[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.

8/24/26 Kalispell City Council Work Session Meeting

Transcript