown. Um, I work with
Ford Montana. And the reason I
[20:25] originally came here was to talk about
um getting a nonprofit or community and
[20:31] or a community benefit rate established
with the community like the parks and
[20:36] the public spaces. Um kind of related to
the black parties. Um just I think it's
[20:41] related due to the parking concerns. Um
whenever we gather um right now this is
[20:47] a huge limitation especially whenever we
talk about um even whenever you're
[20:52] talking about like parking in itself. um
as a individual sometimes, you know, I'm
[20:58] balling on a budget, so that's expensive
to get a parking permit for Cali Spell.
[21:02] But, um you know, while I'm sitting
here, um and I I I do want to say I
[21:06] appreciate y'all for um handling such a
tricky situation. Um I've recently been
[21:12] reading this book called uh Paved
Paradise, which is about parking. I
[21:16] recommend it. It's on Libby, free. Um if
with your library card, support your
[21:21] local libraries. Um but it talks about
um the parking problem and um we've
[21:27] historically built regulations and
development patterns around
[21:30] accommodating cars and over time that
can create um self reinforcement and
[21:36] [sighs] um demand for parking and I
think that a big problem um would be to
[21:45] con to continue that and instead maybe
um addressing the parking problem would
[21:51] be public transportation, which I know I
know funding is a huge issue. Um, and if
[21:58] we're going to make any changes in
allocating anything, I think we should,
[22:02] you know, book that for bookmark that
for next year's um, transit budget. Um
[22:06] because I know a lot of workers and a
lot of individuals who would love um to
[22:13] not have to drive to work and not have
to drive um in the across the different
[22:19] cities, especially during the winter and
all these other times. Um and when we
[22:25] talk about parking, we need to think
about supply and demand because um
[22:28] you're right, whenever it becomes
difficult to park, people are just going
[22:32] to be like, "Oh, I'm I'm not going to do
it." And they're not going to go to the
[22:35] mall. the mall's dead, respectfully. Um
they're going to go online. Um and
[22:41] that's that's the truth. Um and so I
just would argue um that in order to fix
[22:48] the parking problem, we need to think
about a more systemic fix and not just
[22:54] enforcement on a controversial
possible policy decision. Um and instead
[23:01] we could think about a solution that
will give um autonomy to a lot of our um
[23:08] community members and flexibility in
their lives. And so um I just will
[23:14] encourage you to think about that um as
you make decisions and think about um
[23:18] the broader issues that we're dealing
with whenever you think about um
[23:21] spending some of this money. Um and I I
do respect that the chamber wants more
[23:26] customers. Um I'm rooting for y'all. Um,
I I love going downtown and shopping.
[23:33] Um, but you know, it is a huge problem
whenever you can't find parking and
[23:39] whenever you're I I do live in
Whitefish. I know. Um, but whenever I
[23:44] come downtown, um, I usually come after
hours because I don't want to have to
[23:49] pay for parking and even then, um,
yeah, I just I'm I'm pretty sure my
[23:56] time's up. Paid Paradise. Check it out.
It's a huge problem. Um, and you aren't
[24:01] the first person or people to deal with
this. Um, we aren't the first community
[24:04] deal with this. We could learn a lot
from a lot of different communities.
[24:08] And, um, I hope y'all take that. Thank
you.
[24:11] » Thank you, Miss Brown.
[24:27] Last chance.
[24:43] » Good evening. Uh, my name is Robert Lee.
I'm creator of Guardians of the Valley,
[24:49] administrator of Flathead Registry
Watch.
[24:52] I stood before the council previously,
but tonight I'm here to repeat. I'm not
[24:56] here to repeat myself. I'm here to ask a
different question. What happens after
[25:01] someone is convicted? Protecting
children cannot end at the courthouse
[25:05] doors. A conviction is not the finish
line. It is where accountability begins.
[25:11] Montana already has laws requiring
sexual offenders to register. We have
[25:17] different levels of supervision. We have
verification requirements. We have
[25:21] restrictions that can be imposed on
high-risisk offenders. So my question is
[25:25] simple. Are we using those laws to their
fullest potential? No. Because a law
[25:31] sitting on a page does not protect a
child. Enforcement does, supervision
[25:36] does, communication does, and
consequences do.
[25:42] Under 12 law candidates are out in two
to four years on a minimum 25 to 100year
[25:49] sentence with no parole within 25 years.
Yet our city is full of them. Six of
[25:56] these under 12 candidates live in a
taxpaying housing complex in downtown
[26:03] Callispel. We're paying their rent,
their food, and everything when they
[26:09] should be in prison. I'd rather pay him
to be there.
[26:13] Statute 45555034.
Sexual exploitation of a child victims
[26:18] under 12 offenders over 18
100 years sentence up to first 25 years
[26:26] is non-parole eligibility. Subject to
limited expectations.
[26:32] 45-56254.
Sexual abuse of child under the age of
[26:37] 12 by offenders over the age of 18.
100 years with first 25 years mandatory
[26:43] non-p parole subject to limitation
statutory
[26:49] exceptions.
[26:52] Um there is one particular case
infamiliar I'm sure we all know who
[26:58] Robert McGuffrey is.
Uh, Robert McGuffrey was sentenced in
[27:04] April of 2015,
17 months ago, of sexual assault to an
[27:10] 8-year-old and a 10-year-old girl and
his family member and only spent 12
[27:15] months in prison.
He had four counts, but he had a plea
[27:20] deal. Why are we giving these people
plea deals? Why is he not in prison for
[27:24] 25 years?
So, no, he's not. He's hanging around
[27:28] the warming center who houses and
protects all these people.
[27:33] There was an incident since our last
meeting that I'm sure you might have
[27:37] shrugged off. A woman shopping at Super
One, which the community is calling the
[27:42] mad jacker, was followed and stalked by
a man who was tugging on it in public
[27:48] and in front of her child. The man in
question was a registered violent
[27:51] offender who assaulted with a weapon and
only received probation.
[27:57] He was out of jail within 30 minutes to
wander and potentially do it again. Will
[28:03] he be registered or charged? Doubt it.
This is called zero enforcement. This is
[28:10] a dishonest to our community. We need to
enforce these laws in Montana because
[28:15] protecting children shouldn't begin
after the next tragedy. It should begin
[28:20] with what we choose to do now. Our
children deserve nothing less. Thank
[28:25] you.
Yes, sir.
[28:48] » Good evening, council. My name is John
McDonald. I'm a resident of Callispel.
[28:51] Uh, I'd first like to thank you guys for
voting away the cameras for a year and
[28:55] giving us a chance to give you guys a
solution. I think that I have part of
[29:00] one. Um, and we can work on the next
part at a later date. Um, but first I'd
[29:05] like to say, uh, I've been telling Mr.
Leverage in particular something
[29:10] incorrect. Um, and he told me he
corrected me. Uh, and I'd say that I was
[29:15] wrong when I was wrong. So, I'd like to
say that I was wrong.
[29:18] Um, that took me 15 seconds.
Um, that's what that's what that's what
[29:24] it cost me. So, I want you to remember
that because everything else I say from
[29:29] after this is going to support that. Um,
so in January of 22, the development
[29:35] services director presents this project
to the council. Quote, "What we're
[29:39] looking at is a public infrastructure
project for a public parking garage. It
[29:43] would remain in city ownership." Nine
months later, this council approved
[29:48] something different. Developerowned,
developer operated,
[29:52] but leased back to the city. The vote
for that was 8 to1. And Mr. Mayor, I'd
[29:59] like to say that you were right uh three
separate times. And you and I have
[30:03] disagreed for a lot of about a lot of
things for all summer. Um and I will say
[30:08] that you were right. Uh and this council
should have listened to you on that. Um,
[30:13] and the one proposal that came back for
the city was there was never even a
[30:17] second bidder. The downtown urban
renewal district was established in
[30:22] 2019. It terminates in February of
February 4th, 2034. The Montana
[30:28] Department of Revenue 25 2025 master
list
[30:33] says that no bonds have ever been issued
against it, not one in seven years. And
[30:37] that took me 20 minutes to find. Um, and
I'm not a financial I'm not a finance
[30:42] professor.
I have a job. Um, I just spent 20
[30:46] minutes at my kitchen table after work
one night. Uh, and that that's what that
[30:50] took to find that out. So, um, the city
does not write a check for that garage.
[30:54] The building generates property taxes
and the increment from those taxes pay
[30:58] the cost back. If there's no building,
there's no increment and no increment
[31:03] means there's no reimbursement. So,
there is one question and for how much
[31:06] and for how long?
In January 22, the projector reported
[31:12] the at the time was $516,000
a year. That's $516,000
[31:18] a year against a garage estimated at 19
point or $9.2 million.
[31:23] That division is about 18 years. The
district has 7 and a half years left and
[31:29] the building does not even exist. Not a
footing has been poured, not a shovel
[31:33] has been put in the ground, nothing.
There's an empty parking lot. So, the
[31:37] 18-year clock has not started, and the
seven and a halfyear clock is running
[31:41] tonight in this room while we talk. And
now, I want to be careful with that
[31:45] because I'm not going to do what I what
has been done for me.
[31:49] 516,000 is a projection from 22, not a
guarantee. Values change and this
[31:55] project grew from 34 million to 80
million. So, a bigger building might
[32:00] well throw off more. I'm not telling you
18 years is the answer. I'm telling you
[32:05] is the only that I'm telling you it is
the only published figure anybody has
[32:09] and that it misses the time remaining by
more than double and that in four years
[32:13] nobody has put a better one in front of
the public. If it is wrong somebody at
[32:19] that table has a better number and I
would like to see it. Um and if nobody
[32:23] has one then the city has carried a $9
million obligation for four years
[32:27] without ever checking whether the thing
pays for itself can finish the job. So
[32:31] the public parking exists if and only if
one private company finishes one private
[32:38] building. March 2024 the developer to
this council said blacked out of a deal
[32:44] back his partner backed out of the deal
due to the current economic client
[32:48] climate. He doesn't have the capital for
available to start construction. That is
[32:53] more canandor than this project has
gotten from anybody since. He also said
[32:57] that he was working with another
investor, but that ne investor has never
[33:01] been named and it's still not been
named.
[33:05] Um, so I understand a member of the
council may bring something forward
[33:09] about the developer financing and what
the garage will cost. If that happens, I
[33:13] will not ask twice. I will say what it
needs and get it out of the way. A date,
[33:18] not staff will look into it. A date that
is certain. Open session, not a memo.
[33:24] If a resident has to file records
requests to learn the answer to a
[33:27] council motion, the motion accomplished
nothing. So, what financing
[33:31] documentation the developers has
submitted since April of 2024 and
[33:35] whether the quarterly payments are
current?
[33:38] The most that the city can be required
to reimburse and if there is no cap,
[33:42] somebody should say that there is no cap
out loud in this room because there is a
[33:46] different fact than that than than
nobody knowing. Um, and how many stalls
[33:50] the public is contractually guaranteed.
And I don't want like there should be a
[33:54] a policy that says
how many public stalls there are. Um,
[33:59] and I've looked and I cannot find it.
Uh, and I would put no money that nobody
[34:04] at the table can answer it tonight. Um,
it's not an accusation. That's just the
[34:08] problem. Um, and so I have five things.
I've asked you, Mr. Ma manager, about
[34:12] them. You haven't emailed me back yet. I
asked for that tonight. You never
[34:15] emailed me back. Um, so I answered two
of them. Uh, and three of them maybe you
[34:20] can email me back. I already emailed you
them. Um, but councelor Leftridge,
[34:25] you've been very, uh, coherent in
dialoguing with me. Um, and I'd like to
[34:29] thank you for that. Uh, Councelor
Gabriel, uh, this is going to you as
[34:33] well. You spent 20 years finding money
for things the city needed and could not
[34:37] obviously afford. Um, and so that's the
problem in front of you tonight, and I
[34:41] don't think anybody has really brought
it forward in front of you. Uh, and then
[34:45] councelor Blake, you said that you
wanted data and solutions, not attacks.
[34:49] So, this is my attempt at the second
one. Um, I'm not asking the three of you
[34:52] to agree with me. I'm just asking you to
be curious for my 30-day response.
[34:58] Um, and then real quick before I go, Mr.
Mr. uh, Mr. City Manager, um, on August
[35:03] 18th, I wrote to you about this garage
and you answered me. Same week on the
[35:07] substance, and I'm not going to tell
this room you ignored me because it's
[35:10] not true. And you have the email. But
the next afternoon,
[35:14] I sent more than five five questions
that you could have easily gotten the
[35:20] answers to, and I asked for a response
by Monday. Um, it's currently Monday.
[35:24] You haven't responded to me. Um, and
I've told I'm told that the city has no
[35:28] legal deadline to answer me. Um, and I
looked it up. It's true. So, I so I
[35:33] understand exactly what I'm describing.
It's not a violation, and you're not
[35:37] breaking the law, but it is a choice to
not answer me. Um, so no law really
[35:41] requires you to. No election really
requires you to. Um, but you do get paid
[35:45] $200,000 a year. Uh, which is more than
these council members make. And if two
[35:50] of them can respond to me in a timely
manner, I feel like that you are more
[35:55] than capable of doing that. Uh, you are
the least accountable person in this
[35:59] building, sir, and you are the man
holding the file. $200,000 a year, five
[36:04] requests, five days, and you've given me
nothing. Uh, so I answered two of those
[36:07] myself over a weekend and around a job.
Um, so if you could just give me that,
[36:12] that'd be great. Um, because answering a
answering the public's not a favor that
[36:17] the city manager does when he has time.
It's actually your job to do. So, if you
[36:20] could just do that, that'd be wonderful.
Anyway, thank you.
[36:24] » Thank you, Mr. McN.
[36:32] Hands raised.
Okay. If you are online with your hands
[36:36] raised, if you could uh speak to the
council, please
[36:44] » Benjamin, do you want to go ahead?
>> Hello. Can you hear me?
[36:48] » Yes.
>> Wonderful. Good evening, council. My
[36:51] name is Benjamin Lipsky and first of
all, I want to thank you very much for
[36:55] taking the time for the remote comment.
I know that, you know, this is a
[36:58] workshop and I know that you didn't get
too many remote comments last week even,
[37:02] you know, when you had the whole place
full. So, thank you very much for, you
[37:05] know, opening that up so I can have my
voice heard. Um, let me open with
[37:09] something I do not think anybody has
said to you tonight. Last Monday, you
[37:13] guys got it right. Five of you voted to
strip the appropriation, before a vendor
[37:18] was selected, before a dollar was
obligated, before anything became hard
[37:21] to undo. Procedurally, that is the
entire game, and you did it on your own
[37:25] motion. So, I'm not here to rear the
cameras. It's settled at least for a
[37:29] year, and thank you very much. Um though
I am going to answer the question John
[37:35] left on the table. Um a few minutes ago
a resident stood at the podium and asked
[37:39] whether this government fixes things
when it's shown to be wrong or only when
[37:43] somebody makes it. And when he said he
was not going to answer it, I will. I
[37:48] have spent five weeks watching and I
think the answer is knowable. And I
[37:52] think you are entitled to hear somebody
say it plainly rather than imply it.
[37:56] Here's the test I used. May 26th, public
work session of this council. The chief
[38:02] of police is asked how this city guards
against overreach. On the record, he
[38:06] says writing the policy is the first
step before any use of the system.
[38:11] Policy first. Then in writing to a
resident, the chief says the policy is
[38:16] finalized once a vendor is selected
because procurement requires competitive
[38:21] bidding. Vendor first. Two sentences,
one official, one system.
[38:27] Let me make the chief's defense for him.
There is an answer available here, and I
[38:31] would rather give it to you myself than
have it given to me. Montana's license
[38:35] plate reader statue is 46517,
enacted in 2017, never amended.
[38:43] It contains a parking exception at
subsection 2 AI. I am going to read it
[38:48] in full because it is one sentence. in a
regulated parking system, but only to
[38:54] identify a vehicle's location and
license plate number to enforce parking
[38:58] restrictions. That is the complete
subsection. There is no written policy
[39:02] requirement anywhere in it. The written
policy mandate is at 2DI and it attaches
[39:08] to a law enforcement agency operating a
reader system. So, it is entirely
[39:12] possible that the chief was describing
what the law permits and this council
[39:16] was describing what it intends and both
were right about different things.
[39:20] Nobody broke the law. I want that said
in my own voice on this record before I
[39:25] say anything else. Now read that one
sentence again and notice what is not in
[39:29] it. No retention limit, no restriction
on sharing, no audit requirement, no
[39:34] policy requirement. And I want to be
exact because this is the part that
[39:38] matters. The legislature knew how to
write those protections. Every one of
[39:42] them is in the law enforcement
subsection. written policy at 2DI,
[39:47] retention at 2DIB,
data sharing at 2DIC, and annual audit
[39:53] at 2D II. They wrote all of it. And then
they wrote a parking exception with none
[39:59] of it. That provision authorizes a use,
and it protects nothing, which means
[40:04] every safeguard anyone in this room was
promised is voluntary.
[40:08] Not one is required by the state of
Montana. They exist only if this council
[40:11] writes them down and binds itself.
Next, I want to give you four dates. So,
[40:17] July, the city manager tells this public
that state law requires the city to
[40:22] adopt the policy. August 10th, the
chief's written statement is read into
[40:26] this room in public comment by a
resident. That same night, a member of
[40:30] this council responds to it directly and
says, quoting him, "We can't really
[40:34] purchase the system or even test the
system until we have the policy." August
[40:39] 17th, a week ago. It is read into this
room a second time. And that night, the
[40:45] city manager confirms that that table
the policy precedes vendor selection.
[40:52] Tonight, two weeks after the first
reading, the chief has not said which of
[40:56] his two statements is operative. I want
to be precise about what that does and
[41:01] does not establish because this is where
people overreach, and I'm not going to.
[41:05] It does not establish dishonesty. It
does not establish illegality. I just
[41:09] spent two minutes explaining why it
establishes neither. And I mean it. It
[41:13] establishes one thing, though. A
department head in this city can be
[41:17] publicly contradicted by his own
government twice in two weeks and
[41:22] declined to clarify. And nothing in this
building really requires him to. And
[41:27] I'll give credit because it makes the
point rather than softening it. One of
[41:32] you read a full set of policy terms into
this record last Monday before public
[41:36] comment even began. 7-day purge, city
servers only, audited access, no sharing
[41:41] with anyone, including other law
enforcement, without a judicial warrant,
[41:45] one reader, one marked vehicle. That was
a councilman doing this work in public,
[41:50] unprompted, and it was the best thing
that happened in this room all summer.
[41:55] It is also at this moment a set of
statements in a transcript. not an
[41:58] ordinance, not a resolution, not a
contract term. And I told you a moment
[42:03] ago that the statute requires nothing in
a parking system. So those terms are not
[42:08] an extra layer of protection. They're
the only protection that would exist.
[42:13] Now, let me tell you what this costs. I
want to be specific about where
[42:17] tonight's facts came from because I do
not think anyone has said it plainly,
[42:21] and I think it is the actual answer to
John's question. First public comment on
[42:25] this was July 13th. The budget vote was
August 17th, five weeks. In those five
[42:32] weeks, residents of the city assembled
vendor documentation, error rate
[42:36] statistics, an analysis of third party
data custody, Montana Supreme Court
[42:41] president briefed correctly, mind you,
four-year-old newspaper coverage nobody
[42:46] had opened since it was printed, a state
tax database entry carrying the
[42:50] expiration date of this city's downtown
financing district. transcripts of your
[42:54] own meetings, index, source packets,
printed, handd delivered to every one of
[42:58] you. About 18 people spoke on that
budget line. Not one spoke in favor.
[43:03] None of them work here. And not one of
those documents came out of this
[43:07] building. Not one. This city has a legal
department, a clerk's office, a records
[43:12] division, a city manager on a 5-year
contract, north of a million dollars,
[43:16] mind you. and the expiration date on the
district that is supposed to pay for a
[43:21] $9 million garage was found by a man at
his kitchen table in 20 minutes. I'm not
[43:27] calling anyone in this building
dishonest and I'm not calling anyone
[43:30] idol. I'm saying something structural
and I would ask you to hear it that way.
[43:34] A transparent government does not
produce this record. Not because it is
[43:38] more honest than this one, because in a
transparent city, none of that work is
[43:42] necessary. The documents are already
posted. The contradiction is fixed the
[43:46] week it appears and 18 people spend that
Monday evening with their families. That
[43:51] should trouble you more than it troubles
me because you are the ones who have to
[43:54] govern inside of it. Five of you cast a
vote last Monday on material residents
[43:59] assembled because nobody in this
building assembled it first. You should
[44:03] not have to learn what your own adopted
parking strategy says from a man at a
[44:07] microphone holding a print out. And I'll
say the honest thing about John because
[44:12] somebody should. John McDonald has been
hot at this podium. In July, he said
[44:17] things I would not have said. I'm not
gonna pretend otherwise because some of
[44:21] you are in the room and you know better
than I do. I'm not going to tell you he
[44:25] has been perfect. But here's what I'll
tell you. Since July, every error in
[44:29] this record has been corrected by the
person who made it. He read a statute
[44:34] too broadly and came back and said so.
He got a number wrong on that garage and
[44:38] corrected it from the podium tonight
unprompted before anyone in this
[44:41] building could use against him and it
took him 50 15 seconds like you said out
[44:45] of his own mouth. Nobody made him do
that. That that is more correction than
[44:50] the city has issued the whole summer. So
there here's the comparison and is the
[44:55] answer to the question he wouldn't
answer. One side of that podium runs
[44:58] warm and fixes its own mistakes in
public. The other side is measured,
[45:02] professional, never raised its voice,
and has not corrected a single thing in
[45:06] five weeks. I know which of those I
would rather have hold in the database
[45:10] of license plates for the city. Um,
lastly, what I'm asking for, Chief, one
[45:16] of those two statements is operative.
Say which one. If the answer is that the
[45:20] parking exception permits vendor first
and that is the department's this
[45:24] department's position, then say that.
I'll accept it and I'll say publicly
[45:27] that you answered. Nobody is asking for
an apology. Nobody's asking you to
[45:31] resign and I want that clear because
it's not the council's in the council's
[45:35] authority and it's not what I came here
for. We're asking which sentence
[45:39] governs. 30 seconds, no money, no staff
time, no vote adverse to anyone. And to
[45:45] this council, if those policy terms uh
one of you read in the record are worth
[45:50] anything, adopt them in writing while
there is no money on the table and no
[45:54] vendor waiting. One more thing and then
I'm done. There is a man in this town
[45:58] who reads these agreements, files the
requests, shows up every other Monday,
[46:02] and tells the truth about himself in
public when it costs him something. He's
[46:06] not going to say a word about what comes
next. So, I'll say this much and stop.
[46:09] Callispel should think hard about where
it wants that man sitting. Correct the
[46:14] record tonight. It's the least expensive
thing this council could possibly do.
[46:18] Thank you for taking remote comment.
Thank you for last Monday. God bless
[46:22] America and the Lord be with you,
Calispo.
[46:27] Thank you, sir.
[46:32] Okay, seeing no further public comment,
we'll move on to our uh agenda item.
[46:39] City-owned downtown parking lot rental
and residential block parties. Mr. Nag
[46:44] staff report.
>> Yeah, Mayor and Council got uh kind of
[46:46] two items for discussion here. The first
being uh the ability and this also stems
[46:52] from the downtown stakeholder um kind of
plan that had been put forward to
[46:57] council. just as general idea and just a
little context to this as well because
[47:02] city has also had some requests in the
past that we haven't really been able to
[47:07] um act on but uh as you know the city
does have you know a special event
[47:13] permit that it does an alcohol permit
that it does subject to Calispo
[47:17] municipal code regulations which we can
get into that a vending permit
[47:21] application but really what we're
looking at is just some guidance on
[47:24] whether or not city-owned parking lots
uh within in the downtown uh could be
[47:30] utilized for such events. Um as you know
uh during the daytime during the week uh
[47:36] most of the permit lots do have permits
issued within them. So I think it would
[47:39] be a a bit difficult especially in the
interim here as we do work through
[47:43] parking uh situations downtown to do
anything but certainly on the weekends
[47:47] um there would be the opportunity for um
special events if uh somebody did want
[47:52] to do that. So I do have the permits.
say we're in the application um or sorry
[47:58] in the packet here just kind of
outlining what our fee schedule is, what
[48:02] kind of events could be utilized um and
such. I would say one thing I want to
[48:08] outline as well is
let's see here two things. if the city
[48:15] did wanted whether they the the council
would want to proceed with allowing
[48:20] something on city downtown lots. Um
whether there should be a fee associated
[48:25] with that in addition to what just our
our typical application fee is which is
[48:30] outlined on the permits. Um and as well
so in general the downtown kind of
[48:35] grappled with this a number of years ago
as far as alcohol and where alcohol
[48:39] could be consumed on city property in
general. what what the council went with
[48:44] is just downtown. So the B3 and B4
zones, the the park line trail um and as
[48:50] you would uh suspect, most of the city
parking lots would be within those
[48:54] zones. So just um whether or not the
city would also potentially want to
[48:58] allow for alcohol uh on those city lots
as well. So I guess we could start off
[49:02] with the conversation there. happy to
answer any questions. But as it stands,
[49:06] um, as you look, you know, some of the
the city-owned properties, you've got
[49:10] lease properties up up here and city-
owned properties down here, city
[49:16] rideaways, but there's no mention of
city-owned parking lots. So, looking to
[49:20] get a little guidance on that and
whether council would support such an
[49:22] action.
>> Questions or comments? Mr. D, I
[49:27] » I just want to be super clear here. So,
um, what we're looking at specifically
[49:32] is should we and then how should we
incorporate city parking lots into the
[49:40] uh ability to reserve them for events on
the weekends.
[49:43] » Correct. Or potentially even longer than
weekends. Although, as we know, there is
[49:47] parking on those during the week. um you
know just you know another thing that
[49:52] came up about this time last year um you
know we had somebody that actually
[49:56] wanted to rent out a lot for a whole
month to do like a Christmas market or
[50:00] something along those lines. So
certainly I think there would be some
[50:03] struggles with that just giving the
parking the parking dynamics and where
[50:06] those those people that it permits uh
within those lots would go but at least
[50:10] thought that that would be something
that council could consider and discuss
[50:13] as we um as we go over this. So,
>> I I think it would be extremely helpful
[50:18] to f find out what the process is right
now for um reserving uh you know, public
[50:26] property for for an event. Um just for
the public's information, I know what it
[50:31] is and I I I have a little bit of a
problem with it, but I want to I want to
[50:34] hear what what it is today first.
>> Yeah.
[50:39] » So, you're just talking about park
rentals in general.
[50:41] » Let's say I want a a gazebo at Woodland
Park. Uh so if it's a private function,
[50:46] you just get online on the portal. You
you would need an account. Uh you go
[50:51] through the uh request portion uh enter
some information and then uh our team
[50:58] would review it and then you would be
submitted a um essentially a bill for
[51:05] what you're asking for. Once uh that is
paid in full, then you get a receipt
[51:09] showing that that you have that time,
that specific time.
[51:14] uh park or facility rented for that
those hours.
[51:17] » Okay. So, um one piece of information
there that we kind of didn't didn't hear
[51:22] about is if anybody wants to rent
uh the pavilion or a space. Um when is
[51:32] insurance required or when it is not?
When is it not? If uh when insurance is
[51:37] required is if it's an event uh if
you're inviting the public uh then we do
[51:41] require to have insurance. Um
so specifically that's when it's kicked
[51:48] in. But if you're if it's like a
birthday party, a family gathering, um
[51:53] something like that, no insurance is
required.
[51:56] » Okay. And just to put this into
perspective, I I know this because I
[51:59] tried to rent a pavilion in Woodland
Park to thank 12 of the duck ladies that
[52:05] helped me with a duck issue when we were
having it just to thank them. And um I
[52:10] had to get insurance for that because I
was inviting the public. And then when I
[52:14] went to get insurance, when I put down
the reason for my the party I was going
[52:19] to have or whatever, um they denied it
because it was politically related. Uh,
[52:23] so all politically related stuff, by the
way, right now it will just get denied.
[52:28] Um, so that that's just one little piece
of it. I understand it. It's if you're
[52:33] going to rent out a parking lot, so this
is where I'm kind of going with this.
[52:36] You're going to rent out a parking lot,
it's most likely going to be for enough
[52:40] people from the public that you will be
required to have insurance. I just
[52:44] wanted to make sure that everybody knew
that uh going into this. Um,
[52:51] and
I I think I actually think it's a great
[52:54] idea. I mean, the parking lot just sit
there with no cars in them on the
[52:58] weekends. It would be great. I would
love to have that Christmas thing.
[53:02] Actually sounds great.
I would encourage them to just do it on
[53:06] the weekends for a month instead of
through the weekdays. But it sounds like
[53:10] a great event. I would love to see that
downtown Callispell. Um, so I'm I'm
[53:15] excited about that. I think we should
incorporate it. Um what is is there
[53:19] anything different if you're having like
a block party or is it treated exactly
[53:24] the same because we have to block
streets and stuff for that.
[53:27] » So we're not really getting into that as
of now. That's kind of the next
[53:30] discussion. But in general a block party
we're it it's separate in the sense
[53:35] » we're going to get into it later.
>> Yeah. We'll get into I think this you
[53:38] know should kind of be its own
discussion and then that that subsequent
[53:42] » but yes insurance will be required
liability insurance 750,000 1.5 million
[53:48] aggregate
>> um and that that's common with every
[53:52] local governments and municipality
>> and it's not that expensive. It's just
[53:56] really disappointing when you can't
thank the duck ladies.
[53:58] » What does it cost?
>> Um it's super cheap. I don't know. It
[54:02] was maybe 30 to 70 bucks or something
like that. It wasn't It wasn't bad for
[54:08] that pavilion. If you're doing a bigger
event, probably more more cost. Um I I'm
[54:13] actually, you know, I'll let the other
council members have their go here, but
[54:17] uh after everything I've heard, I'm all
for it. I do think it should be weekends
[54:22] only just because it defeats the purpose
of the parking lot to block it off for
[54:26] people that have permits uh during the
week.
[54:30] » Mr. Fischer,
>> um I disagree on the Christmas thing.
[54:34] that could take away from a business
downtown that's paying taxes, higher
[54:38] taxes than ever. Um, they move in for a
month. I get the weekend thing, but a
[54:46] month competition for a downtown
business that could bring in anything if
[54:51] they rent that parking lot doesn't seem
fair to our downtown business owners.
[54:57] If they're taking away business from
that, just renting a parking lot.
[55:02] Furthermore, um, all for fees and
charges and insurance and bigger
[55:09] deposits.
Having dealt with this for 35 years, you
[55:14] could think the best group is renting
your park or your parking lot and they
[55:18] dump all their grease out or they leave
all their garbage and staff has to come
[55:24] in and deal with that at a huge expense
to every taxpayer, mom and pop, elderly,
[55:31] fixed income, they're then stuck for
that. So
[55:37] I I'm not for free. I want insurance.
Anybody I got people used to twist their
[55:44] ankle or pop their knee out on a little
um stake that stuck up by a sidewalk by
[55:50] the justice center. It was a DOT
property stake and would pay out $5,000
[55:56] just to settle the dang thing. So, I
want insurance. I want good insurance to
[56:01] protect the city, which is then
protecting the taxpayers. I want bigger
[56:06] deposits
because
[56:09] police andor parks, streets could deal
with the aftermath of a group that you
[56:15] would think would be the best in and
out, but they leave you a mess. So, this
[56:21] comes from personal experience where I'd
love to just say everything is free for
[56:26] everyone. Wouldn't that be cool? But
there's a cost and it takes time to deal
[56:31] with the aftermath. So, um I'm I'm for
renting them out
[56:38] with a good review that it doesn't
affect a business. Hopefully, it brings
[56:42] in more business. That's what these good
folks want. That's what I would want.
[56:46] That it it brings in more people to
frequent those who are now paying 20 30%
[56:51] higher taxes that I've learned. Um but
if we start taking away fees and we
[56:58] start taking away insurance for certain
groups, somebody's going to get hurt and
[57:03] then we pay which is the taxpayer
paying. So not for it. Um and bigger
[57:09] deposits are very interesting to me to
cover costs. Um if they're organizing,
[57:14] they can they go do the fundraising and
we're whole. Then the taxpayers are
[57:19] whole.
[57:24] So, I'm certainly in favor of of opening
up downtown parking lots. I just want to
[57:29] fully understand the process. So, let's
say we add the parking lots to this new
[57:34] policy. So, now we have like the uh uh
the valley bank lot um and downtown
[57:39] businesses decide to put together kind
of an artisans fair on a Saturday. So,
[57:45] they apply for the permit um online,
show that there's insurance, it gets
[57:53] that application gets sent to the parks
department, public works, fire
[57:56] department, police department, uh city
attorney's office in order to make
[58:00] comments on that.
>> Correct. So, they would just review the
[58:06] entire plan. Um so yes, they would
provide comments um whether it's traffic
[58:11] control, just general how the facility
is going to be used depending on the
[58:14] event, but yeah, they just do a a
precursor review of the entire thing to
[58:19] make sure that really all the concerns
have been accounted for as part of the
[58:22] application.
>> How long does that review usually take?
[58:26] » Yeah, less than a week.
>> Okay. Um and then what is the fee
[58:30] associated with my hypothetical?
So, it kind of depends on what it is,
[58:35] but you could see here a special event
fee is $100 if it's got traffic control
[58:40] associated with it, an additional $50,
solid waste fee of $100 per hour, and a
[58:46] refund refundable damage deposit, which
I think goes into kind of what Jed
[58:51] mentioned there of 200, but that's only
in regards to traffic control traffic
[58:55] control devices.
um you know in general we um an
[59:00] applicant whether it's a parade or for
an event can choose to use a third-party
[59:04] traffic control or use the city at which
point we would charge for that as well.
[59:08] » So recognizing most of our lots are
downtown um and you know adjacent to the
[59:13] highway for example um what what would
you envision the traffic control needing
[59:19] to be in place for my hypothetical
>> if it's just a city lot? Not much at
[59:23] all. I guess it would depend if they
wanted to close down any adjacent
[59:26] rideway. You know, one thing that comes
to mind would say when the Great Bear
[59:30] Festival was downtown, they would close
down um Center Street, you know, on the
[59:34] south side of the park. So, there's
quite a bit of traffic control with
[59:37] that. Um if it's just the city lot,
there probably wouldn't be much at all
[59:42] that that I could think of, you know,
unless there's a huge amount of people
[59:47] and things associated with it and just
the coming and going that we would want
[59:51] to account for. Um, and that's the same
with parks, you know, if if it's 10
[59:55] people versus 500 and just the the
parking facilities available in the area
[1:00:00] that we're going to have to consider.
Um, so I mean, it really will be kind of
[1:00:05] dependent on the event, but given it's
weekends and downtown where, you know,
[1:00:11] we're primarily office downtown, as you
know, after 5 and on on the weekends,
[1:00:15] parking is usually not an issue. So, I
don't foresee there being huge ones, but
[1:00:19] um you know, unless they're closing down
city streets and certainly or wanting to
[1:00:23] do something with the highway, which
would be even much more difficult, I
[1:00:26] wouldn't see a lot of traffic traffic
control associated with it.
[1:00:30] » So, is there an expectation of parking
availability for certain events based
[1:00:33] upon how many people are anticipated to
be there?
[1:00:36] » I think there's we would want to make
sure it's not going to have an impact on
[1:00:39] adjacent private properties to to the
extent we could. And for the solid waste
[1:00:44] fee, is that just is that calculated
after the fact? I mean, let's say this
[1:00:49] artisan event cleaned up everything and
there wasn't any need for solid waste to
[1:00:53] come in and and do the kind of, you
know, stuff that Jet's talking about. Is
[1:00:57] that is that mandatory or is that
predicated on how much time is actually?
[1:01:00] » I believe that's all worked out prior to
the event. So, that's a request by the
[1:01:04] host to have extra pickup or extra
containers. So, it's not an after
[1:01:09] the-act um charge. It's typically when
we've reviewed them, public works has
[1:01:14] reviewed their request and added the
fees that are associated to their work
[1:01:19] requests.
>> So, let's say they don't have a request
[1:01:22] for any sort of solid waste. Is there's
no fee associated with that then? I
[1:01:27] » I don't believe so, but I would defer to
public works to answer it.
[1:01:31] » And then what if they made a mess?
>> And that's
[1:01:34] » then that would be part of the um
>> part of the refundable deposit,
[1:01:38] » which we we don't always have. So,
>> but the refundable
[1:01:42] » Yeah. Didn't you just Yeah. Go ahead.
>> It was just you were saying just for
[1:01:45] traffic control devices
>> as it stands now.
[1:01:49] » Okay.
[1:01:53] [clears throat]
>> Okay. Thank you.
[1:01:57] » So, I'm still confused.
I guess my understanding the answer was
[1:02:01] that if there was a mess left behind
after a promise of not needing any solid
[1:02:06] waste assistance that the refundable
damage deposit would cover it. But we're
[1:02:11] saying we don't charge a refundable
damage deposit for solid waste at this
[1:02:16] time. So right now we would not have
that damage deposit for solid waste.
[1:02:21] » We wouldn't. The refundable damage
deposit is just for traffic control.
[1:02:25] » Okay.
So if somebody left a mess behind
[1:02:31] even though they indicated they clean
everything up on us.
[1:02:35] » Yes.
>> Okay.
[1:02:38] » It can be hours or can be countless
hours of staff if it's a true mess.
[1:02:46] » I guess since we're on the topic I do
want to just follow up on on the fee
[1:02:49] schedule. Um,
I know a number of years ago we we
[1:02:55] looked at the fee schedule and there was
some public comment concern about that
[1:03:00] around like vendor costs at an event.
Um, and I felt it was appropriate. It
[1:03:07] seemed reasonable the numbers
particularly,
[1:03:11] you know, I was thinking about vendors
that are um, you know, selling something
[1:03:17] and if they couldn't cover the cost that
I thought was fairly uh, nominal for the
[1:03:23] event, then the problem was really that
they're not doing good business at the
[1:03:27] event. And that's the problem with the
event, not our fees, right? Um, but I
[1:03:31] have been hearing that there are some
events that are not happening in our
[1:03:36] downtown. Um, because of the fees, uh,
even some public comment about
[1:03:42] nonprofits, nonprofit events, and I
certainly recognize that there is a
[1:03:46] difference with nonprofits in terms of
what's being able to be be able to
[1:03:49] afford because I work for a nonprofit
and [snorts] not having events where you
[1:03:55] generate revenue. You don't have any
revenue from a nonprofit event
[1:03:58] generally. Um, It's just educational.
It's, you know, outreach, that sort of
[1:04:02] thing. So, uh, it's all expense, no
revenue. Um, I'm wondering
[1:04:09] how do our fee because events
and nonprofit events and stuff downtown
[1:04:17] are so important for the vitality of a
downtown um, and the vitality of a
[1:04:24] community. And so, I think it is
important to get it right. Um, and so
[1:04:28] I'm just wondering
out of concern that we are missing out
[1:04:32] potentially of events downtown due to
fees, how do our fees compare to other
[1:04:38] communities? Uh, have we done that? And
that may have been that discussion
[1:04:42] several years ago and I don't recall,
but um, how how do they compare to other
[1:04:47] communities in terms of our fees?
>> So, to answer your first question,
[1:04:50] vending permits, uh, there's uh, two
fees for vending permits. one is a $100
[1:04:55] $100 for a year an annual permit and the
other one's a $25 permit for a three
[1:05:00] consecutive day event. So, uh when we
had that discussion, you know, basically
[1:05:05] we're just trying to cover the
management of those um permits and the
[1:05:11] reason being is an annual permit allows
somebody to pay it up front. However,
[1:05:16] they need to call and request new
locations as the year goes on. So there
[1:05:20] may be times uh they want to be part of
an event out at kids sports or um be
[1:05:27] somewhere downtown. So we we do monitor
that make sure they're appropriate
[1:05:31] locations and there's no other conflicts
and to have that conversation about you
[1:05:35] also have to follow all parking
ordinances. The 3-day permit is for
[1:05:40] vendors that want to go to a festival
like the artisan craftsman. Uh their
[1:05:44] vendors all pay well not all but
majority that are not from here pay that
[1:05:48] $25 permit. but it gives them um gives
them that opportunity to vend on public
[1:05:54] property. So, those are the two vending
permits. As far as park fees, um our
[1:05:59] park fees, I would say um are probably a
little more than average uh as far as
[1:06:08] communities around us whether or in the
state. However, you also have to look at
[1:06:12] our funding model. the um I think in the
past people have brought up uh other
[1:06:16] communities including Whitefish who has
resort tax dollars that help fund their
[1:06:20] department. Boseman also has um uh an
impact or not an impact tax but a um
[1:06:28] parks maintenance district. Billings has
a park maintenance district. Missoula
[1:06:32] also I think I already said Missoula but
they also have funding that comes in to
[1:06:37] help offset that. So our fees while not
directly comparable also offset um some
[1:06:43] of the revenue that we are asked to
bring into the department. So adjusting
[1:06:48] those rates also will have effect on um
our budget moving forward on how we
[1:06:55] manage um our requests
in 2025. We did bring the fees to
[1:07:01] council and during that request um for
updating the fees. We what we did is we
[1:07:09] were looking to streamline the online
portal. Uh so you could do some of the
[1:07:12] reservations online to kind of take some
of the management out of our staff, make
[1:07:17] it a little more appropriate. However,
it was talked about that when you get
[1:07:22] into the bigger groups, we also still
need to have conversations um about
[1:07:26] what's going on because sometimes those
do kick into other things, having
[1:07:31] insurance, having discussions about
inflatables in the park, having uh
[1:07:36] conversations depending on the facility
and the number of people. Sometimes we
[1:07:39] have to have a conversation of how you
intend to people to attend it. Um
[1:07:44] Lawrence Park is a prime example.
there's not much parking down there and
[1:07:47] when you have a large event, it's still
open to the public and you may be using
[1:07:51] a portion, but how do we make that use
go back and forth? A lot of times people
[1:07:56] in that situation are obviously know uh
the difficulties and have a plan. We
[1:08:00] just want to have it on paper to know
that they they're aware of it so that um
[1:08:05] when their event happens that uh they
have a means to um let their their
[1:08:11] attendees know. Um but most of our um
our fee schedule it's was adopted uh
[1:08:18] well before I started with parks and
recreation and over the years it's two
[1:08:24] to three every two to three years
there's been a nominal increase due to
[1:08:28] inflation and that's how we've
approached it. Uh we're not um we're not
[1:08:33] looking to uh recoup all the costs
associated to a rental. Um we don't uh
[1:08:39] charge like um Councilman Fischer says
we do not charge
[1:08:44] um
uh our fees are just circled around the
[1:08:49] reservation. Um we don't have a deposit
on these facilities. So sometimes we do
[1:08:54] have events that you know um there's an
impact to the park when you start
[1:08:58] looking at hundreds of people coming to
the park whether it's the trash, the
[1:09:02] bathrooms, the turf, the facility
they're in. So there's always an impact.
[1:09:07] It doesn't matter if they're nonprofit,
for-profit, making money, not making
[1:09:11] money, the impact is still there. And so
that's what we're tr
[1:09:16] with our fees is is making sure that one
that they're fair across the board. not
[1:09:21] picking losers, winners and losers with
these fees, but actually addressing the
[1:09:25] concerns of that event and making sure
that we we have the park or the ability
[1:09:30] to put the park into 100% if we need to
if that event um as as we see the uses
[1:09:38] of the park be affected by the number of
people attending those um events.
[1:09:45] So,
I appreciate that. And that just so I I
[1:09:50] don't know if I'm missing something or
the when we talk about the fee we were
[1:09:55] just talking about for like a parking
lot, I'm looking at like $150 maybe if
[1:10:00] you don't include the traffic barricade,
you know, question, which would be a
[1:10:04] much bigger event.
um
[1:10:08] that that's you have a $100 event fee,
$50 review fee. Um and then if somebody
[1:10:16] says we'll take care of the trash and
you're not closing any streets, it's
[1:10:21] $150. That seems reasonable to me um and
doable for even a nonprofit.
[1:10:28] Um, and then if it's kind of like a
vendor fee, it's
[1:10:34] $25 for the vendor potentially or $100
for the year, but you know, at most
[1:10:43] you're not talking about more than about
$100 for for the vendor. Now, if you
[1:10:47] have an event with a bunch of vendors, I
understand if like the event organizer
[1:10:52] is trying to cover the cost for all the
vendors and you have a lot of vendors,
[1:10:55] that can add up. But if the fee is only
$25 a day or whatever for the vendor,
[1:11:02] that seems like a reasonable ask to ask
of your vendors. I don't Am I missing
[1:11:06] some cost there
that is causing folks to not have events
[1:11:12] in our downtown? I don't
>> understand. I I think I think what
[1:11:16] you're you've got you're comparing two
different things here. Uh so the request
[1:11:20] to in front of you tonight is is uh
public lots
[1:11:24] » which is different than parks and
facilities. So um I I think council has
[1:11:31] the opportunity to look at you know
potentially renting these parking lots
[1:11:35] out but there's no amenities to the
park. It's asphalt and concrete. There's
[1:11:39] not much to do. Yes, there's going to be
cleanup, potentially cleanup, um, which
[1:11:44] is a lot different than turf and
bathrooms and, you know, the
[1:11:48] infrastructure of a park. So, I think
when when you're looking at that, it
[1:11:53] seems reasonable. When you start looking
at our park reservation fees and you
[1:11:57] look for uh a six-hour block for a
special event, you're adding insurance,
[1:12:02] um, you're looking at, you know, closer,
depending if you're in city or out of
[1:12:07] city, you're looking closer to $500. But
again, our our pricing structure is
[1:12:13] based on the number of hours and the
number of participants and the day of
[1:12:18] the week because there when we started
the our fee process, what we learned is
[1:12:23] that, you know, there was a premium to
pay for the weekends. Some people uh
[1:12:27] some people take advantage of that. For
us, it it seemed to make sense because
[1:12:32] we were getting crowded on the weekends
and we wanted to disperse some
[1:12:35] throughout the week. Um, but that was
done years ago. Um
[1:12:40] and then on the weekends and then those
larger events there um that's when it
[1:12:45] hits that special event in our uh review
process. So it's different than this
[1:12:50] special event. It's the special event
here. So I think what you've heard from
[1:12:55] the public and I don't want to speak for
the public but I think that they've they
[1:12:59] feel like that the the fee is
uh more than they may uh pay in another
[1:13:05] community. But the other the flip side
of it for us is we're not we don't have
[1:13:09] the tax resort or the park maintenance
district or anything like that that
[1:13:13] offsets the use in those parks. We're
actually applying it to the use of the
[1:13:18] park. So when there's that heavy use,
they're paying to use the park versus
[1:13:22] having a district that that or a resort
fee that pays back into it.
[1:13:29] So,
if I'm a nonprofit and I want to host an
[1:13:34] event and and I apologize, I know we're
getting off, you know, the lot thing,
[1:13:39] but it's related to events and and stuff
with the fees. They're they're very um I
[1:13:45] think it's relevant. But um if I'm a
nonprofit and I'm wanting to organize an
[1:13:50] event at Depot Park and it's going to be
several hours on a Saturday, um I hope a
[1:13:57] lot of people show up. I hope I get
hundreds of people show up, but I might
[1:14:01] get 50, right? I have no idea. I don't
know how, you know, effective my
[1:14:06] advertising is going to be and whatnot.
If I put down 50 and get a lower fee and
[1:14:11] 300 show up, um,
you know, and have a bigger impact,
[1:14:18] do do we do we go back and say, "Hey,
you it wasn't 50, you know, you had a
[1:14:24] bigger impact here, you owe us or what
happens in that scenario?"
[1:14:29] » No, because again, we're taking your
best guess. Usually, it's uh what your
[1:14:34] scenario is a first time event. you're
you're hoping that a lot of people come
[1:14:38] to your event. You want to get the word
out and and so you're you anticipate
[1:14:44] you're pretty sure at 50 people. So
that's the reservation. Um
[1:14:49] it does happen um with newer events.
They'll be like, "Oo, um you know, we
[1:14:54] had way more people attend." Great,
lessons learned. Next year, just up your
[1:14:59] count. Um, I think in all the years that
we've done it, we've had one person feel
[1:15:04] bad enough they wrote a check to cover
it and we were like, "No, that's not
[1:15:07] necessary because we understand you
don't you can't validate like the number
[1:15:13] of people on a first year event." Uh, we
did that with the Great Bear Festival. I
[1:15:18] mean, they they anticipated um a number,
surpassed it, which was great. And then
[1:15:24] the next year we just went with a a
higher number, their best guess, which
[1:15:28] actually just triggered it into the last
tier in the f uh in our matrix. Anyway,
[1:15:34] um but again, it's you know, it's it's
something that you work through. We
[1:15:38] don't uh go back to the the group and
say, "Ah, you you did this, you know,
[1:15:44] you estimated low. How dare you?" We you
know, we understand that it's best guess
[1:15:50] scenario for a new event.
So the these fees in general the
[1:15:55] question would be if the council would
support even a rental fee right now all
[1:16:01] these fe fees do is not even pay for all
the staff time that go to one of these
[1:16:06] events. So a special event permit this
is essentially city staff the
[1:16:12] preparation of the application of all
that. It's just an application fee
[1:16:15] associated with doing it. It could be
that right now a special event permit if
[1:16:20] you're renting or using the rideway.
There's no rental fee for the rideway
[1:16:24] per se, but um given it's a city
property like a park, the council would
[1:16:29] have the ability to actually rent it as
well. Or do you just want to cover the
[1:16:33] cost of the fee in the application? And
that's kind of the question that we
[1:16:37] would have have here as well.
>> I think just to finish my thought on I
[1:16:42] to answer that question. Um, you know,
because I think about events in downtown
[1:16:49] in terms of that vibrancy of our
downtown and stuff, and I think if you
[1:16:53] go to communities that really um do well
with this, they're having events where
[1:17:00] it's kind of eclectic, you know, it's
somebody had a hairbrain idea and they
[1:17:05] decided throw a party and then it turned
into a thing, you know, and we don't
[1:17:08] want to stifle that creativity and that
kind of maybe unorg organized at first
[1:17:16] um person who's just wants to throw a
party and stuff and I think you know the
[1:17:22] fees like this 150 bucks I think anybody
you know who has an idea and they want
[1:17:26] to pursue it is going to be willing to
find that money and and put it for for a
[1:17:31] fee I think when we start talking about
500 bucks 700 bucks then that's more
[1:17:36] stifling but it sounds like that's for
events that are really big that are you
[1:17:42] already know you're going to have, you
know, a lot of people showing up and and
[1:17:46] it's more of a success. Um, so it would
I would think it'd be organizations that
[1:17:53] have the organizational capacity to
cover a fee like that. Um, and it's
[1:17:58] event worth doing that you put it
toward. So I
[1:18:05] sometimes I definitely think there
should be some fee, but uh for keeping
[1:18:09] 150 or so. Okay. Uh, Councilman
Waterman.
[1:18:23] Sorry about that. Um, thank you, your
honor. Sorry not to be in present. Um,
[1:18:28] really just wanted to voice my support
for including the parking lots in this
[1:18:33] conversation. I know that or what was
originally proposed by
[1:18:38] uh forward downtown in the chamber was
that because this conversation was about
[1:18:42] the parking lot on third in Maine um
that we include that I'm glad that we
[1:18:46] are expanding that to include other
parking lots and my observation I've
[1:18:50] been that there was parking lot at park
the stalls that are off of um the road
[1:18:57] next to that so support where we're
going with this the concern which I've
[1:19:02] heard from downtown Association other
people has been that um when you have
[1:19:08] vendors in meet an event and I guess I'm
just asking a clarification for what
[1:19:12] Chad is saying. So if an event has
vendors
[1:19:18] the individual vendors at that event
also then owe the $25 or the $100 fee.
[1:19:24] Is that correct?
>> Correct.
[1:19:28] So
that's that's where [snorts] I've heard
[1:19:32] concern again like if there was like a
Thursday fest and they brought in
[1:19:36] vendors was that compounding effect of
just bringing other people in but again
[1:19:41] the fees seem reasonable but I'm not
sure if that's being communicated as
[1:19:44] well because
is so if a nonprofit tables at an event
[1:19:51] like Thursday Fest are they vending
[1:19:58] they are treated as a vendor.
>> Okay. So any other sub attendee to an
[1:20:05] event is then also charge that vendor
fee.
[1:20:10] So I think that that's sometimes right
here a concern because um an overriding
[1:20:15] organization isn't able to organize
something they then have to get into
[1:20:20] that the smaller events. I know that
that was one of the concerns that I've
[1:20:24] heard about the idea with the um the
Christmas mark, but again, maybe that's
[1:20:29] just a communication issue of what that
[snorts] becomes because again, if you
[1:20:33] had like 10 vendors or nonprofits,
you go from having a $150 fee to an
[1:20:41] additional $250.
So, um
[1:20:47] but again, maybe that's a communication
issue that we need to make sure that
[1:20:51] um events are aware of that concern, but
overall I really appreciate where we're
[1:20:57] going with the parking lot conversation.
>> Mr. Fischer,
[1:21:01] » thank you. Um
[1:21:05] good deposits, good rules. Mark Hensley
is a friend of mine. He rented out his
[1:21:10] parking lot a couple few years ago. I
think that was my second year on
[1:21:13] council.
And like what happened to me with my
[1:21:17] deal in Volunteer Park, a brand new
million dollar park. They came in and
[1:21:22] they put up tents and they staked
through his parking lot to where he had
[1:21:26] to then resurface and then I think the
city got on him about the parking lot
[1:21:30] and having to do something too from his
words if I remember right four years
[1:21:34] ago. So it became quite a cost when you
don't get that on the per permit. Chad
[1:21:39] doesn't see it or city manager doesn't
see it and somebody oh just forgets
[1:21:43] they're putting up a tent and they stake
it down in and then he didn't have any
[1:21:48] repelling for water. It began uping the
parking lot. You can check it out with
[1:21:52] Mark Enley yourself. And then I go back
to Volunteer Park with my scenario. And
[1:21:57] here I'm really lobbying. I'm not trying
to shut this down. The businesses like
[1:22:01] it, downtown likes it, they're the one
paying the big bucks for taxes that it
[1:22:05] doesn't compete and the deposit is
adequate to cover anything. And in and
[1:22:11] Lakeside, brand new irrigation, brand
new parking lot, brand new everything.
[1:22:14] It was supposed to be a church group
with 50, 75 people. I charged 125 or
[1:22:19] whatever the heck it was. They didn't
they were supposed to use the pavilion.
[1:22:24] They decided to put up tents because
more people showed up as you say, your
[1:22:27] honor. became a big thing because it was
we leave it open to the public and if
[1:22:32] people want to come check it out even
beyond their group. So how do you decide
[1:22:35] costs on this stuff because people can
still utilize a public park. So all of a
[1:22:40] sudden we have irrigation system messed
up and then they broke into the um
[1:22:45] irrigation box and tore out the wires
because the irrigation kicked on because
[1:22:49] they stayed so late. So I end up with I
think it was a $4500
[1:22:55] bill from this scenario trying to help a
group that can turn into so much more.
[1:23:00] So there again I'm lobbying for a
substantial deposit and that insurance
[1:23:05] to cover those things that could go
wrong to again make the city whole. I
[1:23:10] understand even with the parade um there
was no traffic control put in place.
[1:23:16] they didn't get it in the paperwork and
even though we had four or five staff
[1:23:19] members review it and their $25 that
they get, there was no traffic control.
[1:23:25] Um, so the city, we had to pull staff
off of other duties with all this
[1:23:31] construction and everything going on to
go in and and provide that because
[1:23:35] obviously it's our requirement. It's
safety. It's and [clears throat]
[1:23:40] nobody picked up that. the taxpayer, mom
and pop, grandma and grandpa, they're
[1:23:44] paying for that on a fixed income. That
the the deposit, no matter how well
[1:23:50] intended, has to be high. And I I get
what people are saying. I I' I've read
[1:23:55] your letters and wanting certain groups
to have nothing. And I get nonprofits,
[1:23:59] but big insurance and big deposits to
cover what you would never believe would
[1:24:06] go wrong that can
[1:24:12] So, u I'm gonna unfortunately disagree
with my ward mate here a little bit. Um
[1:24:18] I I I think that you know and this is a
great question for the downtown business
[1:24:23] uh you know businesses to answer, but I
think that um having a lot of people
[1:24:29] come down there for an event is
something that they would look forward
[1:24:32] to uh even if it's a direct competitor
because hey, I'm down there. I maybe I
[1:24:40] see this shop and I'm going to come back
later and hit that hit up that shop or
[1:24:44] I'm here for the ice cream, but I see
that there's an ice cream place across
[1:24:47] the street I've never tried. So, I'm
going to come back later and try that
[1:24:50] ice cream place. So, I I think they want
that that kind of healthy, you know, uh
[1:24:55] people visible down there. And, you
know, I'll ask you what what is what
[1:24:59] makes a park successful?
It's really only one thing. if it's
[1:25:05] used. Okay, you have the most beautiful
park out there that you paid a lot of
[1:25:09] money for, but no, if nobody ever uses
it, it's useless. Um I I bring that back
[1:25:14] to the parking lots. What makes a
successful parking lot, a city-owned
[1:25:17] parking lot if if it's used, right? Um
this is a great use of the parking lots
[1:25:22] on the weekend. Um, I think that for any
any event that has the
[1:25:29] chance of making uh big mistakes and
having big costs associated with it,
[1:25:35] they have to get insurance anyway to to
use that. That insurance should cover
[1:25:39] that, right? And Jed's shaking his head.
Maybe I don't know. I I'm not a park
[1:25:44] specialist, but uh I would think that's
one of the reasons you get insurance for
[1:25:47] is to cover things like that. Um,
so I'm not a big fan of raising the
[1:25:52] fees. Um, I I know that an event,
especially a big event that happens, we
[1:25:58] actually it costs more for us to have
them hold that event than it than the
[1:26:03] event um pays in fees. So, we're running
at a loss. But once again, if you have a
[1:26:10] very a successful park, successful uh
events at uh uh parking lots downtown,
[1:26:17] um it'll pay for itself in the economy,
right? So anyway, um that that's just my
[1:26:23] two cents. I I wanted to I know we're
kind of I don't [clears throat] think
[1:26:27] you expected this to take as long as
it's taking. Uh but I'm fully in favor
[1:26:32] of incorporating parking lots into into
this plan.
[1:26:37] Blank,
>> I'm going to be with my council member,
[1:26:42] uh, Mr. Fischer on this. It cost $100
just to run a a gym at the Calispel
[1:26:48] School District for for for volleyball
practice. So, I just want in terms of
[1:26:52] when we're thinking about comparing the
use of areas and we could also look at
[1:26:57] what costs are in the city itself and
also coming from W 2, there's so many
[1:27:02] fixed incomes and what I keep hearing
from them is I can't make it. I can't
[1:27:05] fix my roof. I can't do this. So, I'm
I'm really conscious of
[1:27:11] the statement that the businesses will
make economic development. Yeah, but the
[1:27:15] the fixed income folks are still going
to have to pay their taxes. So, I I
[1:27:19] think for me it's a balance. I support
using the parking lots. That makes good
[1:27:23] sense to me. I also support because I I
have also been in situations as Mr.
[1:27:30] Fischer has people need to go to the
bathroom. Where are they going to go to
[1:27:32] the bathroom if there are no bathrooms?
They're going to go everywhere they can.
[1:27:36] People always generate trash whether
they think they will or not. And the
[1:27:40] time of your staff, you're already short
staffed. You're already And then the
[1:27:44] moment we have to ask for more, that's
time and a half. That's a lot more
[1:27:47] money. And again, it comes back to who
manages that, the taxpayer does. And we
[1:27:52] have a prepundonderance of seniors
living in this community. So I think
[1:27:57] particularly in my word, so I just want
to make sure I'm fiscally responsible to
[1:28:01] those folks. Um, and so I would say you
need a deposit to cover what could
[1:28:07] happen and to cover the city.
And I would argue that that's consistent
[1:28:14] with a lot of places in this town. We
just don't know about it.
[1:28:26] » Yeah. Um,
a lot of good points brought up. I I
[1:28:30] certainly in favor of incorporating the
city lots into the the permitting
[1:28:35] process. I
I don't like the idea of the city just
[1:28:39] eating all the costs of damages that are
inflicted. I I'd like to see the city
[1:28:45] made whole if there is egregious
damages, whether that's through
[1:28:48] insurance or or however that's done. But
I I don't want to see us excluding
[1:28:55] people or having unreasonably high uh
deposits as well too.
[1:28:59] How big a problem is this? Have we had a
lot of damages like
[1:29:04] outright damage as a you know irrigation
systems as opposed to just the
[1:29:09] consequences of a hundred people you
know trampling down the the earth or
[1:29:13] normal wear and tear like that?
>> We've had several incidences where we've
[1:29:17] had so much damage that it's in the
thousands of dollars like Councilman
[1:29:21] Fischer said. Um mostly it's irrigation
damage. Um, we've had issues where
[1:29:26] people drove stakes through our
irrigation main lines, then it bubbles
[1:29:30] that bubbles water out. Then all of a
sudden it's flooded and you got a
[1:29:34] concentration of people. So then it
becomes this quagmire of stuff and then
[1:29:38] they try to fix it and then you have to
undo all that on Monday trying to figure
[1:29:42] out how to go to the next step. Um, we
no longer allow tent uh tents to be
[1:29:47] staked in our parks because of it. We we
used to try to go out and make a good
[1:29:51] faith effort of locating lines but it's
very difficult and it's timeconuming so
[1:29:56] instead we always tell them they have to
bring some kind of above ground ballast
[1:29:59] with them uh seems to offset but it does
create another issue where's that
[1:30:04] ballast come from I think most of the
vendors like artisan craftsman have
[1:30:08] figured it out um but again there are
some big events that do want bigger
[1:30:13] tents uh and the vendors that that uh
rent tents now know that if they're in a
[1:30:19] city park, they do have to have some
kind of other ballast system.
[1:30:22] » So, have we been able to use insurance
to re to recover any of those costs?
[1:30:26] Have we filed insurance claims?
>> We have not filed insurance claims?
[1:30:30] » No.
>> Okay.
[1:30:33] » There's a lot of city staff time that
even goes into then filing a claim. So,
[1:30:37] you're balancing that. I was recently
Councilman Fiser mentioned it doesn't
[1:30:43] always have to be damage. It can just be
staff time. You know, essentially the
[1:30:46] city of Calisville did all the traffic
control for the fourth of or sorry, for
[1:30:50] the fair parade. You know, that was
missed during it. The, you know, the
[1:30:55] individual had lined up traffic control
for it come the morning. It didn't show
[1:31:00] up, but the events happening, so we had
to do it. That's at least six public
[1:31:05] works staff for four or five hours for
that morning to take it up and then take
[1:31:09] it down as well. So, that that was born
by the city.
[1:31:14] And what job would they remiss on doing
that day?
[1:31:19] » Public works duties, street maintenance,
etc. for for the morning. For sure. So,
[1:31:27] » Oh, hi, Miss Gabriel.
>> Thank you, your honor. Uh, sorry, I had
[1:31:34] to jump in late. I had a a work thing
run late. Um, I am for incorporating
[1:31:41] parking lots into that that structure. I
think that's a a great use um on the
[1:31:48] weekends. I do think it'd be too hard to
figure it out during the week um as we
[1:31:53] would be displacing
some of the the folks who have permits
[1:31:57] in those those lots. So, I like that
idea. Um, also wanted to add some
[1:32:03] insight as I've been a nonprofit um,
director for a decade of a nonprofit
[1:32:11] that had um, an event downtown and with
that came a parade and a whole bunch of
[1:32:19] folks who wanted to, you know, show off
their their cars and um, part of our
[1:32:26] nonprofit partnered with KPD. So, we had
the advantage of working with KPD and
[1:32:33] knowing all that went into that. So, um
I want to make sure everybody
[1:32:38] understands how much was involved for
the police department on that. And then
[1:32:43] we generated a ton of trash because we
had food vendors and we always tried to
[1:32:49] pick our trash up, but I'm sure we
missed some. And I've been a part of
[1:32:53] another event um in Depot Park that I
know Mr. Waterman's been a part of, too.
[1:32:59] And I think that group has been very
very good about trying to make sure that
[1:33:04] we we don't leave a a huge footprint
behind. But I also know that there have
[1:33:10] been groups that have driven on the lawn
and you know probably broken Chad's
[1:33:15] irrigation system and it's stuff people
don't think about when there's not a
[1:33:21] city person there to be policing it the
whole time. So, I think my whole point
[1:33:27] in all that is I do think that a
significant deposit is necessary. I
[1:33:33] don't think the city should ever have to
be the one that is having to fix all
[1:33:38] those things.
And the other thing I wanted to mention
[1:33:42] um particularly to something the mayor
was saying earlier,
[1:33:47] we were doing our event as a fundraiser.
Rotary does their great bear fest as a
[1:33:53] fundraiser. So those nonprofits are
generating revenue. Um so while I I
[1:34:01] sympathized with the woman who subject
or sent in the public comment about not
[1:34:06] having you know the funds to pay for
something
[1:34:10] um in those events where they're
fundraisers, perhaps that needs to be a
[1:34:15] different fee structure if we want to
have that conversation later on. But
[1:34:20] anyway, I just wanted to jump in and
state that. and um appreciate the great
[1:34:25] discussion.
[1:34:29] » Mr. Leidge,
>> thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh
[1:34:34] the one thing I think I've been
consistent about while I've been up here
[1:34:37] is that I am a huge advocate for the
vibrancy of downtown. Um and downtown is
[1:34:45] not always very vibrant. Um, so taking
any opportunity in order to increase
[1:34:51] foot traffic uh into our downtown, our
downtown businesses, um, whatever that
[1:34:57] may be, I'm all for it. And I think we
need to create as many incentives as we
[1:35:02] can in order to facilitate that. Um, so
very specifically, I'm going to be
[1:35:06] talking about the downtown parking lots,
which is really the item that's on topic
[1:35:11] right now. Um, so I would propose it to
be free. I would wave the vendor
[1:35:17] permits. Um, and I would also uh include
uh a pretty significant deposit. Um, I
[1:35:24] think that those are uh I think that's a
a relatively good compromise. I don't
[1:35:29] entirely know what kind of damage you
can do in one of our parking lots
[1:35:32] downtown. In fact, some of the parking
lots need a little bit of damage to look
[1:35:36] better. Um, but regardless, um, if
that's an issue, uh, that's great. The
[1:35:41] organizer, if they need portaotties,
they should be, uh, facilitating those.
[1:35:45] um if they need other things and they
build up to the event, those things can
[1:35:48] be worked out in that process. But I in
my estimation, as much as we can
[1:35:53] incentivize,
organizations,
[1:35:57] businesses, homemade vendors to not be
up at FBC, all due respect to the
[1:36:02] farmers market, um I want to see,
>> right, but you know, Frosty the Brew
[1:36:08] Fest, for example, Valley Bank doesn't
charge for their lot, right? Um uh but
[1:36:12] you know they they the organizers
facilitate all of that uh all of the
[1:36:16] logistics for that. So anyway, my point
is let's utilize our downtown and our
[1:36:21] open spaces on the weekends in
particular uh for events to draw more
[1:36:25] people.
>> There's a question on that. If we had an
[1:36:30] event that was larger utilizing more
than one parking lot, but it's one
[1:36:36] event, would it be hundred $100 plus $50
review for the event or would it be $150
[1:36:44] per parking lot?
>> I would read it as an event.
[1:36:50] » And just to be clear, when we're talking
about the $100 for the special event
[1:36:53] fee, it says includes traffic control
plan review fee. So, is it $100 or $150?
[1:37:05] And another way, when does the traffic
control plan review fee attach outside
[1:37:09] of the special event fee?
[1:37:16] I think you have two different fees
there. A parade uh traffic control is a
[1:37:22] lot different than a traffic control
plan for downtown, I think. And and I
[1:37:27] would defer to Susie on that one.
>> Yeah. The first one would be parade. And
[1:37:33] I I I believe this is how it's been
implemented. So like Frosty the Brew
[1:37:36] Fest not being a parade, it would be the
$50 whereas the parade
[1:37:41] special event would be the hundred.
That's how I believe we've been doing
[1:37:45] it. Um is that right?
>> It's the city attorney's office that
[1:37:50] manages it, but um I believe it'd be
actually the other way around the if it
[1:37:54] needs a traffic control
plan review, then it would be an
[1:37:59] additional fee. Um,
[1:38:04] » but I think
>> yeah, the $100 includes both, but
[1:38:10] » for an event that's not likely to cause,
you know, not not a big traffic related
[1:38:16] » event would be.
>> So, again, going back to my
[1:38:18] hypothetical, the makers
event,
[1:38:23] it would be a $100
or $150.
[1:38:29] » 100.
[1:38:33] » It would be a hundred dollars the way I
read it because it's a special event and
[1:38:38] not a you're as long as you don't have
any traffic control like you're not
[1:38:42] blocking off a roadway.
>> Yeah,
[1:38:44] » I think that's when you
that [snorts]
[1:38:47] other $50 would be. But again, I would
see it as a special event fee as as
[1:38:52] being $100 according to the way it's
written out.
[1:38:55] » That's how I read it, too. I just wanted
to make sure we're all on the same page.
[1:39:03] » I'm I'm just going to try to get us on
track. Hopefully, um we I I don't think
[1:39:08] we were here to discuss a fee schedule
for the events. Um, I we had about five
[1:39:14] minutes of comments that I think
everybody that's here on council tonight
[1:39:19] was supportive of adding the parking
lots to the event list for the weekends.
[1:39:23] Um, that do we want to continue
discussion on fees or do we want to have
[1:39:27] a whole separate, you know, have have
Chad do some research recommendations
[1:39:32] and then have a work session on that
specifically?
[1:39:38] I'm I'm not in favor if we don't have a
fee structure and in place myself.
[1:39:43] » Yeah. What what I'm hearing from council
is there's support for the city owned
[1:39:46] lots and using them for alternative
purposes on weekends um with an
[1:39:53] increased security deposit and certainly
the fee schedule. We likely would not
[1:39:59] propose changing as it is and council at
the time um we were to propose any
[1:40:05] resolution could certainly look at
making alternatives. But I do at least
[1:40:09] hear support for at least an alternative
look at the deposit that would be
[1:40:14] associated with an event without
touching the fees per se of of what we
[1:40:20] would charge to do it.
[1:40:26] So just question on the
parking lots. So weekends. Yes. Um
[1:40:34] evening. So
generally the parking is used weekdays
[1:40:39] kind of the work day. Does it make sense
after 6 pm? I'm just thinking of say
[1:40:45] there's a business adjacent to the
parking lot. They want to celebrate
[1:40:49] their 25th year anniversary opening. and
they hire a band, uh, invite, you know,
[1:40:55] the public to come celebrate with them
and it's going to be a Wednesday night
[1:40:58] after, you know, at 6:30 for two hours,
um, that they could do in our Would that
[1:41:05] be disruptive to I I don't disgree. It
certainly adds some complexity to it. I
[1:41:10] think that's what's even made some of
the other events more challenging like
[1:41:14] Great Bar and such is because they have
even though the event was Saturday
[1:41:19] Sunday, they wanted to set up Friday to
be right ready for Saturday. So then
[1:41:22] they're actually having to rent for
longer. So that has created so it it
[1:41:27] likely depends on the timing. Um because
even if it's just Saturday, they're more
[1:41:33] than likely going to want to try and set
up on Friday. But if they're going to
[1:41:37] try and be active Friday, they're going
to want to be setting up pretty early on
[1:41:41] Friday, which would likely disrupt some
parking. So, I it probably would depend
[1:41:46] on the type the type of event.
>> I mean, I just don't want to be too
[1:41:49] strict on it because I see plenty of
people that would want to do it, you
[1:41:53] know, I see scenarios where an evening
on a weekday and again, if as long as
[1:41:59] those parking lots are largely empty by
time, you know, everybody's off work and
[1:42:03] going home, I don't see a problem with
it. I'd, you know, leave it to staff
[1:42:08] kind of administrative review, but I'd
leave it open to being able to do it
[1:42:12] after 6 PM on a weekday.
>> True. But remember, we then have to make
[1:42:18] sure we're notifying people in that
parking lot well before that. So, a lot
[1:42:22] of staff time goes into that to make
sure they're out of the lot. And then we
[1:42:26] would need parking enforcement in order
to go facilitate someone if they haven't
[1:42:30] moved. So, like I said, it's possible,
but there is and and I understand the
[1:42:35] idea of being able to do Friday nights
and most [clears throat] of the time,
[1:42:39] Friday at six o'clock, the parking lot's
empty, but in order to start something
[1:42:45] early on a Friday, it does start a lot
earlier than that.
[1:42:48] » Yeah. And we just that wouldn't be that
wouldn't be permitted. I mean, if it's
[1:42:51] if they want to get in there before
6:30, they can't do it, you know. Um,
[1:42:55] but and if we have to add a fee that for
weekday for kind of the the parking lot,
[1:43:02] you know, noticing uh and parking
enforcement, I think that'd be fine. You
[1:43:08] know, whatever that fee would be to add
to it, but I just think allow as many
[1:43:13] options as possible for events. Would it
make sense to try for a set amount of
[1:43:19] time to do weekends, get ourselves
figured out, sorted out first before we
[1:43:22] take it all on one [clears throat] step
at a time?
[1:43:26] We haven't done this before, so it seems
to me to make sense. We don't have a
[1:43:31] clear structure. And I can think of if
I'm paying on a week night for a permit
[1:43:36] and and there's trash in my parking
space and the next morning because I
[1:43:39] can't get in because you didn't clean it
up. I mean, I just think there's there
[1:43:42] are complications there that we're we we
will run into that it would be helpful
[1:43:46] to try the weekends, get that sorted
out, figure it out, and then see what
[1:43:50] what's next.
>> I'm good with that. I mean, we're not
[1:43:55] doing it now. We'll see if it works.
>> If it uh if it doesn't work, I'm sure
[1:43:59] that we'll hear from these good folks
about why it's not working and what
[1:44:02] would work better for downtown
businesses. Um, and we can uh revise
[1:44:07] that, but might as well start with
complete prohibition to uh to to trying
[1:44:12] something new.
[1:44:16] » We can move on.
>> Oh, councelor Gabrielle,
[1:44:21] » I would agree with that as well. I think
that's an excellent idea to try it on
[1:44:24] the weekend and and see how it goes and
then look at week nights after that.
[1:44:31] » Okay.
uh residential block parties.
[1:44:36] » Yeah. So, this is also something that's
brought up. So, this would not apply in
[1:44:40] commercial zones and only in residential
zones and it would apply to residential
[1:44:44] neighborhoods. The ability for a block
face um dependent on, you know, a number
[1:44:49] of administrative rules that the council
could consider um things like the time,
[1:44:55] which could, you know, be say 10:00 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m., no alcohol, all these
[1:44:59] types of things. But really, it's just
um an idea that some communities do do
[1:45:03] across the nation that would allow them
to actually close down their street in
[1:45:07] front of their house um in order to
facilitate some sort of block party. Um
[1:45:12] you know, I I have there has been
requests at the city in the past and
[1:45:17] block parties do happen on the regular,
but you know, in general, the city is ne
[1:45:21] the city street has never closed down.
Like I said, a number of rules that city
[1:45:25] staff would likely support to do
something like this would be a local
[1:45:28] street only, not a a major arterial or a
collector street. Um, and also, you
[1:45:33] know, provisions for a majority of the
block base to um be willing to sign on
[1:45:39] to it. And then just some limited
traffic control that would be associated
[1:45:43] with it, insurance requirements, etc. So
just right now don't provide for
[1:45:47] provisions of of this and just certainly
just looking for whether or not it's
[1:45:51] something that the city should consider.
[1:45:56] » Yes,
>> I like the party.
[1:46:00] » I've been to many of these. They're
wonderful.
[1:46:04] » I'm curious on some of your some of the
uh the provisions you would have in
[1:46:09] terms of the cost and you said kind of
consent within the community. Are you
[1:46:14] anticipating people like going door todo
to sign a petition in order to close
[1:46:18] down their street?
>> Yeah, that'd be the idea. You know,
[1:46:22] whether it's
100% of the block base or 80% of the
[1:46:26] block face, something like that, that um
they have at least uh probably a super
[1:46:30] majority of the council or the city
block faces kind of consent that they
[1:46:34] would like to do that. Um somebody's
going to have to lead the charge on that
[1:46:38] block face, get the insurance and
everything that would go along with
[1:46:41] that. But um there are a number of
examples out there that that we could
[1:46:45] look at, but that that would be kind of
the general idea.
[1:46:50] » Mr. Wing,
[1:46:55] » thank you. Um I am also supportive of
this. I've heard the idea. I've also I
[1:47:01] mean I've heard the request from um
neighbors and from people before of
[1:47:06] whether is something that's possible.
found out from the city hall that it is
[1:47:10] not um supportive of it. Uh mainly that
it is just good for neighbors to be able
[1:47:16] to get to know neighbors. Um there's
specific requests where I could see it
[1:47:20] being applicable to um maybe the
Halloween parade or some of the
[1:47:25] Halloween activities that are over on
the east side or other neighbors who
[1:47:29] really want to have something that they
are wanting to have a block party. again
[1:47:34] supportive of the restrictions that I
think um the staff is looking at uh
[1:47:38] which would be that it's only for
neighbors that there's no public
[1:47:43] consumption of alcohol that it couldn't
be used for like a fundraiser or by a
[1:47:47] private business um and that again you
would have to have some sort of majority
[1:47:52] of neighbors signing up for this but in
general I also think that it's really
[1:47:58] good for mental health and just sort of
the idea that we should all get out and
[1:48:02] get to know our neighbors a little bit
better. And this is an opportunity of
[1:48:06] how you could have those type of
celebrations. And it's um I think good
[1:48:09] community building, but also just very
supportive of the idea because I can see
[1:48:14] specific times where neighbors have
requested this or thought about being
[1:48:20] able to do that, but then found out they
couldn't do that in Callisville.
[1:48:26] Mr.
>> D. Thanks. Um Mr. manager. What is the
[1:48:32] what what is the percentage required to
implement an SID of the neighbors in
[1:48:36] that area?
>> This is 51%.
[1:48:41] » 51. That's that low.
>> That is crazy. Okay. Well, I guess we
[1:48:44] can't really do that. 51% of a
neighborhood that says yes and then 49%
[1:48:48] said no. That's probably not a good idea
to have a block party.
[1:48:52] » I'd support that. [laughter]
>> I was gonna say that I majority.
[1:48:58] » I mean, I was thinking about the SID. I
mean, that's perfect. That's when people
[1:49:01] consent to be taxed, right? Uh I can't
believe 49% of the people can say no and
[1:49:06] and it's still they still get taxed.
It's crazy. Um
[1:49:10] and and I I I can't I'm stuck on this.
Okay. Why do we require insurance if it
[1:49:15] doesn't cover property damage? Does it
only cover personal injury? I mean, why
[1:49:20] are we not recouping this money from
damages at events from the insurance
[1:49:25] that we require them to get it? It's
sounds ludicrous to me. I mean, why why
[1:49:32] do we require it if if it doesn't do us
any good? I mean, is it only for
[1:49:36] personal injury?
>> It's liability insurance.
[1:49:40] » It's not property damage insurance.
But, I mean, trust me, I mean, I don't
[1:49:47] know how many instances we've had, but I
mean, in general, like I said, these
[1:49:52] events, the city's been pretty open. We
understand the community need whether
[1:49:56] it's the parade and all that but you
know as the city grows you know we
[1:50:01] haven't been adding a lot of staff these
types of events do you know take up a
[1:50:05] lot of city time they take up a lot of
city resources to the extent that they
[1:50:08] absolutely should in these community
events but um that's why I think the
[1:50:13] security deposit or some sort of deposit
is probably the easiest most efficient
[1:50:17] way to make sure that if damage occurs
we can kind of have the right tools in
[1:50:21] place because acting on insurance is
also not a an easy exercise. It doesn't
[1:50:27] involve a lot of staff time.
>> Well, we got an additional problem then
[1:50:30] with block parties because we're talking
about private property now, right?
[1:50:34] » No, just city right away.
>> Okay. But
[1:50:40] all right. Okay. Whatever. Uh I mean the
the the private property is right there.
[1:50:44] If you think that people are only going
to be on the street period, I think I
[1:50:48] think we're being we're dreaming a
little bit. But the the insurance would
[1:50:52] be for anything that happens within the
city right away. Whatever neighbors want
[1:50:57] between themselves, then they may need
to have a separate agreement with that.
[1:51:02] But as far as what the city is going to
require be for what happens within the
[1:51:05] city right away.
>> I I did get some public comment on this
[1:51:08] outside of what you guys saw just as a
disclosure. Uh somebody asked me what
[1:51:14] percentage of the neighbors have to
agree to a block party. I think that is
[1:51:17] probably a critical piece of this. Um I
mean, I don't really care what that
[1:51:22] number is as long as we all agree on it.
Um,
[1:51:27] it I don't think 51% is good enough,
though. I really don't.
[1:51:33] » Miss Gro,
>> thank you, your honor.
[1:51:37] » Um, I love this idea. I was born in the
60s, grew up in the 70s, and I grew up
[1:51:43] on a street that was one block long. And
one night a year, we would shut that
[1:51:49] street down and have a a picnic um for
all the neighbors. And we had a
[1:51:56] culde-sac, so it was a little bit easier
where we didn't have to, you know, have
[1:52:01] a lot of people bleeding out onto the
main street. But um it did a ton um I
[1:52:07] think for getting to know neighbors and
goodwill all the things. And then when I
[1:52:14] moved here um you all know I live up in
Northridge. There was a Northridge
[1:52:19] picnic. Doesn't happen anymore
unfortunately, but it happened in
[1:52:23] Northridge Park. So again, it wasn't on
a rideway, but it was in what's probably
[1:52:30] considered city property. and hundreds
of people showed up for that thing and
[1:52:34] it was like a back to school type
celebration. But um I think what Mr.
[1:52:42] Nigron's talking about with insurance
needing to needing to have insurance or
[1:52:48] a deposit for the cityowned rightaway is
pretty important because as we all know
[1:52:56] anything can happen. But um I would love
to see us put something in place to
[1:53:01] encourage this and um see if we can't
get more of these communities having
[1:53:08] block parties. I think it's a great
idea. I love it.
[1:53:15] » I would uh I agree. Um I didn't realize
that this wasn't allowed actually um
[1:53:23] until this showed up on our agenda. It
surprised me that this is not something
[1:53:27] we already have in place. Um, and I
think this is like the same as previous
[1:53:32] conversation. This this sort of thing is
just critical for, you know, community
[1:53:37] cohesion and and vibrancy of the
neighborhood and everything that uh you
[1:53:42] Miss Gabriel spoke to and and uh others.
um as much as we can encourage it, I
[1:53:48] think is great for the community, which
is why I think the
[1:53:53] entry threshold should be as low as
possible, which is why I think 51% I'm
[1:53:58] totally for. Um I think if you don't
want to party on your street for a few
[1:54:04] hours on a Saturday, uh but the majority
on your block do, I think you can live
[1:54:11] with a party for a few hours um
on Saturday. So, um I'm all for it. Um
[1:54:20] and in fact, you know, one of the things
that I u I've been suggesting to the
[1:54:25] chamber for a long time is uh this idea
that's I've seen in other communities
[1:54:31] called PorchFest. Uh where neighborhoods
kind of shut down their streets and uh
[1:54:37] they invite bands to play uh in front
yards on the porch of various houses.
[1:54:42] and you go and you walk around the
neighborhood and you catch these
[1:54:45] different concerts. Uh I think that
would be so much fun. Uh and I was kind
[1:54:50] of pushing it for the last few years. Um
not knowing that you can't even do it uh
[1:54:55] with our with our rules. So now if we
can get this in uh we can actually uh
[1:55:00] look to be doing that in the future. I'd
love to see that and maybe we can get
[1:55:05] something going in my east side
neighborhood. Uh anything anything else
[1:55:10] on this?
I didn't know.
[1:55:14] » Yeah. [laughter]
>> Yeah. I'm not I'm not afraid to admit my
[1:55:17] ignorance on that. So,
all right.
[1:55:22] All right. Uh since we talked about this
for a while, I'll one last opportunity
[1:55:26] for public comment uh on let's keep it
focused on this topic. Uh anything
[1:55:32] you've heard. If anybody wants to step
to the mic, state your name or raise
[1:55:35] your hand if
[1:55:40] Okay, [snorts] seeing none. Uh city
manager report.
[1:55:44] » Yeah, Mayor and Council, you know, this
parking discussion has kind of brought
[1:55:47] to light something that um we're
probably all going to see more often
[1:55:52] here in the future. And you know, as you
know, city staff works really hard to
[1:55:58] provide thoughtful comments to the
public and responses that honestly take
[1:56:02] a lot of time. And you've noticed here
the last couple weeks how with AI, it's
[1:56:08] very easy for somebody to just spit a
response right back to you that probably
[1:56:13] takes them, as you've seen, less than a
minute. That'll include 10 bullet points
[1:56:17] of demands of questions. City staff
doesn't have the ability to interact
[1:56:22] with a public that itself really isn't
engaged and is just responsing via AI.
[1:56:28] you know, we we also, you know, in order
to respond are going to need, you know,
[1:56:32] some concise, thoughtful questions that
because it'll just go on and on and on
[1:56:37] and city staff doesn't have the time to
uh react to that. So, you know, in the
[1:56:41] end, we are going to kind of relay, hey,
if you want to go this route, you know,
[1:56:47] ask for, you know, public records
request, get everything you need. I
[1:56:51] mean, in these instances, we have
individuals that aren't even willing to
[1:56:55] put in the time to do a public records
request. So, you know, I I just want to
[1:57:00] make it kind of clear that even the
public comments we're getting, you'll
[1:57:04] see they're AI generated. So, it's going
to be very hard to decipher kind of
[1:57:08] what's real and what's not, you know,
and we're just honestly in that that
[1:57:12] world. [sighs and gasps] And, you know,
it's just ironic given the discussion
[1:57:16] about technology and stuff. So um just
be very thoughtful and you know
[1:57:22] everything we do AI doesn't provide
context or history or all the emotion
[1:57:28] that goes into these decisions as as you
um as you as you look at this because a
[1:57:33] lot of thought does go into these
decisions by the council and um it uh
[1:57:39] there's a lot of context that also is
getting missed in a lot of these public
[1:57:44] comments that seem like they're educated
and thoughtful, but the reality is
[1:57:48] they're being driven from just AI
questions and things like that that make
[1:57:53] it very hard for the staff to just
continue to respond to. So just uh be
[1:57:59] cuz I know our thought our staff has
been catching on to it quite a bit as of
[1:58:04] late and it's not just regarding this
but just questions in general that we
[1:58:07] get that kind of are never ending and um
at first glance feel like maybe there
[1:58:13] was some thought put into them but as
you see them kind of cycle back and
[1:58:16] forth it does make it very difficult for
staff to to be responsive to that in
[1:58:20] perpetuity. So ask for a little bit of
grace in that staff is always willing to
[1:58:25] meet with people in person and uh
facilitate a conversation but we also
[1:58:29] expect to have some thought coming back
to us as well.
[1:58:35] » Council reports start with you.
>> All right. Uh briefly
[1:58:41] I Googled what liability insurance was.
[laughter] Okay. Li liability insurance
[1:58:48] is coverage that protects individuals or
businesses from financial losses if they
[1:58:53] are legally responsible for causing
injury or property damage to others.
[1:58:58] Okay. I I I just don't get it still.
Somebody's going to have to explain to
[1:59:00] me. I'm not an insurance guy. Um
I would like to address
[1:59:08] everybody that is that that put time,
effort, and sweat into
[1:59:15] the parking
um solution that we received uh
[1:59:20] especially uh downtown forward and all
of the entities that actually helped
[1:59:25] with that. Um I am
not I've never been a huge fan of
[1:59:34] license plate readers. Um I am the
toughest guy on this council to talk
[1:59:38] into a system like that. And because of
that, I think if you can pass the hurdle
[1:59:44] of me, then you could probably get past
most hurdles. Um,
[1:59:49] I am offering to meet with Downtown
Forward or any of the other entities
[1:59:55] that put time into that parking plan,
um, to discuss
[2:00:01] not only license plate readers, but also
the plan in general and, you know, maybe
[2:00:06] some alternatives for that. um if
anybody's interested from that group or
[2:00:12] you know any of the general citizenry um
I'd be happy to have a discussion with
[2:00:17] you and maybe multiple discussions
because it's probably a very large
[2:00:23] subject. Um I I also would like to uh
you know just have everybody realize
[2:00:30] that we are looking at a license plate
reader at the worst possible time in
[2:00:34] history right now. This was it wasn't
even as big of a deal in May when we
[2:00:41] talked about it. Right now, it is the
hot topic out there. And believe me,
[2:00:47] people really, really can't distinguish
between the full flock type system and
[2:00:55] an enclosed license plate reader system
that is used for parking enforcement
[2:00:59] only. So, it's a it's a high hurdle. I
understand that. Um, I understand that I
[2:01:05] have been a thorn in the downtown
forward side for years now on things
[2:01:13] that are very important to them like the
the downtown plan and this uh that does
[2:01:19] not mean that I am in opposition to what
you're trying to do. I want to just have
[2:01:24] some healthy discussion about it. I want
you to I want you to help me understand
[2:01:29] and to convince me of some of these
things. Um, and I'll tell you where I'm
[2:01:34] coming from and maybe that discussion
will glean something important, right?
[2:01:38] And um, you know, you're not going to
have a harder time with anybody up here
[2:01:43] besides this guy. I understand that. I
know I'm a problem. Okay? So, uh, please
[2:01:49] take me up on that offer. I would love
to discuss this with you. I have some
[2:01:53] ideas. I also have some, um, uh, things
about LPR that I' I'd like to discuss as
[2:02:00] well. um you know more intricate um I am
I'm I'm a technology worker. I work kind
[2:02:06] of in this field not specifically with
license plate readers but with um
[2:02:10] security um uh for defense contractors.
So I'm I'm fairly familiar with systems
[2:02:16] like this and I just like to discuss
some things with you um if you're
[2:02:20] interested. So I'll make that um offer
and pass it on to Jed.
[2:02:27] » I think we kind of crapped on downtown
last week.
[2:02:30] Um, and I'm part of that and I'm not
going to point out anybody else that
[2:02:35] did, but I still have a motivation to
have rules in place before an RFP. I
[2:02:43] think that's what Miss Blank stated
clearly last week. Um, it can be done.
[2:02:49] We we can reverse this and not have to
get the bid first. They should see our
[2:02:54] rules. Maybe they can't meet it. Um,
they should see the seven or eight
[2:02:59] points. I believe the mayor said, I
think you added a couple. I I'm willing
[2:03:05] to look at them and and move that
forward to accommodate the needs of
[2:03:10] downtown. That makes sense to me. I
mean, these people worked hard. We
[2:03:13] supported this for a long time. And then
all of a sudden, we have which I'm
[2:03:18] wondering if some of this is people that
aren't I know they're not from
[2:03:22] Callispel. They announced Marian. They
announced White Fish. Not that they
[2:03:26] don't care about the outlying community,
but we do in fact work for the residents
[2:03:30] of Callispel. That's who elected us.
That's who's paying us this big raise.
[2:03:35] Um that's who we represent, right? And I
I I think that we got a little
[2:03:40] sidetracked um by the comments, but I
appreciate them and I appreciate what
[2:03:44] you're saying. I just want to reverse
things a little bit and I've talked to
[2:03:48] the manager, city manager about this a
little. I think the rules spelled out
[2:03:52] prior to the RFP or part of the request
for proposals will help us. If we don't
[2:03:57] like something, then we move on and
maybe they don't provide that. And
[2:04:03] we end up sidetracked once again. But
that seems to make sense to me. And I I
[2:04:08] just I want to kind of go on record as
saying I think that um although it's our
[2:04:13] job to listen to everybody, we really
need to hone in on who we are listening
[2:04:18] to. Um, again, I care about Mary and I
care about kind of Whitefish. Um,
[2:04:23] [laughter]
I I really do, but these are the people
[2:04:28] that had worked hard and I just kind of
wanted to go on record and say I guess I
[2:04:33] feel like um although deserved and I
want to backtrack and I want to take a
[2:04:38] break and I want some better rules in
place, I think that we crapped on
[2:04:42] downtown council.
[2:04:46] I've had a lot of opportunity for
reflection this last week. Um, and uh,
[2:04:52] John when he was up here uh, made a
point of of saying that he uh, was
[2:04:57] incorrect about a few things. I think
one thing we were incorrect about was
[2:05:00] not having the policy in place first.
Uh, I I think that the prevalence of
[2:05:07] disinformation that existed online was
in in part predicated on us not being
[2:05:12] very clear about what we were doing. Um,
and uh, I think there's an opportunity
[2:05:17] to correct that with the policy, perhaps
an ordinance of the things that are not
[2:05:22] um, available um, as options. Uh most of
the things that were issues last week
[2:05:28] are specifically outlawed by Montana
statute. If we need to put that in place
[2:05:32] in an ordinance saying that we're not
going to do these things, then that's
[2:05:35] great. But let's be very clear about
what um what we are doing and uh do it
[2:05:42] beforehand. The other thing that was
very common
[2:05:49] that was very interesting to me this
week is the prevalence of AI um in terms
[2:05:53] of the public discourse uh both online
through the comments that we're
[2:05:57] receiving uh both online and in uh in
person. Um and I think it's important
[2:06:04] for I use AI every day at work. Um it's
an incredible tool. um but it has the
[2:06:10] opportunity to be misused dramatically
if it's not a tool but instead just
[2:06:15] replaces critical thinking and we're
seeing that a lot. Um Jared's comments I
[2:06:21] think are uh are part of that. So take a
little bit of time to figure out what is
[2:06:26] AI and what's not. I just asked AI to to
point out some of its cliches and it
[2:06:32] took a while for me to actually get it
to do it, but it does certain things
[2:06:36] like uh this fake emphasis opener. Let
me be clear, AI generated comments
[2:06:41] threaten the integrity of public input.
Full stop, right? We hear that often. Um
[2:06:48] the padding, the rule of three padding
comments should be authentic,
[2:06:52] transparent, and accountable. three
things in a row, commonly almost
[2:06:57] exclusively AI. There's about seven of
them that AI gave me um along these
[2:07:02] lines, but there are patterns and it's
important for us to be able to use our
[2:07:08] critical thinking skills in order to
understand what is coming to us and the
[2:07:13] weight that it should be given.
[2:07:18] » Mr. Waterman.
[2:07:22] » Thank you, Mr.
council. Sorry not to be there in person
[2:07:28] because I really do value these
conversations and the conversations that
[2:07:32] we have even if I'm here remotely. Um
sort of made the comment last week that
[2:07:39] we are clearly going to have more
conversations about parking. I'm already
[2:07:42] hearing that and really supportive of
the idea of putting policy first and
[2:07:46] making sure that we are um moving things
and thinking about the vibrancy of
[2:07:51] downtown. And then today, just really
thankful that council had some
[2:07:55] conversations about the parking lots and
really excited to see a little bit more
[2:07:59] fun being proposed for what we could be
doing in the neighborhoods and the block
[2:08:02] parties. So, thank you for the great
work session. Look forward to being home
[2:08:06] and um joining you all next week.
[2:08:17] » Um I first want to You're right, Mr. Mr.
McDonald. I did ask for solutions. So, I
[2:08:23] really appreciate you bringing that
forward and as well, Mr. Kingle. I I I
[2:08:27] want to uh thank you for that. I also
want to point out why I don't respond in
[2:08:32] emails be because email can be
misinterpreted. So, it's a good way to
[2:08:37] bring out ideas but to reach
understanding and connection. It's
[2:08:41] conversation. So, for those folks who
see I'm I'm not going to have a long
[2:08:47] dialogue on email that that's that's
just has not been in the research. shows
[2:08:51] it's not the best practice if we want to
reach that space that we're all trying
[2:08:56] to so hard to get to. That being said, I
would love to think through how we use
[2:09:00] that fifth Monday to have word specific
conversations in person in the wards so
[2:09:06] we make it easier to really connect with
people. I think one of the things that
[2:09:10] happened last week and I had a lot of
people come up to me and say, "Thank
[2:09:14] you, Lisa, for not supporting the
license plate recognition software." So,
[2:09:20] which didn't happen prior to that, it
was interesting for me to see what that
[2:09:23] brought up. Um, so while I am not saying
I have the answer, I do think the policy
[2:09:30] and we do need a solution and I
absolutely
[2:09:33] um believe in that and want to work
towards that for the downtown and for
[2:09:36] the community and for Cowispell. That is
still a value of mine. It's just as
[2:09:42] others have said, we are in historic
times. People are frightened. They're
[2:09:47] uncomfortable. we don't have control
over a lot of this um technology and
[2:09:50] that's what a I did a bit of research
this week as well and even when you put
[2:09:54] in policy and breaks it's it's only as
good as the people who are enforcing it.
[2:09:59] So I just think we need to be mindful of
that there are reasons why people are
[2:10:03] frightened and uncomfortable and I don't
want to walk away from that and there
[2:10:07] are other solutions for parking that
aren't chuck either. So, I would really
[2:10:13] for me I just think it's important for
us to have a policy to really talk
[2:10:17] through what are those others and what's
the price we're willing to pay for
[2:10:21] enforcement. We know enforcement is
what's going to work in downtown.
[2:10:25] Absolutely on board for that. What kind
of enforcement do we want and what are
[2:10:30] we willing to compromise for that
enforcement? And what I heard last week
[2:10:34] is I I have a lot I heard a lot of
concerns about control towards my
[2:10:41] personal data and and yes, we don't
understand a lot of it, but we also
[2:10:45] don't have a lot of control of it at the
end of the day. We still don't. So, um
[2:10:50] those are my my thoughts is I hope we
can do some more focused in-person ward
[2:10:54] specific conversations and um and for
those folks who are looking for an
[2:11:00] exchange on email, I'm going to
apologize. come talk to me. Be happy to
[2:11:05] go out for a coffee.
[2:11:10] » Sorry I missed all the fun last week. It
sounds like it was a lively discussion.
[2:11:15] Um
yeah, I I I definitely feel like there's
[2:11:18] a lot of misinformation about what we're
talking about, what's being discussed,
[2:11:22] and the broader uh questions that are
going on around the country around the
[2:11:26] mass surveillance with this the cameras.
I I remain confident that the isolated
[2:11:33] barebones license plate reader systems
can be successfully isolated and safely
[2:11:38] used when guaranteeing people's
privacies. Um there are other
[2:11:42] technologies available as as mentioned
uh p more uh privacy protecting
[2:11:48] technologies available. They're just
more expensive uh sometimes quite a bit
[2:11:52] more expensive. And so, you know,
attempting to be fiscally responsible
[2:11:56] and not burden our taxpayers with
additional money, we were feel like we
[2:11:59] were trying to do the the fiscally
responsible thing up here and go with
[2:12:02] the the most prudent financial solution
at the time. But if we're willing to
[2:12:07] spend the more money, there are bigger,
more comprehensive solutions available,
[2:12:10] we can go rolling out and go look at
those instead. I would be open to
[2:12:15] looking at those, too. I'm certainly not
opposed to passing a policy first. Uh
[2:12:19] I've I've never been super excited about
the license plate readers, but uh again,
[2:12:24] I think that the barebones kind of
parking license plate readers we're
[2:12:27] talking about are a very different
animal uh than the mass surveillance
[2:12:31] type of cameras uh that are making the
news and that uh it it is certainly
[2:12:35] possible for us to lock it down in a
safe manner and comply with good privacy
[2:12:39] policies. But happy to have these
discussions and pass these policies
[2:12:42] first um if that makes everybody more
comfortable. Certainly,
[2:12:48] » Miss Gabriel.
>> Thank you, your honor. Um, I agree with
[2:12:53] Mr. Fiser. I feel like we crapped all
over the downtown group last week um and
[2:13:00] threw out all of their research. So, um,
I agree with that and I completely
[2:13:05] disagree with Mr. Dow in having a
meeting with that group individually. I
[2:13:11] think we all need to do that together
and council needs to hear the
[2:13:15] information all the same way. Uh just as
we're not supposed to be having
[2:13:20] individual meetings on things um for a
whole lot of reasons. I think it's
[2:13:25] important we hear everything exactly the
same way. Um
[2:13:32] with all of this, you know, that was
brought up last week. Um, I want to say
[2:13:38] that first and foremost I am loyal to
the city of Callispel and their
[2:13:42] residents.
Um, I specifically represent Ward One.
[2:13:47] Um,
I think one thing that would help a ton
[2:13:51] is if we had comment cards that anyone
that wanted to provide public comment
[2:13:57] would fill out comment cards with their
information because there were a number
[2:14:02] of people last week that spoke and said,
"Hi, I'm so and so and I live in blah
[2:14:07] blah blah." We didn't get a full name.
We didn't get a spelling. We didn't get
[2:14:11] an address. So, how do we verify that's
really who they were? So, um I know
[2:14:16] there's a way to work that out because
other other uh municipalities do it. I
[2:14:22] think parking validation could also be,
you know, part of the solution with
[2:14:27] folks who are concerned about the time
limit downtown. There's so much that's
[2:14:32] possible that I do think it would be um
worth having having more conversation
[2:14:39] about that. When our police chief and
our city manager tell us this is the
[2:14:45] solution that we are bringing forward
and this is what we can afford, I think
[2:14:50] we need to listen to them because
they've obviously ruled some things out
[2:14:54] that we can't afford. I'm not saying
they get to decide. We do. However, I
[2:15:00] think we need to maybe heed a little
more into um their opinions there and
[2:15:07] the work that was done by the committee.
Um
[2:15:12] I think that's it. I uh I
I I just Oh, the other thing, council,
[2:15:20] stay off of Facebook and stop sitting on
411
[2:15:25] » and listening to all the crap that's
going back and forth. I I think that
[2:15:29] gets people riled up and makes a false
sense of what's um really important. Um
[2:15:37] I just think you should all stay off
Facebook. I can't I can't do it anymore.
[2:15:41] I can't even go there. Can't watch it.
Can't listen to it. That's my uh my two
[2:15:48] cents. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Um, yeah. So, I was uh gone
[2:15:54] for three meetings and uh it's ne, as I
said before I left, uh it's never
[2:15:59] there's never a good time to leave, but
you always hope that it's pretty quiet
[2:16:03] when you're when you're gone. Um, and I
certainly heard about uh last week and
[2:16:09] and uh I always uh feel bad about
missing important big important
[2:16:15] meetings, but I do uh appreciate uh
Council President Waterman for filling
[2:16:19] in and I think he did a great job um
chairing the meetings while I was gone.
[2:16:24] Um so a number of things uh want to just
touch on. Um, one, there was a public
[2:16:32] comment recommendation maybe making
clear that public uh, parking permits
[2:16:37] are available to anyone in the public on
our website. Uh, if we don't have that
[2:16:41] on there, uh, maybe that'd be easy easy
thing to make clear on on our website.
[2:16:46] Uh, in response to public comment in
terms of license plate readers, I I
[2:16:52] don't want to speak on this too long,
but I do I I did watch the meeting last
[2:16:58] week. um and uh was frustrated by the
mis misinformation
[2:17:06] uh and the focus on a lot of national
news. I agree with the comment that it's
[2:17:11] like the worst possible time to have
this come before us because
[2:17:16] just like I think everybody else in my
news feed of of social media, I'm seeing
[2:17:21] just tons and tons of stuff about uh the
surveillance system uh and all these
[2:17:27] terrible stories and I'm on board with
everybody that's like this is terrible
[2:17:31] stuff. Uh but it's very much removed
from what we were actually proposing.
[2:17:36] Um, and I think it's important to
remember why we were proposing it. Not
[2:17:40] only because of downtown Ford's
proposal, and it was a central feature
[2:17:44] of making that work, right? Chalking
tires, it doesn't work. It It takes, as
[2:17:52] city manager had stated, four hours to
do, and we have a two-hour time limit.
[2:17:56] So, we weren't enforcing our downtown
parking. So, you know, people saying it
[2:18:00] go back to chalking tires. I don't think
that's an option because it's not
[2:18:04] effective. it it's not efficient. Um,
and so if it's not license plate
[2:18:10] readers, we do need something else
because chalking tires just doesn't
[2:18:12] work. Um, but the reason we are looking
at technology and getting that
[2:18:16] efficiency is because it freed up that
parking officer to do other things. We
[2:18:22] had an animal warden position that
didn't do enough things so we could
[2:18:26] combine those positions, but also the
code enforcement, which we've heard
[2:18:30] endlessly from the public that they
want. We're the only large community
[2:18:33] that doesn't have code enforcement uh
person, dedicated person. We had an
[2:18:38] opportunity to combine three different
positions in one through the efficiency
[2:18:43] of new technology.
So, it's not just about saving money on
[2:18:49] a position, which was kind of stated a
lot at last week's meeting. Instead, we
[2:18:54] should just pay somebody to do the
chalking. No, there were three different
[2:18:57] positions we were going to combine into
this position and get a position uh of
[2:19:01] code enforcement that we've been talking
about for years to do. Not only that,
[2:19:05] but there's other positions we need like
a transportation planner that we've
[2:19:12] talked about that if we then don't do
this and have to hire a code enforcement
[2:19:17] officer, that means we can't do a
transportation planner if we're only
[2:19:20] doing, you know, an additional position
with our budget and so forth. So, it has
[2:19:24] all these ramifications
uh if we don't move forward with kind of
[2:19:30] some sort of plan to be more efficient
with our parking enforcement downtown.
[2:19:34] So, I think that's important to
recognize because I don't think the
[2:19:37] public comment truly appreciated the
motivation we had uh and and what was
[2:19:43] kind of steering us towards technology
and gaining that efficiency.
[2:19:50] Um,
and I just want to stay somebody in the
[2:19:55] public comment mentioned a John Oliver
program that highlights all the all the
[2:19:59] problems. I watched that. I listen to it
all. I still feel that it's different
[2:20:03] from what we are proposing. Um,
but what I heard and I hear from a
[2:20:09] number of public comments
is that fear
[2:20:14] uh that fear of what what it is we're
doing and what the results are. And I
[2:20:19] think it is because of that lack of
policy uh coming first and we heard that
[2:20:25] a lot. You know, we policy should come
first. I think um Mr. Leidge, you're
[2:20:29] correct that that was probably a mistake
in process just hindsight um it would
[2:20:35] have gone more smoothly uh better if we
had that policy up front. So I think
[2:20:39] having a work session obviously there's
some different perspective here about
[2:20:44] whether we look at other ways of doing
it. Um but also even if we don't go move
[2:20:51] forward with the license plate reader,
let's develop a policy for
[2:20:57] using these type of technology
um so that we have it in place if we
[2:21:02] ever decide to go there in the future.
So I think it's worth a discussion and
[2:21:06] establishing some sort of policy uh in
place to set those standards, bring
[2:21:10] state law into our city code uh on this.
I think that will give the public a lot
[2:21:16] of reassurance and kind of tamp down the
fear that is going on that's being
[2:21:23] driven by the national narrative and
based on kind of the lack of clarity of
[2:21:27] of what we're going to do because we
don't have a policy that's guiding us.
[2:21:32] So I think a future work session
uh is in order and it sounds like
[2:21:37] there's kind of general agreement that
more discussions needed uh on that. Um,
[2:21:45] on public comments, uh, one of the
things I I was thinking after watching
[2:21:51] last week's meeting is maybe in addition
asking for people's name, uh, asking for
[2:21:57] folks to state whether or not they're a
resident of Cisbell. Um, it's fine if
[2:22:02] they're not. We hear we take all public
comment. If you want to come from
[2:22:05] another community and weigh in,
obviously we're the county seat. what we
[2:22:09] do affects the rest of the county. So,
that's relevant and important comment,
[2:22:13] but it's also important for us to know
who our constituents are who are coming
[2:22:16] up and speaking to us in public comment.
So, I may be doing that if I and if I
[2:22:21] don't, please remind me because I think
that's a that would be a good move
[2:22:24] moving forward. Um, I just want to
express my total agreement with Mr.
[2:22:31] Nyigrin and the reference to AI
comments. Uh I we have been noticing
[2:22:36] that and you know there's kind of this
entitlement that we're hearing from
[2:22:41] folks that um you have to speaking to
staff or council members answer every
[2:22:46] question I send you and do it within the
time frame I demand. You have to you
[2:22:51] have to answer my questions by Monday or
else. No, we don't. We want to be
[2:22:58] responsive to the public. We will do our
best to be responsive to the public. But
[2:23:03] if you're using AI to generate pages and
pages of questions and sending it and
[2:23:08] diverting significant amount of staff
time or council time, my time as mayor
[2:23:13] to try to
answer pages and pages of questions that
[2:23:19] when you respond only results in another
email with more questions demanding they
[2:23:24] be answered within a few days. No, we
have no obligation to respond to that um
[2:23:31] and take up a lot. We we re we work for
the entire city, not one individual
[2:23:36] sending in pages and pages of questions
and demanding answers to them all. Um
[2:23:44] last thing, uh next Monday is a fifth
Monday. Um as you know, I I've committed
[2:23:50] to town halls on fifth Mondays, uh at
least for this year, uh to have an
[2:23:54] opportunity for the public to have a
more informal kind of back and forth
[2:23:59] discussion. Anyone from council is
welcome to join. It'll be as we did last
[2:24:04] time here at council chambers 7 o'clock
next Monday. Um and if there's
[2:24:10] representatives of different wards uh
after kind of initial start of the
[2:24:14] meeting, folks can break off into their
wards and have uh individual
[2:24:19] conversations with their constituents as
well. Um welcome that. Uh but I want to
[2:24:25] make sure that the public is aware that
that will be happening next Monday. uh
[2:24:29] and that's a commitment of mine to uh
continue doing that this year. So uh
[2:24:34] with that I think we're journ Thank you.