City Council - Regular Meeting

Call the meeting to order, beginning with the invocation and the pledge.

Almighty God, send down upon those who hold office in this city the spirit of wisdom, compassion, and justice.

Grant that with steadfast purpose we may faithfully serve our community, seeking the common good, protecting the vulnerable, and promoting the well-being and harmony of all who dwell here. Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God and indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

All members are present and accounted for. For announcements, city hall and city business offices will be closed on Monday, September 7th in observance of Labor Day. Police, fire, and emergency services can be reached by calling 911. For water-related emergencies, call 208-773-3517. There will be no trash pickup on Labor Day. and we have sadly lost a beloved city employee and a good friend of many of ours here. Shannon Howard devoted 18 years of her life to public service at the City of Post Falls, first as the city's purchasing officer and then as the city clerk. Since that time, she has been the proverbial gatekeeper for city records, council meetings, insurance claims, and various other processes handled by the clerk's office. Always quick with a smile and an amazing sense of humor, she has made an impact on many of our lives. Shannon shared her life with her husband, Matt, for 30 years, along with her three children. Please keep her family in your thoughts and prayers, and I would ask for a moment of silence for Shannon and her family.

All of you are in my prayers as you go through this difficult time.

All right, so we're going to do our executive session next, so I'd ask for a motion to enter.

Should have been ready. I move to enter into executive session pursuant to Idaho code 74-2061A, further that no action will be taken during the session. The session will last approximately 10 minutes.

Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion? Roll call, please.

Stiglitter? Aye. Plew?

Aye.

Molloy? Aye. Ziegler? Aye. Mosby? Aye. Luca?

Aye.

Motion passes. Thank you.

We will enter executive session.

We'll return to regular session, and I am asking for the appointment of Rhiannon O'Neill as city clerk.

I move to confirm the appointment and oath of office of Rhiannon O'Neill as city clerk. Second.

Motion and a second. Further discussion? Roll call, please.

Plough.

Aye.

Malloy. Aye. Ziegler. Aye. Mosby. Aye. Luca. Aye.

Stiglitter. Aye. As previously, based on process, I do believe that these should be open so that people can apply. And based on that, I will not, because of the person, but the process, say no.

All right. Motion passes. And we have an oath of office to administer.

Raise your right hand and repeat after me. I, Rhiannon O'Neill, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Idaho and faithfully discharge all the duties of City Clerk of the City of Post Falls according to the best of my ability.

All right, next up on ceremonies, announcements, and presentations is information on Kratom from Kootenai County Coroner, Dr. Johnson. And as we get started here, let me just note, this is an informational presentation. There's no particular action being contemplated at this time. We're just getting information, and then we can decide later if we want to pursue that for any sort of action.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak before the City Council. I'm going to need to have the slide presentation brought up that I had sent over.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. And is it just arrows to go forward? Got it. Thank you very much. The reason that I'm here basically is to be informative concerning what we've experienced in the coroner's office as far as Kratom is concerned. And by the way, is there a time limit on my speaking? I don't want to extend the time, but I can cut it down to whatever time is needed. Is there any particular?

Let's say 10 minutes or less would be good.

Okay, great. If I may, I'm here basically because we have experienced in our autopsies and in our deaths that we've seen at the coroner's office, Kratom is involved as one of the substances involved in death, and in fact, and I'll go through some of the statistics, but in one individual, the only item in their body was kratom. And Kratom is something, so I'm really here to try to protect the residents of Kootenai County and also not only from death, but potentially from addiction associated with it. And if I may, I'll give you a little bit of background concerning my credentials, because for those of you who are unaware, because the Kratom lobby is very, very strong, and so I made this presentation in front of the Cooney County commissioners, and they're very much in favor of banning Kratom in the county, but we need the help of the cities in order to be an effective ban. And what has occurred basically is there are, the Kratom lobby is quite strong and so my presentation was attacked and emails came and I anticipate that you guys will receive many emails because of this presentation, so you should expect it. A lot of those emails were based on the fact that, well, this individual doesn't know how to determine the cause of death. He doesn't have a scientific background, doesn't understand the natural causes. food industry, et cetera, et cetera. And there are some coroners who don't have a strong scientific background. But if I may just present my credentials, I'm the only coroner in the state of Idaho as an MD. And I have a tremendous amount of scientific background, number one. Number two, in my career, I was medical director of the largest supplement manufacturer in the world for 14 years, and I've spoken on stage in front of thousands in 30 different countries around the world. And so I spent those 14 years in the natural food industry, and I understand it to a degree that few people do, because I was representing a multibillion-dollar company, the largest in the world. So when they say that I may not understand plants and I may not understand natural products or the natural food industry, that's not accurate. Kratom is a herbal extract that comes from the leaves of Southeast Asia evergreen called metragyna speciosa. Its active ingredient is 7-hydroxymetragynine. And that ingredient is an opiate and it's 13 times more powerful than morphine according to the Texas Department of State Health Services. Opiates are painkillers and are also called narcotics such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, morphine, fentanyl, heroin, etc. It fits within that category and it can be purchased over the counter. And in fact, I went to three either gas stations or food convenience stores within three blocks of this building and they're all selling kratom. And 7-hydroxy is normally 2% of the natural plant, but the product available in stores can contain up to 98% 7-hydroxy. So there are individuals who will say, oh, it's less than 2%, it's 0.05%, we've got plants. Well, of course, you can modify some plants to get that out, but the food supplement industry is uncontrolled. It's like the Wild West. There was a... studied on looking at ginseng manufacturers and 55 different manufacturers of ginseng years ago and 44 of the 55 had little or no ginseng in the bottle. You can't trust labels in the natural food industry whatsoever. So if they say they have a certain percentage of 70H, there's no one double checking that to prove that that's true. Heroin is estimated to be 10 times more powerful than morphine according to this group. And 7-hydroxy is 13 times more powerful than morphine. So the term for the Kratom is called gas station heroin, which is actually quite accurate. In Kootenai County, we've had three deaths where Kratom was involved in 21, 1 in 22, 1 in 23, and 2 in 24, and 4 of them in 25. As you can see, the trend is increasing. And in 25, one of these individuals died only involved kratom, and kratom was an exceedingly high level, according to national labs, one of the highest in the nation. So we have no, and the medical examiner who performed the autopsy said that was the cause of death. And by the way, someone may question our ability of our office as far as our coroner office is concerned. I just want to let you know that I'm certified as a death investigator, which is the highest you can obtain basically to get the certification. And our office is accredited nationally. We received that accreditation two to three years ago and at the time there were only 45 of 2,000 coroner offices in the nations that are accredited. So we operate at the highest level of coroner offices in the nation, and that accreditation proves that. So if anyone questions our credibility and our ability to do this, again, it's unfounded. According to Mayo Clinic, Kratom products have been found to have heavy metals, lead, harmful germs, salmonella, et cetera, et cetera. And the FDA has linked more than 35 deaths to salmonella just within Kratom itself. And as I mentioned, basically every gas station and convenience store sells it. One of the locations I went into within three blocks of here had a whole glass cabinet full of it. And I said to the person working behind the desk, are there different strengths in some of these? And he goes, yeah, I've heard they are, but I don't know which one it is. And there was one bottle, for example, that had 300 100 milligram tablets within it. They were selling for $39. And they also were selling little jars of liquid that had 10 cc's of the ingredient within it. And it was a font of two. But one thing I was able to read on that 100 milligrams don't drive cars or operate heavy machinery after you drink this, okay? So, and you can walk out the door and buy something that's 13 times more powerful than heroin just within blocks of here. According to this organization, secretive sales were 7 billion and 25 and projected to be 22 billion in 2035. So there's a very strong lobby who doesn't want to lose that. And when I gave the presentation to the commissioners, I had people who were in the addiction industry come up to me and say the most problematic issue that we're dealing with now is not fentanyl but it's kratom, people addicted to kratom. And so FDA warns it's not safe and they state that there's no prescription or over-the-counter drug products containing kratom or its known alkaloids that are legal to market in the United States. So are there studies that conclude that it's safe, but these studies were done by the industry itself and the problems with it, they concluded that it was safe and tolerated by everybody. But the problems were that the authors were paid by the industry. Six people were withdrawn from the study because of adverse effects. One had liver enzymes elevation and severe events did occur, including one case of uterine hemorrhage. But they were eliminated from the study and told that it was safe. It's very common in the natural food industry. You just report whatever you want to because nobody's watching you. Another industry published later says that the steady state is actually the half-life, according to them, is 40 to 60 hours. So if someone doesn't take a high dose today, It's not completely metabolized tomorrow. So if they take it every day, even the natural, even if it only has 2%, it can lead to toxic levels. And I spoke with one woman who wanted me to be involved with state legislature. And she said that her daughter was just taking natural. So you'll hear a lot of people say, oh, natural is safe, but we don't have to worry about anything. We have to worry about the other ones, the ones that have high level of 7-hydroxy. No, we have to worry about the natural as well. A poison control center reported in this study that I've listed here that banning kratom cuts poisonings in more than half and state with laws to control versus ban had two and a half times more exposure, 3.2 times more severe outcomes and 2.4 times more hospitalizations. In other words, Trying to control it doesn't work. Either you ban it or you just forget about doing anything. And so the industry will try to get you to control it and that doesn't work at all. 13% of all kratom exposures result in severe medical outcome. 34% required hospitalization and 15 were intensive care unit. Nine states have banned it outright. Fifteen states have put restrictions on it. The U.S. military now has banned it in all franchises. And the DEA just announced July 1st of this year seven hydroxymetragynine and three related substances are schedule one, which is in the same category of heroin. But you can go down here to a grocery store and food convenience store. There was no statistically significant difference between states that tried to control it and states that had no regulations at all. In other words, either you ban it or you forget what you're doing. And I have two seconds to spare. Thank you.

Perfect timing. Questions?

Thank you, Dr. Johnson. I do have a couple of questions for you. And thank you for sharing your background with us and your credentials. Can you tell me how, you know, not a doctor, how does Kratom kill?

It's an opiate, and so what opiates normally do is they cause a respiratory arrest. So people just slow down in their breathing or they stop breathing. So that's any dose of fentanyl that you've heard of or any heroin overdose, et cetera, in that same category, it decreases a body's ability to just want to breathe.

Thank you. You mentioned a few times, and I read this in your slides, that it's 13 times more powerful than, I think you said, than morphine? Yes. Or maybe it was than heroin. Anyway, what do you mean when you say powerful?

That's a great question. For equivalent dose, in other words, if I had one milligram of heroin or morphine and one milligram morphine, of Kratom, especially with the normal 708, the 708 in there, that the person's going to have 13 times the effect. In other words, if they were going to try to drive a car or walk or whatever, it's much stronger than morphine. And so morphine is given as a pain medication in hospitals. This is much stronger. The 708 is much stronger than morphine. And with organizations, it's really interesting, nobody compares Kratom and heroin, but they both compare them, both of them, to heroin, or excuse me, to morphine. So Kratom is 13 times more powerful than morphine. Heroin is 10 times more powerful than morphine. So really, Kratom is even more powerful than heroin. So the 70H.

And so by more powerful, it's more powerful in its ability to manage pain?

Not only that, but in its inability to cause addictions and its ability to cause euphoria, to cause respiratory arrests and death. All right. Thank you.

Last question. I know that my colleagues up here would probably also have other questions for you. You mentioned seeing this stuff on the counters in local gas stations and whatnot. Has your office taken samples from any of these places and tested it to see what their actual potency levels are?

No, because that would cost money for us to send that in to do our own studies. I mean, so in other words, every death, when we're considering that the possibility could be involved substances that were the cause of death, in other words, when Our role is to look for a nefarious cause of death. And so if we believe we're part of law enforcement in essence. So if someone has a long time history of cancer and et cetera, et cetera, and they die in bed at home, et cetera, we're responsible for unattended deaths. So we're not going to do a full workup on that individual. But on individuals that we can't explain the death or there were some substances found in their house that they may have taken something, then we do talk screens and we send them out to national labs. And national labs is the highest level you can send them to and they hold up in court. And so the medical examiners base their decisions on that and so we we we don't you know have the funding to be able to then go around and sample and then send them to national labs we just don't have the budget for that all right thank you

Thank you, doctor. In the case of a single vehicle traffic crash that is fatal, would you send that person's blood out for testing?

Absolutely. Every crash, basically, we do an autopsy and a tox screen. Absolutely. Because when there's going to be potential legal involvement, we have to absolutely determine the cause of death. Did they have a heart attack or were they driving under the influence of a substance? Absolutely.

Okay. And then my other question is can you describe what the effect of this is for those that may not have taken heroin or Kratom for that matter? What is the effect on the body? What is the anticipated effect that the user is trying to get?

A euphoria. And so it's a pleasant feeling. It's an escape from reality. And that's why they come down from it, and then it's like they want to experience that again, and they want more of it, and it takes more to keep on going. So people develop tolerances to it, just like fentanyl. And all of the other opioids, they develop a tolerance so they need more and more and more. And a lot of times people don't intend on taking so much that it kills them, but they're not pharmacists, they're not measuring accurately. And the Kratom is infused with 7-OH. So in the industry, there are some products that even though naturally 2% is 7-OH according to Texas Health Department of Services, but manufacturers will make it, you know, put in 50% 7-OH or up to 98% OH. And in fact, what we have found is that they're putting 7-OH in ice cream cones and in gummies. In other words, their desire is to obviously attract children. Because if you can get people addicted to a substance and you don't have to go through the cartel to get people addicted to substances, then you can make a ton of money without the danger of the cartel.

So from my prior experience with law enforcement, I know that impairment is a continuum. If someone was to, if an average sized person was to take an average sized dose of whatever they get at the gas station, what type of impairment would they have when they are, for example, driving a vehicle or operating machinery or something like that?

Well, see, it's going to depend upon the amount of 7OH that's within it. Because what will occur is there are some, like this one lady that I spoke with, there are natural, as you can imagine, when there's a multi-billion dollar industry, the farming practices are such where they know how to hybridize and cross-pollinate and increase that percentage. And so they're going to sell a lot more product if their brand has a higher, or if they just inject 7OH into it. And so it's going to depend upon the percentage of 7-OH that's in the product. And so it was really interesting. There was only one product of all of the ones I saw that says this has less than 0.5% 7-OH, and that's what you'll hear from your emails that you'll receive. Oh, they only receive 0.5%. But nobody's checking that. Nobody, you know, verifies that that's true. But on that one bottle that I saw, there was 100 milligrams, and it said do not drive 7-OH. heavy machinery or automobile with just that 100 milligrams and then not far from it was a bottle of 300 tablets that were 100 milligrams so it depends on what they're making it and in that case there were 50 different types of bottles with 50 different names on it so I would have to do like he suggested, take all of those, take them out, test them for 708 should be super expensive for me to know which ones. But obviously they're selling them because people are getting that euphoria.

Right. So that was I was going to see if I could ask in a different way to be easier for you to answer. if a person achieved that desired euphoria, would they be visibly impaired if, for example, a police officer stopped them or you saw them at work or something like that?

Absolutely. And so what happens is right now the officers don't have a quick way of testing for 7-OH like they do alcohol. So they're not going to know. The person's not going to be formulating words normally or acting normally, but their alcohol might be zero.

And then I think my last set of questions is about the cumulative effect. You mentioned that it doesn't leave the body right away, so the euphoria passes, but the substance is still there. Is there a cumulative effect if somebody was to take, say, Kratom every two days or something like that? What would be the cumulative effect on the body?

The half-life seems to be 30 to 40 hours, so two days probably wouldn't be accumulative for most people. So it's going to be metabolized, but at the same time, most of those people, like any other opiate, they're going to develop a tolerance to it. The body's going to learn how to metabolize it faster, so to have that same effect, they're going to need to take more. So that's where people start getting addicted and that's why the addiction centers in the county are having more trouble with that than anything else right now because it's addictive.

Is there a latent effect, though? Like, for example, if someone is a long-time meth user, they end up getting off the methamphetamine. There seems to be a permanent change in their affect or something like that. Is it similar with Kratom?

Well, anything that's an addictive substance that has an effect on the brain is going to cause some brain damage. I mean, you know, in other words, there are for a lot of people, not everyone on the planet, but if you do careful studies of, you know, anyone who's like a lot of the people who have been on meth or uppers for a long time, you know, you can tell when you're communicating with them that they were in that in the past and they were damaged. Not unlike... opiates, those drugs to have that effect, they're not beneficial to the brain tissue, they're damaging to the brain tissue. And so you'd have to know that person and know them well, but most people, they're not gonna be able to think clearly or function clearly moving forward, just like heroin addicts aren't known to normally get away from heroin and then become scholars. I mean, I'm being kind of facetious, but I mean, it's really a demonstrative point. It does cause damage.

I did receive an email from a lobbyist prior to this presentation and she was adamant that the natural product was very different than the synthetic product and I'd like to give you a chance to rebut that and just ask do you find that to be a distinction without a difference or is there merit to that?

She doesn't know because she'd have to check every single natural product in the United States to know their effect and their concentration. And like I was saying about the study concerning ginseng, it's a wild west. Nobody controls it. Nobody knows. manufacturers are going to know that, wow, if I have a little bit more 70H, it's going to have more of an effect. People are going to buy my product more than any others. So there's going to be a competition when it's a multi-billion dollar industry and going up to 25 billion estimated. And for her, you know, I mean, so that's like saying she's tested every product in the United States and there's nothing above 0.5%. She would not know.

Well, assuming that, I'm just trying to get to, is there a difference between the synthetic versus natural in that argument, or is it just a question of the amount of the active ingredient?

Oh, you hit it on the second point. The natural does, the natural plant has natural 7-OH within it, according to the University of Texas, Health and Human Services, they say that the natural plant has 2%. And so, but, you know, you can get more than that obviously if you cross hybridize. But the point being is that people wouldn't be attracted to it if it didn't have that euphoric effect. It's kind of interesting because they call it kind of an unusual opioid. If you take small amounts of it, it's actually kind of an upper. But then as you keep going, then it becomes more of an opioid effect. And so to say that all natural doesn't have any 70H in it should be completely contradicting the state of Texas. Thank you.

May I? Do we have time? I just have a couple of just, I'm hoping that they're quick questions.

No problem.

Part of your presentation reminds me of a lot of the conversation that I hear about the distinction between like marijuana and cannabis and THC and how in the healthcare industry we now have to deal with a lot of like the ramifications of what happens to people that take high concentrations of THC, but how that isn't like what happens when like hippies from the sixties just smoked actual leaves of pot. Right. And like seeing the difference in like that natural, um, quote natural, like the actual plant usage versus something that is, um, intentionally concentrated and used in a different way. So, I'm not saying that, you know, any of that is relevant, but that's just what I'm reminded of. I guess maybe a curiosity of mine, and I have actually heard maybe two and a half years ago now a presentation at the Pediatric Symposium in Spokane about kratom and its effect on children in Washington and what's going on there. Given what you've described that happens with a patient, obviously would we would immediately Narcan them. It matters very little to us what has caused their respiratory distress, right. Or, um, arrest. If that's what we're dealing with, we have a whole, uh, you know, a whole bunch of things that we do in Narcan is generally one of them. How does Kratom or the chemical. that you've referenced. How does that react in its affinity compared to Narcan and what we see in other opiates? Is it stickier, you know, if you will?

I didn't hear the last part.

Is it, you know, we would say like stickier? Does it have... Cratom, does it have more affinity to the receptor?

You know, I don't know the relative affinity between the different opiates, but I do know that those are beneficial for basically any of the opiates. And so they would be given, and they are beneficial, but I don't know the relative affinity, sorry.

Okay, no, you're fine. Just when we're comparing it to other opiates and... I'm just curious about how effective Narcan would be for this. But it sounds like once they get to you, it probably doesn't matter. Yeah, I don't.

And that's why I'm trying to prevent them from coming to me is the point.

Yeah, it wouldn't make a difference. Yeah, I'm sorry.

It wasn't an issue for me until they started coming and I started reading these reports.

I should have thought that all the way through. I'm so sorry. No, no, that's fine.

But if I can touch on the THC issue.

Oh, I would love to hear it maybe after. I'm so sorry. I know that we're like...

Oh, okay. No, absolutely. No problem.

If that's okay. Yep. And then I'm curious. I don't frequent the stores where these are sold, I guess, that much. But are children able to buy these in Idaho presently?

Or do you have to be 18? Well, if you call the store, they'll say, oh, no, we only give it to 21-year-olds. 21? Yeah. That's what they'll say. But, I mean, in other words, why would you make it in the form of a candy cane or in gummies if it wasn't available to children?

I 100% eat candy canes.

And I think that – and it's funny because one of my death investigators went to one gas station and – and he said, is this something that's popular, or is this something that you guys sell a lot of? And he says, oh, yeah, the kids really like it. Some come in every day, meaning teenagers. So they're coming in on a regular basis because they're obviously addicted.

Have we had any under-18-year-old deaths attributed to Kratom and Kootenai County?

No.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Sorry, I was just curious as you were going through those questions.

No, that's fine.

I have a question. I know you're talking to other jurisdictions about this. So the county is looking at a ban, but the cities would have to be actually banning it as well because that's where it will probably be sold. Have you had traction with other jurisdictions? Have they made a decision on how to handle this?

Other cities, you mean, for example? Yeah, I'm being invited to other cities in the county. So our goal is to hopefully get all of the cities on board so that we'd be sending a – message to the legislature I was asked this spring to write a letter to a subcommittee of the legislature and was more than happy to testify if they wanted me to and they basically held it in motion they decided not to make any action whatsoever on it hopefully this year with other counties getting on board Spokane apparently has banned it. Kellogg has banned it. You know, more and more people are banning it, hoping to get the legislator to say, okay, if a lot of cities in the state have banned it, maybe it's time for you guys to step up and do it rather than worrying about, you know, the industry.

Yeah, I think everyone wants to kind of see what everybody else is doing and kind of jump on board afterward, right?

Exactly.

For the other bands that you've seen, are they mostly banning the whole thing, or are they just banning synthetic?

No, they're banning the whole thing. Because, see, what happens is you don't know how much. I mean, because you can't believe the label, number one. So you don't know... And if they did put it on the label, it doesn't make really any difference. Like I was saying, ginseng, it was just absolutely garbage what was on the label. I mean, they were making, 44 companies were making a lot of money selling like grass clippings or something. There was no ginseng in the bottle. And so... the natural food industry is unregulated so they can do anything they want. And so that's why that study from the poison control centers nationally, they didn't find any benefit because when you try to control it, you're trying to control the wild west and there was just as many problems with those states as states that had no restrictions whatsoever. The only thing that worked that cut substantially hospitalizations and everything was just to totally ban it. And so if you were to say, oh, well, let's ban only 7-OH, well, then a manufacturer who's making billions is going to say, okay, well, I'm going to cross-pollinate and hybridize so that we can get 10%, 5%, 20% 7-OH in our product. It'll be natural. And that's what they've done with TSH, marijuana, by the way.

Yeah, Anderson, it's been bred so that the concentration is much higher than it used to be.

Than it was in the 60s. In fact, it's something like 60 times more powerful today than it was in the 60s. That's what I've read, but I don't have the statistic to back that one up.

Other questions?

Quick question, and you kind of alluded to it in your previous discussion, but When we're talking about regulation of what seems to be such a dangerous substance, it reminds me a bit of probably back in the late 90s, the discussion about ephedra and their derivatives and the things that were marketed as a dietary supplement that was kind of brought to the federal level. So if this is such a dangerous product, does it take a groundswell of local jurisdiction banning it to kind of introduce it into the market? into the attention of a federal level, or where do you see that going?

Well, I mean, fortunately, the CDC did step up and list 70H as a Schedule 1. I mean, Schedule 1 is like heroin. It's their highest level of restriction. So they're saying, you know, 70H is banned. I mean, you know, in that sense. So at least the federal is awakening to some degree. And, you know, I think it's nine states that I had on my slide presentation now that have banned it. And 15 are trying to restrict it. So it's weakening. And I think it'll eventually get there. I just hope that we don't have to wait a long time for us to get there. I mean, like fentanyl, how many deaths is it going to take until people, well, wow, this is horrible.

Agreed. I think the difference there then would be, you know, you can't buy fentanyl at a local gas station on the counter. Exactly. So when you're talking about a CDC identifying the substance itself, they clearly don't have an enforcement mechanism to keep it off the shelves. Am I assuming correctly?

Right, because it's a food supplement. So they control, you know, medications, but they don't control food supplements.

Okay.

And that's why it's so frustrating because I come from the food supplement industry. I totally understand that industry. If somebody says, I don't understand it, I was medical director of the largest supplement manufacturer in the world for 14 years. I really know that industry. So someone who sends you an email saying, I don't know what I'm talking about, just kind of blow that off. That's ridiculous.

Thank you.

You bet.

Just a quick comment, but it sounds to me like the major problem is the lack of regulation of the food supplement industry. Would you agree with that?

Well, it's really kind of interesting. There's a balance because there is, you know, if you don't let the food supplement industry have some freedom, then what you're doing is you're putting it under the control of the government and the government is heavily controlled by by the pharmaceutical industry. So of course the pharmaceutical industry isn't going to want to have competitive products. And so one of my major, my major role when I worked for the multi-billion dollar company was to speak from stage in front of thousands explaining the science behind the plant nutrients. And there are some natural plant nutrients that have been shown to have tremendous health benefits. But they can't be patented because they're natural plants. And so the pharmaceutical industry cannot control them. But they're losing billions of dollars when people will go, for example, you know, for turmeric or curcumin or... omega-3, et cetera, to help. And there's lots of studies from around the world talking about the health benefits of natural supplements. So if we then let the government control turmeric, curcumin, all of that kind of stuff, it'll be the pharmaceutical companies that'll say, oh, they're all bad, they're all garbage, but my product is awesome.

Even basic things like be honest about what's in it. I think labeling requirements don't seem to be too onerous. One issue I have with just ham-handed bans of everything is there are probably good actors in the natural food industry. And so just like saying, hey, there was a mass shooting last week, so every honest actor can't have one anymore. It's the same thing as saying, hey, we're going to ban this outright, even if you're an honest actor in this industry, and you can't do it anymore. I don't really like that approach.

Well, and really that gets down to his politics. I mean, there was a U.S. senator from Utah who was really strong on protecting that because there are a lot of multilevels in the state of Utah. And a lot of the natural products are grown in certain states around the country. So a lot of those industries, you know, contribute money to politicians. And so then they get swayed by that. And so there have been attempts to start going down that pathway of maybe we should have some control. And then people will push back because they're going to say, okay, then you're just going to hand something else to the pharmaceutical industry. So that's a war between the two. And I don't see that ending for quite a while because there's a lot of people that are passionate about a natural approach to health care. You know, the rather than immediately running to pharmaceuticals, we'll just try to see what the natural aspect of it does. And I've got a lot of background with that. Thank you.

Can I? I think it's a really interesting point. We should talk about it later. Cause I think that'd be a fun debate. What is the good, what's the good actor in this industry claim? I wonder what is, um, What does the good actor selling Kratom say that it's for?

Like sleep better? They'll say that it takes down pain. We had people when I appeared that no other product does. So I've tried every other opiate from my doctor, but this is the one that really alleviated my pain.

Well, you know, opiates are opiates.

There's so many opiates. You're going to be able to find something that's going to take away pain. So I think that's kind of a weak story. Some people just like that small euphoria aspect of it. You know, so... But again, everyone who goes down that pathway is gambling because eventually they're going to most likely want more. The high percentage are going to want more. And without it controlled, like the CDC found that a lot of them are contaminated with heavy metals and with bacteria and et cetera, et cetera. So, you know, how these are grown, where they're grown, mass production.

totally see that point i was just curious counselor molly brought up an interesting point that i just like pat like what is the good actor claim and so that's interesting yeah no no no it's just interesting so anyway yeah thanks for answering that you bet all right thank you for the presentation great thank you for your time i appreciate it so we've received some information about this and we could go a couple directions from here if you believe that we should pursue a ban we could direct city staff to look into this and repair something i would caution two things one is to go into everything that we tried to ban with eyes wide open and hear a lot of different perspectives and do a lot of research to make sure that we're doing the right thing. And the other is, it occurs to me that there's a chance we could put a lot of time into something like this only to have it banned at the state level this session and then why did we invest so much time into it? On the flip side, maybe it's that investment that gets it to be some state action. And so there are arguments both directions. So in any case, if there's any direction for staff that you guys want to give or if you want to look into it more, then now's the time.

Well, I think in either scenario, whether the state's going to ban it or whether we do, I think we need to be informed as to how to implement it. So I think a presentation by staff and to allow a more public forum to hear other sides, I think that would be valuable for us. I agree with that.

yeah i if staff is going to give a presentation i think what i would be most curious about is like the enforceability of a ban and what that would look like if only post falls bans this item like then how heavy like we can only have a misdemeanor right and like what what does the enforceability of that really look like i would be interested to know that i think more information is fine i'm not

particularly interested to run right across the finish line at this point. Yeah.

I know. I don't like it.

I'm sure we'll get some more public input from things.

This will circulate as well, so that might be helpful for us.

All right. Then we are moving on. Are there any amendments to the agenda tonight?

There are none tonight, sir.

Declarations of conflict, ex parte contacts, or site visits? Seeing none, please present the consent calendar.

Item A is the minutes from the August 11th, 2026 City Council Special Workshop. Item B is minutes from the August 18th, 2026 City Council Meeting. Item C is payables August 19th through September 2nd, 2026. Item D is Heaven View Annexation Reasoned Decision ANNX-25-9. Item E is Pleasant View annexation reasoned decision ANNX-25-10. Item F is North Chase Place grants of rights away and easements ANNX-25-8. And item G is North Chase Place first addition construction improvement agreement.

Questions on the consent calendar?

I move to approve the consent calendar as presented. Second.

Motion and a second. Further discussion? Roll call, please.

Maloy?

Aye.

Ziegler?

Aye.

Mosby?

Aye.

Luca? Aye. Stiglitter? Aye. Plouffe?

Aye. Motion passes. We have no public hearings tonight, so we're on to unfinished business. Item A, fiscal year 2027 budget ordinance.

I move to place the fiscal year 2027 budget ordinance on its first and only reading by title only while under suspension of the rules.

Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion? Roll call please. Ziegler. Aye.

Mosby. Aye. Luca.

Aye.

Stiglitter. Aye. Plough.

Aye.

Malloy.

Aye. Motion passes. An ordinance entitled the annual appropriation ordinance for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2026 appropriating the sum of $192,944,791 to defray the expenses and liabilities of the city of Post Falls for instead fiscal year authorizing a levy of sufficient tax on the taxable property and specifying the objects and purposes for which said appropriations are made.

I move to approve the fiscal year 2027 budget ordinance and to direct the clerk to assign the appropriate number and that it be published by summary only. Second.

Motion and a second for the discussion. Roll call please.

Ziegler?

Aye.

Mosby?

Aye.

Luca?

Aye.

Stiglitter? Aye. Plough?

Aye.

Molloy?

Aye. Motion passes. Item B, fiscal year 2027 use of foregone taxing authority resolution.

I move to approve the fiscal year 2027 use of foregone taxing authority resolution. Second.

Motion and a second for the discussion. Roll call please.

Mosby?

Aye.

Luca? Aye. Stiglitter? Aye. Plew?

Aye.

Malloy? Aye. Ziegler?

Aye. Motion passes. On to item C, fiscal year 2027 fee resolution.

I move to approve the fiscal year 2027 fee resolution. Second.

Motion and a second. Further discussion. Roll call, please.

Luca? Aye. Stiglitter? Aye. Plew?

Aye.

Malloy? Aye. Ziegler?

Aye.

Mosby?

Aye. Motion passes. Item D, North Chase Place Annexation Ordinance.

I move to place the North Chase Place Annexation Ordinance ANNX-25-8 on its first only reading by title only while under suspension of the rules. Second.

Motion and a second. Further discussion? Roll call, please.

Stiglitter? Aye. Plew?

Aye.

Malloy? Aye. Ziegler?

Aye.

Mosby?

Aye. Luca? Aye. Motion passes. I move to approve the North Chase Place annexation ordinance. Oh, sorry.

I know, right? We're going back and forth, ordinances and resolutions. An ordinance of the City of Post Falls and Municipal Corporation of the State of Idaho annexing property consisting of approximately 5.4 acres located at the southwest corner of Chase Road and Fisher Avenue, providing for amendment of the official zoning map and providing for an effective date hereof. And now.

I move to approve the North Chase Place Annexation Ordinance ANNX-25-8 and to direct the clerk to assign the appropriate number and that it be published by summary only. Second.

Motion and a second for further discussion. Roll call, please.

Stiglitter. Aye. Plew. Aye. Malloy. Aye. Ziegler. Aye. Mosby. Aye. Luca. Aye.

Motion passes. On to new business. Item A is the Tamarack Homes Appeal.

As we open this, I did want to address a couple collateral arguments that were brought up in the original brief asking for the appeal, basically alleging that the city and the department is not an affected party under the city code as well as that the department did not pay the fee for the appeal. Those are addressed in the legal memo, but I would like to get just some findings on the record before we proceed with hearing the merits of the appeal.

So opinions from the council. Can we hear the appeal effectively? You've seen the arguments in the packet.

So that's something I wanted to know, and I was actually going to ask Field for citation as to where in the code we can find a definition of an affected party. And as it, from what I could review, I didn't see that. So I think it's really up to us whether we believe that planning staff are an affected party within the interpretation of our own city code. Cause I don't see that written in there. So is that a fair?

I think that's a fair characterization.

So with that being the case, my view, and this kind of comes from my legal background, oftentimes and as we're sitting here in a quasi-judicial capacity, what I'm afraid of is creating precedent to achieve a result-oriented outcome that creates bad precedent, creates bad law. So for me, this is a very important question whether this is the procedurally proper appeal. When I think of a affected party, I usually think neighbors, the people who would be affected by the result of that appeal. Conversely, we as the city could be affected by whether these improvements are made. So I see it going both ways, but either way I would caution the precedent that it would set if we now believe that decisions by Planning and Zoning that we're concerned about or that staff doesn't like, that those are all now subject to appeal, is that what we intended? Is that what our code intended? Reading the code, I didn't see it.

Our code does provide for appeals, and so that's why we are here following the process.

And then perhaps for my clarification, I meant for our own staff to be considered affected parties as appellants to those decisions was my concern.

I have the same question I had the same question when I read it and it's not so much about the merits themselves but it's about whether or not the city can be an affected party and seek an appeal of another city arms decision so I would ask is there anything any definition of what an affected party is in any Instrument of law.

Yeah, so the the term affected party comes from Lallupa. We're not under Lallupa here. We're Merely administering our code. So Council has set the code they've outlined. Here's the process to follow a grant staff the the ability to interpret that code and enforce that code when we have applications and gives us something to follow and we have an appeal process that we that we work through and so So the city municipal code does not Does not address who can bring an appeal I The city municipal code addresses how the appeal procedure happens. So a little bit of background. So city council passed the code. There's the law. City staff interprets that when applying it to a particular property. Property can then appeal that decision to the Planning and Zoning Commission and then provided in the code that decision can be appealed to City Council. So whether or not. Is there anything about standing in there? Who has standing? It's because it's just an administrative procedure in our code. It doesn't really talk about who brings it but I think the idea and the intent is is that either party, depending on the outcome of the lower body, should be able to appeal that to the next level. The idea that only If the Planning Commission had gone the opposite direction, the idea that only the property owner would be able to appeal that decision to City Council is sort of antithetical to the idea that it should, the ability to appeal that to the next higher level. And I think that City Council should always be the final say when interpreting the city code because you are the ones who set the code.

Thank you. And we're not in a quasi-judicial context with this as a land use hearing. This is an administrative process, is that correct? That is correct. So the standards are perhaps less strict than in a court of law for things like standing.

For me personally, there's nothing in the code that says that the city is prohibited from appealing decisions of the Commission. And barring that, I don't think we could really say, no, they don't have any standing. I would say the city is certainly affected by the decisions of PNZ. So that would kind of qualify on its face as an affected party. And as Field mentioned, we aren't the city. We're the elected officials. And so we get to make the final determination if that if that is the case. So I don't have a whole lot of heartburn about the city being the appealing party here.

Nor do I. Field, could I like put a scenario out there and you tell me if I'm like way off base here or not? Sure. You know this fun game that I like to play? Okay. The city, when we do get Land use hearings, which are stricter. So I see that, but still, um, the city comes with the applicant and it's been said before that like the city would never bring an application forward that didn't like meet the qualifications or. like overwhelmingly work right because we have really great city staff and they tell the applicant hey that like the we can't approve an annexation with a future land use of residential when you're asking for industrial like the city council just can't approve it but that applicant would be able to bring it forward if they wanted yes like technically speaking they could push it through

Yes.

Okay. And then if it has to go through planning and zoning first. So if planning and zoning approves it, maybe we'll use a PUD instead. That's something that stops at planning and zoning. Maybe it's a PUD that doesn't really meet the qualifications as they're laid out in the city's ordinances and policies, because sometimes it's one, sometimes it's the other, or in the comprehensive plan. But planning and zoning approves it. And maybe staff is like, right, but this still really doesn't follow the rules. And we want city council to look over it again. In that case, that PUD request could be brought to us, correct?

So it's a little bit of a different context.

Okay, then you don't have to, like, if it's not a good equator, then...

So I think the separation that I'm trying to make is the sort of LLUPA specific property land use statute that we have to follow from state code versus sort of our own administrative procedures. And we're really in that sort of 18, 20 administrative procedures. Here's the general. Here's the type of procedures, temporary use permits, home occupations. site plan review those sort of matters and so the the local land use act would govern still puds and sps and yes so you would have to meet the um the affected party standards under lalupa which we are not under which we're not under i i feel like planning and zoning

helps us administer language that we approved. And if there is a concern that that's not being administered appropriately, then it seems reasonable for either of the parties being affected by that language to bring it back up to city council for clarification. And the city staff is affected by that language all day, every day, not just in this situation, because they are responsible for applying it all of the time. And so I think, Joe, to your point, I feel that they are an affected party by this language. And so they have the right to ask us how to interpret it in this specific case. And that's kind of what we're being asked to do, right? I agree.

Yeah, OK.

So I think it's cleanest if we take a motion to proceed at this point or a motion to dismiss, depending on how you feel about it.

And to address one last point on the $300 fee, I suppose technically we ought to have the city pay it, but it's taking the money out of one pocket and stuffing it in the other. So the effect is exactly the same. It'd be more symbolic than anything. So I also don't have a lot of heartburn about that.

I agree on the fee. And I think my concern was this seemed like an interpretation of affected party. You know, I believe that we are an affected party, but I think that it's important for us to consider carefully because whatever decision we make at the ultimate on the appeal itself, for example, if we decide adversely on the appeal, we approve that there, that the, planning staff are an affected party, then the next result is going to be, I believe, an appeal to the district court. Is that right, Field?

Right. So the next step would be judicial review, which also cannot happen until the city council has made a final decision on the appeal.

And so my concern is that we need to be really cognizant of what the next steps are if we're going to consider this appeal. I believe the city is an affected party and it's a proper appeal. And so I think if there's a motion, I'll be in favor of letting the appeal proceed.

Mr. Mayor, I don't know if it's out of turn or not, but I would also like to make one additional.

We had the argument in the packet. Well, after we decide this question, if we proceed, then we'll go to the city staff will present an argument, and then you'll present an argument, and we'll have rebuttal, and then we'll... Will I be able to make a procedural objection prior to staff making their argument?

What about standing? If you're making a motion on whether to dismiss, I think that our additional objection should be considered.

Was that not in the argument that you submitted that we've all read?

No. I'd just like to make it for the record. And I can do it during my time if you'd like me to do that as well.

I'd like to hear it if possible. All right, let's hear it. Briefly and limited to just the applicability of the standing question. We'll get to the merits later. That's what you're asking, correct?

It is relevant to the motion to dismiss. It wouldn't be relevant to the standing question though.

Okay, well then we'll discuss that later when we get to that point. We're just deciding standing first. So I think we need a motion either to proceed to the hearing or to dismiss.

So we have it on the record of what we're deciding. I would move to proceed. Second.

Motion and second for the discussion. Roll call, please.

Plew.

Aye.

Malloy.

Aye.

Ziegler.

Aye.

Mosby.

Aye.

Luca.

Aye.

Stiglitter. Aye.

Okay, motion passes. We have found that the appeal is valid. So let's continue. Thank you.

evening mayor and council members ethan porter one of the planners of the city and like you kind of mentioned or discussed we're here to kind of seek guidance to this appeal for staff just to make sure that you know previous decisions were were made and we need your guidance so with that being said the slide here shows kind of the property the subject property in question there along 21st avenue as you can see And this is kind of a zoning aspect of the area. And so, you know, the subject properties within the R2 medium density residential zone. So that's kind of the mustard colored there. Just north of them across the alleyway is the R3 high density residential, which is the more orangish color. And then the yellow that you see is pretty much the R1 single family. So this kind of lays out kind of what's around zoning wise. And so, you know, City of Post Falls Planning Division's bringing this to you. The owner is Tamarack Mountains Home LLC, and then like I said, tonight we're looking at guidance from you based on your decision from what Planning and Zoning determined that the improvement requirements for frontages and the development, they were not met under the Post Falls Municipal Code subsection 182420F. So, looking kind of at that. Commission hearing on the 30th of June they determined by a 3-2 vote, five of the seven commissioners were there to vote so by a 3-2 vote the proposed redevelopment did not constitute a new land use and instead was a continuation of the existing residential use as well as reconstruction of those structures did not qualify as an expansion greater than 25% to trigger site improvement requirements. So looking a little bit at the background real quick, there was some discussions for the project in September of last year. And then October, they followed up with a demo permit to remove the pre-existing homes and structures on site. And then we discussed a little bit more of the cottage home and tiny home. And as those who are exempt, there's code section that exempts the furniture improvements if you're doing cottage or tiny homes but based on what they want to do duplexes that didn't apply so they move forward with the duplex proposal and so previous you know through the first discussion September and moving forward to kind of where we are now You know the emails and discussions with staff, you know, we talked to extensively kind of looking at that fringe improvements What would that look like as well as that change of use and other kind of expansion on the site to kind of help? Interpret that code and so to avoid delaying their construction They were allowed to proceed, you know at their own risk and those permits were conditionally approved in August 2026. So here's the current status, you know, rebuilding permit was approved with the note basically stating that the furniture improvements will be pending the appeal process and the decision from that. So this kind of outlines again where the project subject property is and kind of outlines where the sidewalks are. Kind of furniture improvements include sidewalks and some of that pedestrian network and connectivity. So the circle, I'll zoom in a little bit more here, that circle there is where that termination for the northwest sidewalk ends, and then the dash line's obviously where it would be, not where this project would input it in, but where the sidewalk connection and connectivity could be if they triggered fringe improvements along those properties. And so this one obviously would be in front on Long 21st Avenue. But that kind of shows to the park, 265 feet to the west, and then that section there from that northwest sidewalk terminating at that circle, moving down towards 21st Avenue, that's like 215 feet. So that kind of gives you an idea of where that pedestrian connectivity is and kind of where we are at with sidewalks in this area. And that is a park, you know, that dash line to the west is to that park there, which is the Chase Sports Field Complex. So, looking kind of at the site, you know, what it is pre-existing, Here's where we can see that just kind of from the 21st Avenue there and then we look to the west at that single-family property and kind of that intersection that corner and Then to the east of the subject site as well. They're single-family property to the east kind of looking at what that looks like and The demo of the structure, when they demoed it, it did get assessed in the county as a vacant lot, and so that was reflected in the tax assessment for that demolition of the structure and structures on site. And so this kind of all leads up to kind of what does our code say? How are we in Turbinus? What are we doing with this code section here? But as I mentioned earlier, that subsection F in 18.24.20, 1B looks at when constructing or expanding a use on a lot by creating a new land use or expanding an existing use by 25% or more in floor area. So that's kind of the question, you know, and seeking guidance for us tonight to kind of help us layout kind of what we've seen in the history and we're moving forward for your decision on this appeal. And so looking at some of the definitions, we have dwelling unit, which means a single family unit. It's providing complete independent living facilities. And typically that single family home is associated with a dwelling unit for one dwelling unit. When you look at duplex, you know, you're looking at a multifamily house having separate dwelling units for two families with two separate entrances on a single lot or consolidated lot. So, you know, the definition is going to help guide as well kind of decision that you have to make tonight. But I figured this would be in there to kind of help clarify if that does come up for your deliberation. Additionally, we need to look at, as I mentioned, it's in the R2 zoning district. So looking at our land use table, we do have residential uses listed in the R2 being permitted, which single family is, as well as duplex two units per structure. So our land use table does identify two of those uses being separate. They're not lumped in together. But then also the LBCS codes do classify those as different. And this is from our land use table and city code. And so kind of looking at what the lot was and then what it is now or looking to be now before it was a single family house, one dwelling unit, detached accessory buildings on two plot of lots within a single tax parcel, you know, collectively all those structures. We went with a conservative approach to kind of look at that where 1,720 square feet incorporating all of those outbuildings and accessory buildings. And then afterwards, we're looking at kind of what was proposed. They have two duplexes on two platted lots, creating four dwelling units on two tax parcels. And so that total square footage then becomes 4,830. And so we're looking at 181% expansion there based on the before and after of kind of what was used. And so here just kind of outlines too some of the elevations to kind of give you a better perspective as well of what they're proposing for the duplexes. And then the rear elevation as well to kind of highlight what you're seeing from the alleyway. um additionally in the past the present precedent has been set you know this is one example from 10th avenue a single family home and was basically purchased and redeveloped into two duplexes as well and so this kind of shows the difference as what we've required in the past for this and that was the furniture improvements as well for this project so you can kind of see the differences there and it's kind of a similar situation as what we're seeing tonight and what you're asking to help guide our decision on. And so tonight, looking at what we're asking, that motion to grant the appeal to reverse the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision based on that new use or the expansion of use. So looking at that interpretation, the definitions, do you see that the vacant land going to two duplexes, you know is that or one duplex on each lot is that you know a new use expansion of use that'll be kind of up to you what we're seeking their guidance on to kind of clarify that or you can look to motion to deny the appeal and direct staff to bring forward text amendment excluding frontage requirements as well so that would be kind of the other option there too but i will stand for any questions you may have for staff at this time

I have a question Mr. Porter. Yeah. We're talking about use of the property, right?

Correct.

This property has the one residence and a bunch of outbuildings, that's what was demolished?

Correct.

Were any of those outbuildings resided in?

Not that I'm aware of, no. I think they were all accessory. And they only had one address in sight, and I don't believe we had a permit for anything for an ADU or something like that.

But regardless of permitting, was the actual use in any of those accessory buildings for any type of... permitted or unpermitted residents.

Like to reside in and dwell, correct? Yes. Not to my knowledge. There weren't. That would be kind of in our software and our history a little bit, and I don't recall seeing any of that.

All right. Thank you.

Yeah.

So did I hear correctly that the sidewalk extension improvements would go all the way to the court that you showed me, that red line?

That just kind of gave the perspective of where that sidewalk could be completed to kind of match up and lead to the park and so the furniture improvements that We've typically required for development when they trigger it is just in front and the extent of their property. Okay, so It's important to note you will see some fragmented you know sidewalks built here and there but over time essentially new development triggers a site plan and then we put in those furniture improvements and then we slowly over time you know secure that pedestrian networking pathway.

I just wanted to confirm that we are not asking, the city's not asking the developer to extend all that sidewalk to the court at this time? Correct, yeah. It's just the property line?

Yep, it's just basically outlined in their approved building permits and they show only in front of those extensive property.

There's also an alleyway in play here too. Can you expand more on that and what the requirement's supposed to be and where that is outlined in code that alleyways need to be?

Yes.

Constructed, please.

I'll defer to Chris in our engineering department to kind of discuss that a little bit more. Thank you.

Good evening, Chris Schneider, staff engineer. So the city code allows for the city engineer to discuss what a frontage improvement is and the hard fact of it in the code is referring to the portion that is basically from the property to the center line of the road unless the road's not developed and we go an additional 10 feet so we can actually get two-way traffic. For the alleyway improvements, Under our previous city engineer, Bill Melvin, we had been enforcing, if that is your primary access point, that you would pave from wherever the existing road is currently to your property. Recently, under Rob Polis' direction, we have stopped requiring that, and that change has happened from the time that this project started and today. I don't know the exact date that meeting between us happened, so if they were to apply today, we would not have required it. On the original permit, it was required, because that was the standard at that point. Is the alleyway the primary access to this property? It would be. There's no driveway to 21st? They would have been allowed to do one, but we did not require them to use 21st as their access point because that alleyway exists. So the current direction I've gotten from Rob is that for these older parts of town, your Idaho, Spokane, basically seventh up to 21st, give or take, where we have these old 16 foot wide alleyways, we're not gonna require them to do any sort of alleyway improvements unless it is some form of commercial multi-family business, something of that nature that's gonna have a larger volume of vehicles. Something like this, we're talking, 10 trips a day per house, something on the much smaller scale that doesn't necessarily warrant it. So it's clear as mud?

Yeah.

All right, thank you.

I guess just to further ask about the alleyway, with that then, without a requirement of any kind of paving, I just want to make sure that we're not, requiring any type of city maintenance on the highway, like snow plowing especially. And I know that since the requirement is lifted, it probably wouldn't follow, but let me just get some clarification on that.

Yeah, so my understanding for how we've been treating the alleyways is they are, in a sense, our responsibility to maintain, snowplow, maintain, but they are unfortunately the lowest of our priorities. As we stretch our funds and our time, we start plowing the busy roads, Mullen, Idaho, Celtice, and we work our way towards those alleyways eventually, but typically by the time our crews can get to those, the snow has melted.

I don't, may I just clarify, and I don't know that it's germane to the decision that we're making, but so in our code it says that you have to or that you have to do improvements on the alleyway if they're needed, if that's your primary entrance and exit for this property, but Rob Paulus has chosen not to enforce that unilaterally?

No, so the code section, I'm sorry, I don't know the exact phrasing on it, but the code section leaves some flexibility for the city engineer to discuss what frontage improvements are necessary for the site as it develops. and Rob's decision has been that is not a high priority for us to enforce on these developers. Because in this case, going back to the other comment about doing improvements outside of their property, we're now talking about alleyway improvements for the neighboring property they need to get to their property, but benefits the neighbor in the process. So there was no explicit code section requiring the alleyway. It is more that vague, open-ended language at his discretion.

Okay, I think Rob owes you a coffee for this. Thank you so much.

Any other questions?

All right. Let's hear from Tamarack.

Okay.

Thank you. If you can give your name for the record and 20 minutes on the clock.

Tanner Mort, and I'm one of the co-owners of the project here. You know, the first thing that I want to raise is that brief kind of procedural objection, and this isn't going to seem conversational as I'm just reading from the sheet that I prepared to make sure that I preserve everything, but under Post Falls Municipal Code Section 1820.060A, council's acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. It sits as the decision maker. The planning department is the appellant. When Planning and Zoning Commission heard this dispute, it received no substantive merits memorandum from the city attorney advocating the department's position. After the commission ruled against the department and the department appealed, however, the city attorney provided the mayor and council with a merits memorandum on August 26, 2026. And in that memorandum, he advocated the department's position before Tamarack submitted its answering brief. And we object because the city attorney has now effectively assumed two materially different roles. Idaho Code Section 50-208A designates the city attorney as the legal advisor of the municipal corporation, and the city identifies legal services as providing legal representation to the mayor and city council. Yet the city attorney has also advocated the merits of the appellant's position before the very council that he must independently decide this appeal. And to reiterate, no comparable merits memorandum was provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission when it heard the original appeal. So that combination of advisory and advocacy functions creates a substantial risk that advocacy from counsel's own legal advisor will carry institutional weight beyond advocacy from the appellant itself. And it implicates Tamarack's right to procedural due process and an impartial tribunal under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. and Article 1, Section 13 of the Idaho Constitution. So we therefore ask that the city clarify on the record whether the city attorney is acting as an advocate for the appellant, as legal advisor to the council, or both. If he is advocating the appellant's position on the merits, we ask that he also not advise council on those same merits, any substantive legal advice on which council relies, and any substantive merits communications received by outside this hearing should be disclosed on the record so that we can properly have an opportunity to respond to it. With that being said though, we are prepared to proceed without waiving this objection. We reserve the right to renew it if those roles are further combined. And what I'm getting at there is, and it's already happened tonight, that the city attorney has already advised you guys from a non-biased standpoint as to certain legal issues. In his memorandum, he's advocating on the part of the planning department, and that authority is that he's in a trusted position with you all that it might carry different weight and improperly sway the tribunal when you're supposed to be considering this impartially. So I'll go ahead and get on with kind of the merits of our situation here. As you've seen, we've got two existing, our two lots that remain in residential use. These are two separately platted legal non-conforming lots, date back to the original platting in 1891, so there's quite a bit of history with these two lots. that we can only imagine. We are in the process of constructing a duplex on each lot. We have two separate permits. Before, there was residential buildings, and after, there's also gonna be residential buildings, so the underlying use of the land remains residential. So the three questions that decide this appeal, first, is there a new land use? Second, is there an expansion of an existing use? And three, whether the public alleyway provisions are triggered by either of those that requires us to pave it. So first I want to turn just to kind of the operative language of the code section. It requires frontage improvements when constructing or expanding a use on a lot by creating a new land use, which I'll refer to that tonight as prong one, or expanding an existing use by 25% or more in floor area, which will be prong two. And notice that the code uses different language in those two prongs. Prong one specifically refers to the creation of a new land use, while prong two refers to an existing use that's measured in floor area. Now standing alone, that difference in wording might not seem particularly significant, but it becomes significant when we read the provision in context with Title 18 as a whole. Throughout the code there's a distinction between on the one hand the use of land and on the other hand the use or expansion of buildings and structures located on that land. So we'll see that distinction become particularly important as we kind of work through these two prongs. So turning to prong one, the relevant question is whether there's a new land use. And the answer to that is there's no new land use because the previous use of the land was for residential purposes and it's continuing to being used for residential purposes after the development. The city code defines use as a specific purpose for which land or a building is designed. As staff points out, the land use table places single family homes and duplexes under the same residential uses. The land use table distinguishes residential development types, but the code here is specifically asking for the land use. When it asks for the land use, we have to look to what the fundamental or primary purpose is of the underlying land, not the building itself. Moving on to prong two, and I apologize, I'm going to kind of fly through these because of just the limited amount of time. But if there are any questions, just either feel free to interrupt me or we can bring those up at the end. But the next prong two, it requires staff to establish that an applicant is expanding an existing use by 25% or more in floor area. And the Supreme Court's held that the same rules of construction applicable to statutes also apply to municipal ordinances. So how do we interpret statutes, and especially in the cases where they're not super clear or we don't know what their meaning might be? First, we have to give the words their plain, usual, and ordinary meaning. We have to read the code as a whole, so we have to look to all of section 18 to try to interpret what's being meant. We have to give every word meaningful effect. So in the previous example, land use, not just a use, it's the use of the land. And then the Supreme Court's also cautioned that zoning restrictions should not be extended by implications to cases not clearly within their scope and purposes. So in this case, kind of starting to work through that analysis expansion is not replacement. The ordinary meaning of expansion means to enlarge in something. The ordinary use of existing means something to have real being or to continue to be. So if we put those together, you can't expand something that's no longer there. The code does define floor area. It's a physical building measurement. And it's the area of an enclosed floor measured from the interior faces of exterior walls. Not super helpful here, other than the fact, though, that it relates that when we're looking at an existing use, we're still relating it and measuring it in floor area. Well, what is that floor area? You know, what floor are we looking at? And we'll get to that in a minute. You know, looking to the code as a whole, section 18.20.130, it speaks of expansion of floor area of an existing structure. Section 18.28.020, it separately speaks of a destroyed structure being reconstructed so that the code does know how to distinguish between the two. And then I just kind of have this practical example of applying that to this situation. What does an expansion and floor area look like versus what does a replacement or reconstruction look like? In the interest of time, I'm not gonna dwell on that, but we'll just go ahead and move on. The main premise here is that staff has basically proven that the replacement buildings are larger, but not that anything existing was expanded, and that's not the trigger language, it's not what was enacted. The other kind of issue that's going on with this section of code is 25% of what exactly? We're told floor area, but which floor area? Staff's replacement construction theory for expansion, it requires rules that the code never provides. The code says expanding an existing use by 25% or more in floor area on a lot. Well, here we have two lots. So at what point, what building percentage of what was previously existing applies to which lot? The code doesn't say. And it doesn't offer any guidance for a historical baseline either. So to reach its 25% calculation, staff has to apply rules that the code never enacted. Some of those being floor area from demolished structures continue to count as an existing baseline. that historical floor area carries forward after demolition, that historical floor area may be allocated or aggregated across separate lots, that two separate lots and two replacement buildings may be combined into one percentage calculation. None of that is expressly defined in the code. And the missing methodology, it just confirms the problem. And the code was not written to treat demolition and replacement as an expansion of something existing. The other argument that staff kind of advances is the code was recently amended, and it offered some specific enumerated exceptions. Well, the way that that's effectively being applied and how it was originally presented to us in our email communications was you're not listed in the exception, so categorically you have to do frontage improvements. Well, that's not interpreting the code how it's supposed to be. We have to start with step one, look at is there a new land use or an expansion, And if there's not, then we're at the end of the analysis. If the answer is yes, then we go to the exceptions. But the mere fact that a duplex isn't listed in the exceptions doesn't mean that it categorically is triggered at step one. Nor does it show that council intended for duplexes to categorically trigger frontage improvements under F1. If council wanted that, they could have said it. So in sum here, I'm just gonna wrap it up that the land use, it remains residential because the fundamental use of the land is still residential. And larger replacement buildings do not establish an expansion of an existing use under prong two. Moving on to the reconstruction of the public alley, our main argument here, to sum it up, and it sounds like the staff doesn't even really contest it at this point, is that there's nothing in the code that requires us to pave the alley, a public alley, even if those frontage improvements are triggered. That in itself doesn't establish that we have to pave the alley. There are some code provisions about paving access drives and parking areas, but those code provisions don't say that a public alley is an access drive, or that we have to pave the public alley beyond our property, or that paving has to continue through the public right of way to the nearest alley or entrance. And there's a separate constitutional concern here, and I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time on that either in the interest of time, but I'll just move on at that. So at this point, the legal analysis is basically over, everything that I wanted to talk about from the legal side of things. And now I just want to kind of step back and look at the practical effects of this and how we look at this going forward. You know, it's no secret the city has been trying to fight the fight against housing affordability and making housing more affordable. Well, the city really has two levers when we think about what the city can do to affect supply and demand and try to hopefully shape the economic scenario that we have in this area. The city can lower fees or they can lower regulatory costs. You know, the mayor's already explained that building permit fees should cover the full cost of processing permits. So my guess is that the building permit fees are already as low as we can get them. So the only thing that's left, the only lever that we can do is to lessen regulation. Well where do we lessen regulation? And you know, a good point to begin with lessening regulation is to cut out unnecessary restrictions that don't provide any immediate public benefit. And turning to this project specifically, what immediate public benefit does this sidewalk provide? This is an aerial shot of the basically surrounding neighborhood. Our two lots are shown in stars there. The disputed sidewalk is shown in red and the existing sidewalk is shown in green. Those are the only existing sidewalks in this area here. So it doesn't connect to anything. Sure, there's a park nearby, but this segment doesn't create a continuous sidewalk connection to it. So again, we reiterate the fact that there's really no immediate public benefit created by a $20,000 to $30,000 additional regulatory expense. On top of that, staff advances the position that this is how sidewalk is basically installed, and that over time as redevelopment occurs and maybe these frontage improvements are triggered, that eventually we have a continuous sidewalk network. Well, the city attorney said that this same code has been in effect for over 30 years, and on the slide here, you know, what's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven different duplexes I've marked out that apparently haven't triggered frontage improvements under that code. I don't know the specific facts there of why they didn't trigger frontage or if it was waived or if there was some sort of fee and lieu paid that we weren't offered in this scenario. But, I mean, it doesn't look like the policy's working out very good in 30 years. I don't know where we'll be in another 30 years, but... You know, I'll just kind of, I guess, leave it at that. You also should have been provided with what was marked as proposed Tamarack Exhibit 1. Did you all receive that? So what that is, and you can see in the aerial map, is that this is a lot. It's directly to the south of us. I haven't done the measurement, but it's on 20th Avenue, and we're on 21st, so it's one street away. This was constructed in 2023, so just three years ago, and there was no frontage improvements. So... Is it that the code is being misapplied? Is it that those frontage improvements were waived? We unfortunately don't have those facts in front of us. We would love an answer as to why our project triggers frontage, but all these other projects that have happened in the same area under really similar conditions haven't triggered frontage improvements. So that's one thing to kind of consider because it starts to look like the code is being applied based on who you are and it leaves room for prejudice of who the developer is and who decides when to trigger frontage and when not to. So it leaves a lot of questions. The other, kind of transitioning out of that, Mr. Mayor's obviously advanced a lot of recent development priorities in kind of the light of the current situation. Increasing, you know, encouraging denser infill development, using existing infrastructure more efficiently so growth pays for itself, reducing red tape, streamlining development requirements, and this project advances those priorities. There's four modest infill homes on existing lots within the existing infrastructure street and utility network without expanding the city's boundaries. And to the mayor's point, I think he's on the right track. Let's look at what the city gains here. It's gaining a net of three homes added to the city's housing supply without any annexation or outward expansion of the city. There's going to be an estimated 10 times increase in annual city property tax revenue. It's infill on existing city infrastructure. We have existing platting lots, street network, water sewer network. We're adding housing without extending city infrastructure into new development areas, replacing older structures with modern code-compliant housing, substantial upfront development revenue in building permit fees, as well as additional utility revenue for the city.

You know, and ultimately

obviously the code seems very unclear here uh... it can be interpreted but it's it's a complex legal process to try to interpret it the code to be clarified if council wanted to uh... the main point here being is that if council wants replacement development or a simple before and after increase in floor area to trigger frontage improvements it can say so expressly it could make this crystal clear if it wants sidewalk if it wants these frontage improvements to happen on this type of project to trigger them, it can expressly say so and amend the code. Ultimately, counsel's decision must rest on the code. Counsel's acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. They must apply the adopted code to the record before it. Mere administrative convenience, policy preference, institutional consistency is not an adopted decision criterion. So if those questions can't be answered from the enacted code language, the department's appeal should be denied. uh... and then again we're just asking that that uh... the council denied the department's appeal and affirm the planning and zoning commission neither code trigger has been established and no authority has been shown for the public alley condition uh... and ultimately if council wants a broader replacement development rule it can amend the code prospectively to make it clear for all these situations so that We don't have what's been happening across the town where certain developments that are very similar are not triggering frontage, and our development somehow is. We have a minute left. I don't know if questions cuts into that minute or how it goes, but happy to answer any questions.

Questions?

Thank you, Mr. Morton. I appreciate your presentation. A couple of questions for you, and I apologize, these are not all related. So first of all, I would address your initial objection regarding the city attorney serving in a role as an advisor to us and then as an advocate for the planning department. I was reviewing the materials that were provided, in particular the August 26th memorandum from Mr. Harrington to Marin City Council, and I was wondering if maybe you can point out where in this particular memorandum we can find advocacy by our city attorney for the planning and zoning department. Because the way I read this, it was directed to us and to the mayor. And so I'm just wanting to see where you can point that out.

I mean, I don't have it in front of me. But really, the whole argument on point, I think he has it as point A and point B, There's several conclusory statements. I mean, the whole memorandum is conclusory statements about the law in favor of the planning department. There's never any, well, here's the point that the applicant is making. Here's the point that staff is making. Here's what I likely see somewhere in the middle of this. There's no presentation of that. It is completely one-sided. It is all conclusory in favor of the planning department with no legal analysis whatsoever. And not to mention there's also points where he calls our arguments meritless. He says that planning and zoning waived the requirements. Planning and zoning did not waive the requirements. They looked at the code, decided that the code did not apply, and that was their ruling.

Thank you. The question I asked of staff during their presentation, I'm sure you heard it, regarding the outbuildings. Before the demolition of the outbuildings and the structure on site to facilitate this reconstruction, Do you know if it was being used for any other residences or of any sort?

You know, there was obviously the primary residence. There was, I believe, a completely disabled camper trailer that came down in the demolition that I don't know what the city's position is on a mobile camper trailer, if that constitutes, you know. residential living area or not. The outbuilding, there was multiple, what we were considering them to just be residential accessory structures, shops and sheds and stuff like that.

Nothing that indicated someone was living in any of these outbuildings?

No, nothing that indicated anybody would be living there, but they would still be used for residential purposes. They weren't being used for a commercial purpose or some other purpose like that.

But for us to, as we're working through this analysis, would you agree then that this was a, single family home property that was used only for one, as a single family home, it was not used as a multi-family property?

Yes, yes. As far as the land use goes, though, the land use would remain residential. The specific development form, the development type, would be a single family home.

Thank you. And then, as I'm understanding, your argument is that it's not an expansion of use because we're not increasing what was already there. It's a new set of structures, so there's no expansion, but you would agree that if we decide that one is more floor area than the other, that that is true, that what you're gonna build has more floor area.

Yeah, yeah, we're not contending that we have less floor area. Looking at the project as a whole, there is more floor area, but the Idaho Supreme Court has repeatedly said that mere intensification does not constitute a change in land use.

Thank you. Yep, that's all the questions I had.

What's the square footage of each individual duplex, not the building as a whole?

uh the number on here was right it's 2200 something but i'm glad that you brought that up because it doesn't on one lot per se if we were to split these to each individual lot we're not over that 25% threshold if we were to consolidate everything to one lot which in theory we could have only built one duplex on one lot in this case and then it becomes a question of what was the size of the previous existing buildings if the city wants to use that as the existing baseline. We haven't expressly agreed that the 1700 previous square foot number was what was existing previously there could have been more there could have been less we haven't really looked into it and there really wasn't any great record keeping of it but it does throw a lot of doubt as to this code circle back to my question sorry yeah um so each rentable unit of which you're proposing four is 2200 square feet that's what i want a little bit more than that yes someone's saying no there's four rentable units so it'd be Oh, each rentable unit. Yeah. It would be a quarter then, so you want to come up and speak to that?

1,200 square feet, roughly.

1,200 square feet is each rentable unit. OK, thanks so much. Sorry, I totally misinterpreted your question. OK, thank you.

So the total floor area, is it increasing by 25% or not, like from what was there before to what you're proposing?

Yeah, it would be over 25% but we have to look at it on a lot by lot basis and what we use as the previous measure is unclear in the code right now and that's the point that we're trying to essentially advocate for.

And why is it unclear? Is it because the primary structure straddled two lots or?

Well, that's part of the reason. The other part of it is because the code doesn't define what existing means within terms of this. I mean, other sections of the code, when it talks about expanding a use, it's talking with respect to existing floor area of an existing building. And the examples that it gives are adding on additional units to a multifamily residence. So there's something that's physically there that's being expanded or an addition of a home.

I'm sorry, so the original building actually straddled the lot line?

Yes, it did. Okay. Not equally, it was about 90% and 10% maybe. Okay.

I mean I think it's clear that council didn't intend that somebody could come and apply just for a demolition permit wink wink demolish it and then create something new there and say oh well you know this this doesn't apply so so that's not persuasive to me And I think that our code explicitly says that a duplex is a different use. And in the code, it has the table which lists single family and duplex as separate uses. So I don't find that persuasive either. I do think there, I still have some questions about, as I've thought more about it, about the standing question. And I do appreciate your display of the other properties and how the code's been applied over the years. If there's an opportunity for rebuttal, I'd love to hear city staff talk about how this has been applied. They gave one example where it was applied as it's being applied here, but it's also not being, but the respondent has given us an example where, in the same neighborhood, where it isn't being applied in the same way, and that's a recent decision, so I'd love to hear why that is. And I also wanna say that I appreciate the well thought out presentation and I also appreciate what you're trying to do with the property. Totally support the goals of trying to have more affordable housing and all of that. And I'm just gonna try my best to apply the code as written.

Yeah, and do you have any other questions on the use table at all?

No, because I've read it, and it really looks like it's stating that it's a different use. There's different categories. There's different codes of applying those. I think one's like 1101, and one's 1102. So it's clear that it's not just defining residential. For example, you wouldn't argue that, well, I can put a high-rise there because it's still residential, right? Sure. So it's a different use, in my opinion.

Well, so we need to go back, though, to the original language of the code where it says creation of a new land use, and we have to give the term land effect there. So that's where our clarification is trying to hit on that subject.

But I guess you've also argued that because of the demolition on the one lot and the vacancy of any dwelling unit on the other lot, Are you saying that vacant lot usage is the same as dwelling unit usage? That would seem to be an expansion or a change of use.

Well, so I think, again, we have to look at the land use. There's been cases in the Idaho Supreme Court where something's been demolished, something has been re-erected, particularly the city of Lewiston likes to set precedent on a lot of this. And the Idaho Supreme Court has repeatedly said that mere intensification doesn't change the land use as long as the fundamental use of the property remains for that specific use, that residential use.

Wouldn't that mean like if you were going to add a 100 square foot addition to a bedroom of an existing house? I mean, this is changing it. The definition of single family home in 18-12010 is a building containing a single dwelling unit, which is something that's also defined by code. And then duplex house means a multifamily house having a separate dwelling units for two families with two separate entrances on a single lot or consolidated lots with a single tax parcel other than where a second dwelling unit is permitted as an accessory use. So and then there's separate listings in the land use table in 18-20-030. So it seems to me that that argument falls short because. Well, if I can jump in for a second.

We're getting into deliberation. And he's supposed to be presenting his case right now. So we can let him finish presenting his case. And we can have rebuttal. Then we can get into this deliberation, if that's OK.

It's a question. I mean, here's the code. What's your response to that as I've just read the plain text of the code?

Yeah, can you kind of repeat the last part of your question? I wasn't quite sure what you were going on.

The plain text of the code seems to, in both the land use table that's in our code and the definitions that are in our municipal code, both give a... single dwelling unit as one use and a duplex house as a different use.

Right, it's referring to it as a use, not as a land use, and that's where our distinction comes in. If we go back to the original code section where it says creation of a new land use or expansion of an existing use, The fact that the use is there's a use, an existing use, and then there's a land use. Use would speak more to the building itself. The way that the code likes to distinguish between use and land use, when the code refers to land use, it's usually referring to the underlying use of the land, residential, commercial, agricultural. When it talks about use, it's more specifically referring to the building itself, and it always seems to refer to expanding a use. How is the building being used? I don't know if that answers your question.

Well, again, I think it goes back then. You could have built a fourplex on there because it's a residential use. So where does that threshold go?

Correct, but we couldn't do a fourplex because of zoning.

But I think the point is, if we're only looking at the definition of use as in what the building is used for, it would expand the definition of that to be rather arbitrary rather than like what I believe you're pointing at is the dwelling unit definition, which would be an expansion of use.

I mean, I'm having a tough time kind of following the question, but the only thing that kind of keeps going into my head here is the fact that this code seems incredibly unclear. And instead of trying to force our way into making it apply to, in effect, get sidewalk, it should just be amended. That would be the clear path forward, in my opinion.

Are there any other questions about the arguments being made? And then we can save the deliberation part for later. I think we're maybe getting a little far afield.

All right, thank you. Yeah, thank you, everybody.

Rebuttal.

Evening, Mayor, council members. Ethan Porter with the City of Post Falls Planning Department. So I'm gonna do the best I can to kind of not take too much time, but I did hear some questions that you had that I could probably expand on. I do wanna outline that the permit's already approved and they are going out, and so they do have approval to build those dwelling units. And kind of to address the council member's question on what has been done in the past regarding the frontage improvements as we see some have frontage like the precedent that in my presentation that was there and then other ones don't. Previously there were frontage waiver requests that would come forward to City Council for specific projects and Council would make that decision of either waiving it or not. That was being done until there was no basis kind of in code to outline Council making those decisions like no criteria to kind of base those decisions on. So the amendment through the text amendment for that code section to go along with ordinance 1530 helped kind of clarify and bring that more to light so then there's more criterion basis on how do we apply for an improvement so that's kind of what happened in the past is it would be brought to the council they would decide to waive it there was not a lot of basis so we changed code through ordinance 1530 and to kind of help clarify that and so here we are now but so yeah so are you saying that that

In the respondent's exhibit one, where he shows this house on 20th Avenue, that that was done prior to the change in the code?

Yeah, I believe when I look that one up, I think it was 2022 when that was built. And so, yeah, back then at that time, there was waiver requests moving forward and kind of that would be presented to council. Council make decision and then move forward with what they decided, either put in frontage improvements or not.

So sorry, I have a slight hearing loss, so I'm trying to just clarify this. So the code was in place, but council issued a waiver for this property.

Yep, that was a process. So they would come through through frontage waiver requests to council and they would make the decision on each individual when it did trigger for our code that expansion or the new use, they would bring it to council and council would make the decision. Now we don't have to do that because ordinance 1530 and last year, August was kind of put into effect in that way. It didn't, we don't have to do those anymore because we have more clarity.

So the code did change. Do you have a question about instead of doing waivers, we now have the listed exceptions for cottage homes, for example.

Correct. Um, And so kind of you already kind of been talking about a residential to residential, you know, that is kind of a use, but our land use table does delineate single family and duplex as separate land uses. So that's kind of where the new use, if you're looking at a vacant lot, you know, there's nothing on there. It's a new use versus an expansion 25%. You know, you have an existing use and then you're expanding it, triggering the fringe improvements because it's kind of an expansion of that. And so that's kind of where that idea moving forward and why this was kind of classified as triggering this furniture improvements because the demolition of the lot created it vacant. and now we're moving to a whole new use, and the higher use of single-family to duplex was kind of that trigger as well, and so as staff, we look at that and go, okay, there's a lot going on here, but the frontage improvements, kind of the idea tonight in looking at that aspect was, you know, should they put in the furniture improvements or not based on our code section and what is outlined in that Post Falls Municipal Code subsection F. So do we basically look at putting in pedestrian pathways and that connection? Because yeah, you're right, it does get fragmented, but over time, you know that should all build upon itself to where we have a baseline of pedestrian networks to and from places so you know it's the kind of payoff of development paying for development we're looking at moving these forward with frontage improvements to allow for kind of the public and the community to entertain the pedestrian pathway and kind of go from one place to another so um I'll ask Bob Seal, the Community Development Director, if he has anything else to add, but he can come up and speak.

Maybe just a little bit, because I get hyped up. I'm Bob Seal, I'm the Community Development Director for the city. I do believe you have received a lot of information tonight. There are some things that I can agree with and others I can't. I know that he also brought up the points of expansion versus Intensification, we have always looked at those as two separate things. Expansion being the expansion of a structure of a building. Intensification, you know, going from, you know, three people living in a house to ten people living in a house is intensification. As for, Ethan pointed out that the, you know, policy, we used to have basically that policy to come to council with an engineer's, the city engineer's recommendation as to whether or not furniture improvements should be waived. And we operated that way for 30 years. And even the mayor's wife's project when she worked on that with her brother, those furniture improvements were required because of its location and the city engineer had thought that they were best to have implemented. It was determined shortly after that that we didn't really have the code standing to continue to do the waivers. So we, the planning division, contemplating various ways of how do we address this, how do we continue to allow some waivers, how do we hold them in place of others, and ultimately decided on the waivers for cottage homes, tiny homes, outbuildings. There was a number of building permits that have been kind of put on hold for the last few years actually while we try and went through that process to determine how it was going to be applied. And then finally chose the route that was presented to you tonight. I think that even covered the majority of stuff pretty well. The 25% expansion. Had they added on to a house, that's your expansion. Removing of the house, there's nothing there. So therefore, an expansion is 100% of what's gone is the way I've always determined it. And I know that he brought up the calculation of the square footage of all the buildings on site. And Ethan and staff went to great lengths to try and get look at it as large as they could, you know, for Deacon into the information at the assessor's office, you know, taking the house, taking the outbuilding, another outbuilding, and guesstimating as well as they could using available data to come up with the 1,700 and some-odd square feet, I believe, on the site. And, you know, 25% would have been looked at that. So it would have been less than obviously what is being built today. As for standing, I do believe that an appeal coming from the community development director or the planning and staff, we are here to represent the city. We have code that has been adopted by the city. So essentially it's the community that we are here trying to appeal for tonight. So thank you.

Mr. Mayor, am I allowed to ask Mr. Seal a question? Yeah, okay. Do you find, I mean, you have a lot of experience not only here, but in other parts of the country, and you do this all day long. Do you find that our code is ambiguous to the point that we need to look at the language, or do you find that in your experience of these, I mean, you could look at what I do, and you would think that the words that I understand and give me direction are not clear, but this is your area of expertise. Do you find them to be clear?

They are clear. We've applied them even handedly across the city as when they were being applied. It really does dive into the site plans in particular is where it really comes into effect most of the time because most single family structures You know, there's a limit as to what happens there.

Yes, it's fine. I have another question for you.

Yes, go ahead.

If there was a property in Post Falls that was to be purchased, like say I bought a house that is, oh gosh, let's say I buy a house in the city that's on a whole acre because I won the lottery and I can do that now. But it's a very old house, so I demolish it and then want to build a new beautiful house. Well, the old one could be beautiful too. Sorry, old things are pretty, but... Um, and it's way bigger than the one that was on there. Would you require me to do, to put a sidewalk in there if there wasn't already a sidewalk? Yes. Yeah, you would. Okay.

Yes, because I mean, part of it is, is, is investment in, in a property and investment in the community. We just decided that the cottage homes, tiny homes, outbuildings outweighed that.

Based on the code, even if I didn't make it a duplex or a twin home or any of that, you would require me on my beautiful McMansion to build sidewalk. Okay, thank you so much.

Any other questions? Thanks.

I'm just closing this out. Thank you.

All right.

So we're on to deliberation. I'll start with a few things. One, there were a lot of arguments made that we just plainly can't consider in terms of the mayor's development priorities, what we've discussed about lowering costs, more affordable housing, all those sorts of things. What benefit would the furniture improvements provide? None of that is code. All we consider is code. So I appreciate the arguments, but we can't discuss those here. We can discuss them if we can't consider them as part of our decision. Definition of use. So in the first argument of is this a change of use, the definition of use is not defined as a structure. It isn't structure and use is different. So it's a residential use. There was a single structure and some outbuildings. Those disappeared, new structures appeared, but nothing changed in the use. So use and structure are different. On the second point is an expansion of use. Now use is a structure. So we have a case of Schrodinger's use here that in some cases it's a structure, in some cases it's not. I think it's gotta be one or the other. We can't have it both ways. I would agree that the intent of use in the code is what is the property itself used for. In this case, I'd agree that it was a residential use. It remains a residential use. Regardless of the fact that the old structures are no longer there, there was a period that there was no structures and now there's going to be different structures. I agree, the use hasn't changed. It's still residential. Uh, so that would not trigger the furniture improvements because the use has not changed. Uh, however, because the use hasn't changed and now there's a lot more square footage for that use. That use has been expanded, uh, regardless of whether there was the old buildings there, no buildings there, and then new buildings there. So I would say that that does qualify to trigger the furniture improvements because A use is either a structure or it's not. And I would say it's not. So to stay consistent in the code, that's the way we got to do it. My opinion on the alleyway is that that is not a drive. That's a public alleyway. And I don't think the code contemplates requiring the applicant to pave not only a public property that is not a drive. I would consider a drive being on the property or into the property directly. Also to contemplate providing a drive for the neighbor I think is, that is also not contemplated by the code. So long story short, that's where I sit on this whole thing.

Can I make one edit to what you said? Because I agree with most, like your work through the first prong if you will. So we're not establishing a new use because land use and zoning are different if you watch any of these. I sort that out about three questions in. So the land use is residential so I think we have We're correct there, but the code doesn't say an increase in use. It very specifically says by creating a new land use or expanding an existing use by 25% or more in floor area. And so then we start measuring by floor area and the second, the second clause of the sentence. Um, and so I want to be really, well, maybe it's like the third clause, but, um, really specific about that, that in the first sense of use, we're doing land use table and like the actual land use of residential commercial industrial. Um, and then in the second, we're actually measuring floor area and we are increasing. residential structures by more than 25%. So I agree. I think it's triggered. And then the next question would be, is it exempt? And I think that it's clearly not exempt. So it is not, it's not smart code, right? That's one of the exemptions. It's not a town home or I'm sorry, a tiny home or a cottage home. which could have been an option, but they weren't. And so for that reason, I think that it applies, it triggers, and then it is not excluded. So maybe that wasn't an edit. Maybe that was just in my language and not yours. I'm so sorry.

Yeah, I would agree. I think it's pretty clear to be easily defined as an expansion of use, whether it's from the existing old buildings or from zero, from vacant land, it's still an expansion of use. floor area so I do think it does trigger improvements however just kind of on a side note I personally think we do need to re-examine some of these historic neighborhoods for the requirement of frontage improvements specifically for what I think the applicant clearly demonstrated that it does create quite a fragmented application of or installation of those improvements especially since we were granting waivers as recently as four years ago for those improvements so I do think it needs to be very clearly articulated in the code and some of these specific areas on where we can grant those waivers but I do like that idea living in a similar neighborhood not far from here that was probably developed around a similar period of time. I actually really like the non-improved streets of my neighborhood. Fortunately, it's all built in, so I don't think it's going to become an issue from our code. But I think in fairness to the city staff and to any future applicants, we really need to do a better job at improving the language and clarity. But I do think in this case, it is a clear expansion of use, whether it's by square footage or by dwelling unit, and would trigger those improvements.

So at first blush, reviewing the proposed Hamrock Exhibit 1, the implication that there was a disparate application of the code not requiring frontage improvements on a duplex so nearby to where this project is located, that was really alarming to me. So I was glad to hear an excellent explanation by our staff that no, this is because the code changed, we're not granting waivers anymore, so we're not saying that this is We're not comparing apples to apples here. This is a very different application, different set of circumstances, different code. We're not treating people unfairly with a different threshold for different applicants to meet. So I was relieved to see that. I think Councilor Ziegler's point when he was talking or questioning the applicant, or excuse me, I guess it would be the respondent to this appeal, was really telling. You can't have it both ways. You can't have it both be, it's not a change in use because it's residential and going from single family to multi-family, but then also when you can just remove the buildings and then build more bigger ones and then it's not an expansion of use because it's not an expansion upon what was already there. You can't have it both ways, either it's the use or it's the floor area. And I think I can't really add anything beyond what Councilwoman Stiglieder. See, now I finally did it. Councilwoman Stiglieder said or what Council President Malloy said. I think that for those reasons, I will be in support of this would be a reversal of planning and zoning and granting the appeal.

To the whether or not it's expansion of floor area that would trigger it, I think that's a yes for me. Whether or not it's a new use, I think that's a yes for me too. So I think that it applies. I don't think that residential use is the underlying question here. And my understanding of the LLUPA is that it doesn't apply here, because this is an administrative decision. That if we were under that framework, that I think that the respondent has a very good argument. that it's still a residential use, but then you still have the floor area question. And I don't think it's as ambiguous, because we're talking about like a 200 and something percent increase in floor area. If it was, you know, we're within 50 square feet, you know, then I think that there's a better argument there, but this is a large increase in floor area, So, while I may not like the idea of burdening the respondent with these frontage improvements, and I would love to see us maybe clarify and have more ability to do it on a case by case basis, but I understand the pitfalls of that as well. We don't want to be arbitrary and capricious in our application of the law. I don't feel like I have the ability to waive or to reverse. So I think I'm going to have to agree with the city planner.

I think whatever way you slice it, whether it's a floor plan thing or a change in use, uh, the developer was advised repeatedly that it was going to require frontage improvements. And today we're bearing out what the developer was advised would be required. And so here we are, I think we're ready for a motion.

I would move to grant the appeal. with the caveat that the requirement to pave the alleyway is removed from the permit. Second.

Motion and a second. Further discussion? Roll call, please.

Plew?

Aye.

Malloy?

Aye.

Ziegler?

Aye.

Mosby?

Aye.

Luca?

Aye.

Stiglitter? Aye.

Motion passed.

I hate to do this but wondering if we can have a more direct finding on whether or not it is a new use or an expansion of a use included in the motion. Just because that has some knock on effect.

I rescind my previous motion. I will move that the appeal be granted on the basis that this is an expansion of the existing use. by more than 25% of total floor area for such use. With the caveat that the requirement to pave the alleyway is removed. Thank you.

Second.

Motion and a second for the discussion? Comment.

Can we add to the motion also additional dwelling unit?

But it can't be triggered by intensity, right? And the dwelling units are on two separate lots.

It's going from one dwelling unit to two on the same lot. These are two separate lots.

They're two separate lots.

Well, yeah, two different units. It's a duplex. Duplex.

Just times two. Oh, but it's not triggered by increased land usage. It's only increased square footage that triggers it. So I don't think that if we said that it triggered it because it was a duplex versus a single family home, I don't think that's in keeping with the ordinance.

It speaks to Florida. Yeah. I'll just say this. I'm not as motivated by that argument.

So I'm going to leave, I'm going to leave my motion as it is that it's based on the expansion of the existing use. Correct.

The land, the, oh wait, by square footage.

Yes, okay. But I think if the LLUPA doesn't apply, and it's an administrative decision, then the Post Falls Municipal Code is what applies. And in the Post Falls Municipal Code, a duplex and a single family residence are two different uses. So I would say they both apply. It's both 25% expansion and a new use. Unless there's a finding that LLUPA applies, and then the respondent's position makes more sense to me. But if it's only Post Falls Municipal Code, it's a separate use.

But if we find that it's an expansion, then the change of use is moot, because it's already triggers the furniture improvements.

It may matter later.

It's still both, but yes, trigger one would apply.

We have to pick one or the other, and it's either that we find that single family uses and duplexes are two different allowed uses within the R2 zone, and therefore it's a change of use, or we decide that it's the same use and it's an expansion in floor area. I agree with councillors.

Sorry. I was going to say I agree that it is either or or both.

Well, I'm going to let my motion stand. And if you guys want to add that to it, then you can vote no. And if it fails, then come around the other way.

So I guess the practical application of this with the distinction between the two effectively would be if there was an applicant that tore down a house at 2,400 square feet and built a duplex at 2,400 square feet, would that be a change of use?

No.

Would we want that to be a change of use? Oh. From a single dwelling unit to two dwelling units on the same lot? Well, what we want- 25% threshold was not meant. Is not. I think it's a clarity thing.

Totally. I just don't think that's what you're saying. I don't think it triggers the ordinance if it's the same. building size but you're now putting two families in it to make it a duplex i don't regardless of what i want or don't want i don't think that triggers the ordinance and i think that's where like idaho state supreme court was clear like increasing the density doesn't create a new use that you have to trigger that like would trigger the frontage improvements That's my understanding of it. So I want to be really careful to say that I don't think it's triggered by the fact that it's a duplex. I think it's triggered by the fact that the building itself is 25% larger than the building that was on there, either 90% or 10%, whatever way you want to cut it, both building, you know? Yeah. So.

Well, I'd ask the city attorney, am I incorrect that the Post Falls Municipal Code uses the word use when it talks about the difference between a duplex and a single family residence.

So I'll just, for the sake of clarity, I will just read the definition of use as it is in the statute. Use means the specific purpose for which the land or a building is designed, arranged, and intended, or the actual utilization of the land or structure.

and is that language in the section that lists the difference between a single family and a duplex, and then has that table that shows those as separate uses?

That is the definition from Title 18, which would be applicable to the land use table.

And to address, I guess, another question to you, Field, The respondent argued a distinction between use and land use. In our code, do we find anywhere a definition of land use?

I would read the definition of use encompassing both, for which the land or a building is designed.

So it gets to the rest of my question. There's no different definition from use and land use?

No.

I still stand by my argument that I think dwelling units should be part of our decision on the precedent we set of a change of use or increased use.

Yeah.

My own opinion looking at this is that Councilor Luca is correct and that we have different denominations of uses within the same category of broadly residential. and that if you were to replace a single family home of a large square footage with an apartment building of a substantially similar square footage, that would be a change of use the way I would look at it, even if the square footage happened to be the same.

So where are we at? Are we waiting on a motion? We have a motion on the second.

We have a motion on the floor to grant the appeal based on expansion of an existing use by floor area. And Councillor Stiglitz seconded it. Yeah. So we're in discussion. And if everyone's done discussing, we can vote on it.

So just to say my own opinion, if we're to entertain a motion by Councilor Ziegler to his point, which I think would address Councilor Lugo's point, if I'm understanding you both correctly, I would be in support of that.

So you want to do it based on a difference of use and not a floor area? Both. Got to pick one. It can be both.

Yeah, it can be both.

We can consider it both a new use and an expansion of an existing use?

Yeah, I think you can consider the statute separates them out, A, B. I think it can be either or or both.

I guess that's the part I'm struggling with. It's either a change of use or it's an expansion of an existing use.

Yeah, you can't expand the existing use and have a new one at the same time. Right. Right, yeah. I agree.

Does it say existing use or does it just say expansion of floor area? You can either have a new use or you can have an expansion of an existing use. You can't have both.

Well, it asks for clarification. Does it say an expansion of use or does it say expansion of floor area?

It says or expanding an existing use by 25% or more in floor area.

So it's either a new use or it's an expansion of it.

I'm not arguing on that point. I think what I'm trying to clarify is in the application of the trigger for improvements, we need to clarify what triggers that. So it can be an expansion of use and another trigger would be a change of use.

Maybe if we were looking at the lot separately, but the lot can't have, my car can't be green and a better color blue. Like it either, it's either green or like newly green or it's more blue than it was before.

I disagree. It could be two toned. Well, things can be true at once. So you can have an expansion of use and a change of use if there are now multiple uses on the same property, which we have. So it had a residence on the property that is enlarged and now there are also two residents on the residences on the property that are going from a single family to a duplex. So now we have a change of use. based upon it going from a single family home to a duplex and an increase in use based upon an increase in floor area of residential floor space.

Yes, maybe from the single family to the duplex, but I think the state has been very clear that you can't use that intensity of use to trigger as a new use. So if we did that, then we would be in conflict with what the state has made very clear. And that's why I want to be very specific that I don't think it triggers because we're going from single family to duplex because that's an intensity of use. And so I, yeah.

Mr. Seal addressed that and how staff has been interpreting intensification versus, uh, I forget what it was. I think it was just as a change of use. And he was saying, well, if it's more people, that's intensification. But if you're going from single family to duplex, that's change.

That's not more people.

Whether it's more people, it doesn't really matter. You could have one person in each duplex or two people in a single family home and it's about the number of individual or about the change from single family to duplex.

I think that we have to apply the word use in the same way in both sections of this clause. And I, I, like the term, I don't know, I think that the most useful use is the land use. When we look at whether it's residential, commercial, industrial, what else do we have? Light, commercial, are broad strokes. And then the difference between a townhome, a cottage home, a tiny home, a duplex, a single family home, we are repeatedly told that those are products, not uses. And so those products are allowed within those land uses. And so I disagree that a single family to a duplex is a change of use. It's a different product and that's not in the ordinance.

So help me understand the designation of different residential uses, single family house and duplex on our land use category table.

Which one? I probably have it printed out.

Which is what you're speaking to, right, Mark?

I think it's 010.

This one right here?

I think the code differentiates between those two, differentiate between the different zones, R1, R2, R3, SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4. So it's all residential, but in R1 doesn't allow duplexes. Apartments R2 doesn't allow three story apartments. They're all residential uses but the zoning is gonna determine what's an allowable residential use or not. We're talking about this is the zone. They can't, nobody unless they change the zone can pop up a high rise hotel on it. I guess it's not residential, a high rise condo building because that's not permissible in the zone. However, residential use is permissible in that zone and single family detached and cottage homes and tiny homes and duplexes and twin homes and yada, yada, yada are all permitted residential uses within R2. So I think the, I'm going to stick with my motion. the, what triggers the furniture improvements in R2 under our code is the expansion of the residential use.

Something that occurs to me is how we calculate impact fees for commercial projects where we have the commercial zoning that's the same, but the impact fee is based on the use of the building, whether it's a restaurant or a school or industrial space, and we charge the impact fee, and then if somebody comes along and wants to convert, say, a warehouse into a restaurant, it's still a commercial, broadly a commercial category, but we charge them a difference in the impact fee for change of use from industrial to restaurant or to school or something else.

Make that apply to this for me. I followed you, but now.

So I think that would line up with what's been argued from this side of the table. I think that we have different uses within the same land classification table.

I just think that we have to apply the word use the same in both sections of the sentence, whatever we decide that it is, and it can't be It can't be both at the same time for this ordinance. So what I think is most applicable is that it's not an actual change of land use. It's still residential. It is an expansion of that residential building by more than 25%. And that is enough to trigger it. So why trigger with more?

CHRIS RODGERS. So my reasoning behind this, and I appreciate you bringing up that point, is it is more on a practical application why we would trigger frontage improvements. So taking my previous example, if you had a single family residential home on a single lot in an R2 zone where duplexes are allowed and you demolish that house and you built a 2,400 square foot total duplex, do you not see the impact it would have on access to the road now going from one garage to one driveway to two cars to four, which would, to me, practically speaking, necessitate frontage improvements to handle that increased traffic.

I don't argue that at all with you. I just don't think that that is evident in the language of the ordinance.

There's one place I can see the precedent we set here affecting us in the future and I know the state is looking at duplexes by right in all residential zones. If that legislation passes then we could have a lot of duplex conversions across the city and the question would be as the code is written does it intend for if you were to convert a single-family home to a duplex by adding a wall does it intend to consider that as triggering furniture improvements as a change of use? Because we could see a lot of that. So what we're looking at is what is the code intended to achieve? And if we're thinking about duplex conversions, that's probably an area where we're going to see the effect of our decision.

Yeah, and I would argue that I would like to see that as a trigger.

And I would love to work out the language more clearly if we want it to be one. I'm not saying that I don't want it or that I do want it. I just don't see that reflected in the language.

It's about what the code says today.

Yes, exactly.

Any more discussion before we vote? So we have a motion on the floor to grant the appeal based on an expansion of an existing use. And so we can pass this. By square footage. Calculated by square footage. An expansion of an existing use. And so we could pass this motion. If this motion fails, then there could be another motion to deny it based on the other criteria.

Well, I think we can address definition of terminology in the code in a separate deliberation, so I'm comfortable passing this for this purpose now. But I do think we all need to get on the same page of what we really want that code to reflect.

Agreed. All right. So let's do a roll call.

Plew?

Aye.

Malloy? Aye. Ziegler?

Aye.

Mosby?

Aye.

Luca?

No.

Stiglieder? Aye.

Motion passes. So the appeal is granted and the frontage improvements are, except for the alley, which is in the motion. Correct. The alley not being required.

Sir, you had a great presentation.

Would anyone like a recess before we continue? Yes. We'll take a five minute recess.

We'll call the meeting back to order.

We are on to citizen issues. This section of the agenda is reserved for citizens wishing to address the City Council regarding city-related issues that are not on the agenda. Would anyone like to speak? Come on up. It's your name for the record, and you have five minutes on the timer.

My name is Sarah Patricia Scott. I'm here to ask for an exception. to the city ordinance. I didn't bring exactly which one it is, but I'm asking for an exception. I own a duplex that does not meet the current ordinances. It is grandfathered. I own the property and I live in it. So I occupy it and I'm asking for an exemption to be able to have five chickens while I occupy the property. because I do meet all the ordinances. The ordinance only applies as far as the chickens go to single family homes and not to multifamily homes. However, I do own it and I do live there. And I do meet all of the other requirements if the ordinance was applicable to a duplex. Big picture is this is a long, skinny property. You can't even see the back half of the duplex from the street, which is actually another exception I'm going to ask for for addressing. And this area is completely detached from the front unit. And even if the front unit was treated as a separate residence, I still would meet all the setbacks and requirements for that. So I'm just asking for that exception. While I am in the property. Not to continue for anyone else in the future. Unless they come here.

So clarifying question. You said it's a duplex, but it's a separate structure?

No, it's a duplex. It's just a long skinny one. And so if you were to treat the two, the front and the back unit as separate, where this area that they are, I'm meeting the ordinance even if they were two separate single family homes as far as.

setbacks and distances so i'm still as far away as if it was a separate building even yes can i ask have you asked city staff for this exemption and they recommended that you come to us during council or during citizen comments to ask for it i was recommended to come to city council to ask for the

got exception okay i feel like i'm a little bit at a loss it sounds reasonable to grant you but like without having the staff has to present us with something to vote on so yeah i was going to propose the staff bring it back to us with the presentation i agree so i'm not sure where the the exemption is coming from because council can't grant an exemption you can change the code no i'm asking for an exception

So exemption, exception kind of works out to be the same difference. If the council wants to direct staff to work on ordinance amendment to change the code, we can certainly do that, work on that. But there isn't a process to grant either an exemption or exception to the code.

I might be using the wrong word because I'm not trying to change the ordinance to be applicable across the board.

Yeah, I think we understand what you're asking for. I think the problem is that none of us have the ordinance that we would be giving you a pass on in front of us to, like, make sure that it's reasonable to do. Is that?

We're bound by equal application of the law. So when there's a law, it has to be equal for everybody. And we can change the law to make it so that you can have chickens with duplexes or we can leave it alone. But we can't pick and choose. You get an exception to the law and you don't.

The current, this property is grandfathered. It does not meet the current ordinances for duplexes. It doesn't have, it's not two story. It doesn't have doors facing the same road. So it doesn't have the ordinance applicable to it because it doesn't even meet the current ordinance for duplex.

Designated as a duplex legally or is it single family residence?

It sounds like a legal non-conforming law.

Don't make her say that on YouTube. I did not look that up. I could only guess at this point. I do have all that information because real estate is something I do, but I just didn't have that in front of me. Wonderful. But the animal control gal told me it was not a single family home. She thought it was because there was only one door and one address facing the street. later realized that there's actually two residences in the building. And so that's something else with the addressing I'd like to address too.

It's so interesting because the first house my wife and I lived in was a duplex and animal control came out and looked at the property and the guy wrote me a waiver and said, you can have chickens here. It's fine.

And maybe it's a waiver. I'm not sure, but I'm asking for that. Um,

So we can talk with her after the meeting and try to figure out where we're at, what's going on, and what the right route forward would look like. But generically, if the code doesn't allow for a waiver or an exception, we would need to either create that or we'd need to create an across the board exception that would change the way the code is interpreted, one or the other.

So our code does not give us the ability to grant a variance?

I want to know more about what she's talking about, but I'm not aware of it. So I want to make sure that I understand what we're being asked to do before I want to dive too far into that.

So we'll have staff get some more specifics though. They can bring it back to us and we'll take a look at that for sure.

Okay. So someone will let me know what I need to do.

Just after the meeting, you can talk with our staff about it. Yes.

And then can I bring up one more issue? It's addressing, and this has to do with only one door facing the street. The two units were originally addressed as an A and a B. With the duplexes I have, I had them all readdressed because I thought it would be better for packages, emergency responders to be able to distinguish two separate addresses. But this particular duplex, with only one door and one address facing the street, There's no way to know that there's a second dwelling only accessible via the alley without there being an A and a B. So I think it's actually worse for emergency responders and delivery people because they only see one address and one front. They don't even see a front door. They see one address, one driveway from the front of the street. and everybody's confused on where's the second building, where's the second address. I asked and I was told it could not be reverted to an A and a B, but that's an exception, a variance, whatever the term is for health and safety reasons. And because just the floor plan, I would like it to be addressed with an A and a B unit. So it's very clear that there are two dwellings with one street address.

Okay, I think we can talk to staff about that too and get the specifics. I'm not sure exactly the legal ramifications of how the addressing has worked out between the city and the post office.

Two years ago it was the other way and I called and said, can I, and they said no. So that's what I'm asking is how to say yes for safety reasons.

There's your man right over there in the corner.

So I just need to know how I can, that's why I'm here because I don't, it doesn't, Based off of whatever things have changed, they're no longer allowed to reverse it is what I was told, but I think this is a serious health and safety issue, so I think we need to figure something out.

Okay, yeah, we'll talk to you right after the meeting. Thank you. We can continue. Thank you so much. Thank you. Anyone else to speak? All right, name for the record and five minutes on the timer.

My name is Gina Rogers. Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. Again, my name is Gina Rogers. I live in Rathdrum, and I own a small business that sells Kratom here in North Idaho. My business actually began here in Post Falls. I was part of this community for many years. I was involved with the Post Falls Chamber of Commerce, went through the River City Leadership Academy, and was voted Business of the Month by the Post Falls Chamber. I've always tried to operate my business responsibly and be a positive part of the community. I've worked with Kratom for nearly a decade, and I also have personal experience with it. I'm not here to tell you that Kratom is completely harmless. Nothing is 100% harmless, not alcohol, not vitamins or herbs or any product when it's misused. But we do not require a product to have zero risk in order to regulate it responsibly. We establish age limits, safety standards, proper labeling, and consequences for irresponsible sellers. I'm asking that natural kratom be treated with that same common sense response based on science and not emotion. I respectfully disagree with some of Dr. Johnson's statements. My greatest concern is that natural kratom leaf and manufactured high-potency 7-hydroxymetrogenine products are repeatedly placed in the same category. They're not the same product. Natural kratom contains primarily mitrogenine and only a trace amount of naturally occurring 7-OH. I brought a binder containing 120 independent Kratom lab reports. Across those reports, the average 70H level is approximately 0.00444, about 450 times lower than the 2% figure that's presented. Manufactured 70H products concentrate that trace alkaloid to levels that do not naturally occur in the leaf. I do not sell these products and I do support removing them from the market. But banning natural kratom because manufactured 70H products would be like banning coffee because somebody created a dangerously concentrated caffeine product. I agree with Dr. Johnson that high potency 70H products are dangerous. These products are chemically processed in a lab, some with pool shock type chemicals and pressed into tablets that attach to your mu opioid receptors. These products are not natural and not safe. They have zero science and safety studies to back their use. Kratom has over 1600 peer reviewed studies. Another concern involves deaths being described as kratom only. Finding kratom during an autopsy does not automatically prove that kratom by itself caused the death. Toxicology reports cannot always capture every medical condition or contributing factor. Dr. Johnson was interviewed by the Spokesman Review earlier this year, and the article read, quote, Johnson cannot determine whether the overdose was caused by the natural leaves or 70H, but he suspects one of the synthetic derivatives is the cause because it would be difficult to consume enough mitrogenine to overdose from the unaltered leaf, end quote. Many reports of kratom-associated deaths do not publicly provide the complete toxicology report, autopsy, medical history, or actual product involved. These, quote, kratom-related deaths do not necessarily mean that they are caused by kratom alone. Before passing an ordinance that will affect many people, I respectfully ask that the death records receive an independent third party review and that the actual products involved identified wherever possible. A ban on natural kratom or even a sales ban could create consequences worse than the problem the city is trying to solve. People may be less willing to tell their doctors they use kratom if certain restrictive laws are put into place, and some may turn to an illegal market, other synthetic products, or traditional opioids. Reasonable businesses that test, label, and monitor their products would disappear, while unsafe sellers would continue to operate outside the law. The DEA has already placed synthetic MGM-15, MGM-16, and pseudoindoxyl into Schedule 1 effective August 26th. They've also begun the process of scheduling 7-OH beyond a certain concentration while specifically stating that does not affect natural kratom. 7-OH is not officially scheduled and banned at this time, but the DEA has extended the public comment period to September 10th, so the official information will be published after that date. Please do not ban a natural botanical that many responsible adults use and responsible businesses sell because these frightening examples involve fundamentally different products or incomplete information. I've put together a binder for each of you with the studies, federal documents, and evidence behind what I'm sharing tonight. I hope that you'll take the time to review as you consider the issue, and I can hand that out at the end tonight. We can protect our community without giving up the values that make Idaho special. Personal responsibility, limited government and laws that are based on evidence instead of uncertainty. Thank you for taking the time to hear another side of the issue.

Thank you so much for that perspective. That's really good to hear from that too. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak? Come on up. Name for the record and five minutes on the timer.

My name's Allie Mathis. I am 24 years old and I live in Coeur d'Alene. I'm here to share my testimony and support my, uh, voice my support for responsible Kratom regulation. When I was 21, I was diagnosed with an aggressive form of rheumatoid arthritis. which is a life-changing and often, for me, debilitating chronic illness. There's no cure, and there have been times where I could not get out of bed, walk, bathe, or even feed myself without the assistance from my six-year-old mother. At 21 years old, I was supposed to be building my life, not struggling to care for myself. Having to rely on my mother for such basic needs was incredibly degrading, shameful, humiliating, and defeating, and it took away a lot of my dignity. Time after time, doctors prescribed me with multiple medications to manage my pain, such as opiate painkillers like hydrocodone and oxycodone. And time and time again, they either did not work or came with significant side effects that made it nearly impossible to function. When I started taking natural kratom, my entire life changed. I was able to work full time and fully take care of myself. Natural kratom gave me a quality of life I thought I would never experience again. I want to be very clear though, I do believe we need regulation. There absolutely should be safeguards in place to prevent harmful or synthetic products from entering the market. There's a critical difference between natural plain leaf kratom and highly concentrated, chemically altered, and synthesized products like 7-OH. Even at a federal level, there has been acknowledgement of this distinction. Lumping them together is not only inaccurate, it can be very dangerous. If we're serious about public safety, we also need to consider the unintended consequences of a sales ban. Banning Kratom does not necessarily eliminate demand. It pushes consumers towards an even more unregulated market with even fewer safeguards and greater potential for adulterated or dangerous products. If public safety is the goal, we should be consistent. Alcohol remains available despite the very real and very well-documented harm it causes in all of our communities. Idaho Public Health data recognizes excessive alcohol use as being associated with injuries, motor vehicle crashes, violence, alcohol poisoning, liver disease, cancer, and alcohol-related deaths each year. If public safety is truly the goal, we should be looking at where the greatest risks actually are, not taking away a natural product with comparatively lower documented risks and that genuinely and positively impact people like me. For people like me, natural kratom has been the difference between merely existing and being able to live a productive, functional life despite the challenges of my chronic illness. I respectfully ask that you consider regulations that protect people while also allowing individuals like me to have safe access to natural kratom. Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thank you for coming and for the testimony. Anyone else wishing to speak? Seeing none. We're on to administrative staff reports. First up, ALPR presentation.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Mark Brownell, Chief of Police. Tonight we're going to give you some information on our license plate reader program and kind of talk about some of the misconceptions that are out there in social media. And I just want to be as transparent and about what our program has been and currently is and talk about some of those misconceptions that are out there. So first we need to understand what is not a license plate reader camera. Not every camera is a license plate reader camera. So a lot of these cameras are pan, tilt, zoom cameras, security cameras or traffic control cameras. So not every camera that is on a light is a license plate reader camera. Intersection cameras are not LPRs. They don't record. The city has 20 intersections with video detection cameras. They detect vehicles and trigger the light to cycle, hopefully. Three have live video feeds capability, but there is no recording and no retention. The city does have one intersection pan-tilt zoom camera to monitor traffic flow. Again, there's no recording, no retention on that. very limited access. There's very limited access to that camera at the PD, so nobody's monitoring that at all. This is kind of what those cameras look like and what they can see. They are accessed a few times annually by engineering staff to ensure proper signal operations. As you can see, it's really just detecting the vehicles and kind of telling you what the lights are like.

So the history of our license plate reader camera usage

looking back at our documentation uh... the best i could find was somewhere around two thousand eight uh... probably a little bit before then uh... we from my memory were part of a grant with cuny county in coeur d'alene to install uh... license plate rear cameras and we also had a couple are we had one uh... vehicle mounted uh... reader cameras uh... those were at the time flock was not a thing uh... and just to be clear I can't talk about Flock because I've never even have talked to them about their cameras. We don't use Flock. And so what they do with their data and how that's used and if there is any selling of data to third parties, I don't know any of that. And so like I said, I've never had any discussion with Flock on their cameras. We use Motorola and we'll talk about that in a second. So fixed cameras, we had a couple fixed cameras back in 2008. This is a photo off of a feature in Law Officer Magazine, 2012. And as you can see, this car is equipped with license plate reader cameras on it. During that time, Post Falls Police became a regional hub for the server. They collected the data and held the data. That server has since died and was not resurrected. Where is it now?

It's gone, it's been disposed of. I mean where does the data go now?

So it's all kept in the cloud. So it's kept in cloud storage through Motorola. Currently today we have nine fixed cameras. We do not have any mobile cameras. And so of those nine, only five are deployed. Four are sitting on a desk at the moment. Just kind of really seeing how this all plays out with the discussion of the license plate reader cameras. They are strategically placed, mostly ingress and egress from the city, and so without going into exactly where they are for security of those cameras, they are on major roadways, they are on public roadways, and same place that I could go stand and take pictures or write down license plates, totally legally. The data is stored in a secured cloud, only accessed by authorized users. Unlike some other places, we have very limited access to the data that is stored on the cloud. It's only our dispatch center. Our dispatchers and our investigators are the only ones that have access to it, and maybe a sergeant or two. But not carte blanche. Everybody in the PD has access to it. And so it's very limited. Data is only shared with other Idaho law enforcement. So our data that we collect and pictures that are captured are only shared with other Idaho law enforcement agencies, nobody else. So that's no Montana, that's no Washington, that's no Oregon. And, of course, Washington cut us off last year. So we don't get their data either.

By request or they can look at it whenever they want?

If we shared with them, then they can look at it whenever they want it. Yeah. But it's also logged, and we'll talk about that in a second. So these are the cameras we currently have purchased. They're Motorola license plate reader cameras. The model number is LQ6. They are not permanent, so we can move them. And so we can put them up in one location, and then if something is occurring, we can move it to someplace else. We own the data. Motorola has no access to our data. And so we have full right to do whatever we want to with the data. That goes into retention. That goes into who we share it with or don't share it with. That is totally our data to do with. How do we know that? So that's stated in Motorola's literature that they put out. And so that is part of their sales pitch is that you own the data. They have no access to it.

This is just a matter of trusting the company.

Unfortunately, in this case, I can't, I honestly don't know where the server is. It's in the United States at some place, some server farm. I always scan it to Arizona, but I can't, I have not physically gone and checked it.

They follow some data security standard that's required by the FBI, I think.

Yeah, it's called CJIS security standards, which is criminal justice information systems. It's a security standard that they must follow. And with the, how much security is on the server, you know, the authentication, background checking of everybody who works at that server farm, all kinds of different security levels.

Okay, so I'm going to borrow Joe's tinfoil hat tonight. I have a couple of thoughts on this, and none of this is derogatory towards yourself. Law enforcement is often a tool for the state entity. We saw that during COVID, citizens being arrested in parking lots, seeing psalms in Moscow, things like that. So, like, love you. You're great. But it's who's behind you and the decisions that they're making. Absolutely. So my question is, how could this be abused if you wanted to? Sure. Because you have policies, but you can override those policies, I would think, and use it in ways that are – So I will... That's great.

I have a slide on here that will talk about exactly what we're doing to look at and detect misuse. And once I go through that slide, if you still have that question, I can answer that question. So a couple of the misconceptions that are out there is license plate reader cameras track everyone at all times that we can track you through these license plate reader cameras. Again, we only have five that are operational right now. and they're in specific locations, we can tell that you went past this place, but to actually track you to your place of worship, unless we had a camera outside of that specifically, that's not gonna happen. And so we have very few cameras. They are in fixed locations, they're not mobile specific locations. License plate reader cameras identify who's driving the vehicle. This is an actual read from one of our cameras. Obviously that's one of our patrol cars. As you can see, it's taking a picture of the back of the car where the license plate is. Now, the state of Idaho, this is always the way it's been. It's always been the back of the car. But with the change in the state code about not having to require a front license plate, it makes sense it's the back of the car. There is no interior purposely taken. So if somebody's in the backseat looking up at the camera, sure, you're going to capture their face. But there's no facial recognition. There's no... scanning for Bluetooth signals to identify people. I've heard that one. There's none of that with the Motorola product. Okay.

And what if, in this picture here, if you've got the one cargo in that way and another cargo in this way? It only goes one direction. What if they're doing it at the same time?

No, it only goes one direction. So when we put these cameras up, they're purposely getting a car that is the back of the car so facing away. So they routinely do not pick up the other direction. I don't want to say they can't. I mean, if you were to get them up high enough to span a big roadway, then possibly you could. But again, it's aimed at the license plate.

So ultimately it would have to be someone looking out the back of the car in order for it to capture their face.

Yes.

And in that circumstance where I guess you would say it's an accidental capture.

Yeah, it would not be intentional.

But that would still be retained in the same cloud of images?

Yes, yep. But there is no, with Motorola product, there is no facial recognition. So it's, as you can see on this picture, you can identify what it is. It's not the best quality of the picture. But the AI that they're talking about is what is giving you reading that plate and deciphering what that plate is. And so there are protocols put in place that we have that just because you get a hit on a vehicle off of an NCIC entry for like a missing person, stolen vehicle, violent wanted person, just because you get a hit, you still have to confirm that plate. So the officer has to find the car, read the plate, confirm the plate at the state, and make sure that is a good hit before they can stop that car.

And as I mentioned, police force is very well trained on that. But, you know, something that I always heard when I was in the Marines was complacency kills. And that's, uh, I think we've seen, you know, at least on social media or in the news, you know, times when officers from other jurisdictions become complacent, they don't check the plate, the reader picks up or it, it reads and there's a different digit there. And so obviously we can take safety precautions, but, what happens when this becomes a more prolific product that we're using and an officer has an unusual circumstance and is complacent and pulls over the wrong car. We've seen horror stories in the news. Someone gets held at gunpoint because they're thought to be affiliated with some really terrible thing based on a mistaken hit. you know, it does seem concerning to me about.

Sure, and I understand that concern. I mean, we have the procedure in place that is required of them to do. And so I get your point of the complacency kills kind of mentality and you know, someone circumventing the procedure. That's why we have supervisors who should be listening on the radio being like, hey, did you actually confirm that plate? That that's an Idaho plate, that it's not a Illinois plate. And number two on that point of, we started this program in 2007, 2008, somewhere in there. We have 10 cameras. And so almost 20 years we've gone from two to 10. We haven't really expanded it that much. and so it's not a huge proliferation. Unfortunately, you can probably guess where a couple of the cameras are, because we have a major thoroughfare going right through town, it makes sense, that's where it'd be, right? Well, the criminals understand that too, and that's why they have started avoiding that, and that's why we have been putting them in different places where they'd be coming into the city. Does that answer your question? Yes, yes, thank you. The cameras record everything forever. Retention policy is set by state statute and implemented by city policy. The data retention is set in the program by the department. If given the direction by city policy, we could change that within minutes. And so we could change it to whatever we wanted to. To no retention whatsoever to 30 days to 60 days to 90 days. Currently it is set at two years based on city policy and state statute, and we'll talk about that in a second. We own our data, once it's gone, it's gone. You can't access it again as stated by the company.

So to clarify, state statute does not allow us to delete it.

any quicker than what the state statute allows. That's this part right here. So city records retention is set by Idaho Code 15-907, minimum retention period of two years for all temporary data. There's a nearly identical statute for county records, which is Idaho Code 31871. It creates a much shorter retention for sheriff's media recordings. So they did, last year there was an attempt to get our code changed to match that. It died in legislation. And as stated on here, the city will pursue that legislation again.

Do you know offhand what the shorter retention period is?

30 days. Selling of the data, like I said, I can't talk to any other companies that have these cameras, and there are a few, but I can tell you with Motorola, based on the stuff that they've put out, put on with their white paper stuff, that they do not sell data, that it's owned by us, and so they do not sell law enforcement data. Motorola does not have access to our data, and they don't sell it, and it's actually prohibited by Idaho Code. that prohibits the use of license plate data for any non-law enforcement purpose. Misconception of mass surveillance, again these positions, these cameras are only positioned on public roadway. There's already been well, establish rules that there's a limited expectation of privacy on public roadway and so as long as I'm staying someplace that I'm legally able to be I can make this observation. These cameras are in those positions where they're legally able to be and looking at public roadways. There's no purposeful photos of the occupants and we do not use facial recognition or any other ways to identify people in the car. So on to access and misuse, like I said, access is restricted to only those who need to have the access. Policies are in place to govern proper use and forbid misuse. And on that, day one when a new officer starts at our department, the very first day, besides signing their insurance and walking around the building, the next thing they do is see just security. And so that's the very first thing they do. In that siege of security, they're told, do not run your girlfriend, do not run your wife, do not run your boyfriend or your husband or your mom or your dad or your kid's girlfriend, day one. And it's repeated and they have to do that training every year. And they're reminded of that every year. When they do training for access to the license plate reader, again, it's reiterated, you do not do this. And unfortunately, in every profession, we have people who just, even though they know it's wrong, they still do it. And so we have put in routine audits with a designated person within my department that will take a sample of that audit. So in the last six months, there's been 742 queries of our system, mostly by us. So over 100 queries a month. So going through 700 of them would be a lot. And so we put a percentage in there, look at 10% or look at the list and go why is this person keep entering this? And why do they keep searching this? Is this right? And investigate if there's any issues with those queries. uh... uses government code fourteen thirty uh... forty nine fourteen thirty two uh... which restricts us to investigation of a felony or misdemeanor traffic acts investigations are located missing persons or indigent persons cheap rental in when you were talking about process of doing doing that sampling investigation how many instances of misuse reviews have you found uh... since the Going to the Motorola product, which was in 2022, none.

And how many, these are annual audits or?

They're routine audits. We have it set up right now as biannually, but that could increase or decrease. But generally, as the policy's written, the procedure's written, it's biannually, so twice a year.

Chief Brantle, would there be a place maybe in the next year, especially as we're going through our efficiency study to look at making that, and I don't know the program or what kind of data is pulled down or what it looks like, but it seems to me that we should be able to with some sort of computer functionality, uh, look at all of that data to find potential issues instead of just having to take a sample set, right? Like, couldn't you like pull users and.

Well, so on this next slide and yes, there is. Um, so on this next slide, you can see this is what the program looks like when you're searching for something. And so the required, the Reddit fields here is required case number and the authorized reason. It also logs who's doing the search. And so if you see that Officer B is searching the same vehicle 20 times over a period of time, that's going to raise a red flag, and you're going to find out why.

Right, but how would you see that if you were only taking a sample?

No, we would pull the full report, but our procedure is pull the full report, look for any discrepancies there, and if you don't see any, then take 10% and verify.

I see. Okay, I don't know that I caught that first step.

Yeah, and I may not explain that as well.

Okay, cool. Thank you.

Some of the successes I want to highlight is these are actual cases that happen here in Post Falls. Felony Lane Gang is a criminal organization out of southeast United States. What they do is typically they'll fly up here, do a whole bunch of smash and grabs real quick, smash windows, grab purses, and then go over to a local Walmart or Target or store and purchase gift cards before the victim can figure out that they've been a victim, and shut those cards off. We were able to use the system to take the vehicle description, match it up to a vehicle going through our license plate reader, discovered it was a rental car, tracked it back to where they rented it, identified several of the suspects, and warrants were issued on, but this is a large gang, so that was one incident. The next incident when they came up, we heard about it, They actually hit us. Actually, they hit Coeur d'Alene. We were, again, able to identify the car and see what direction they were going and warn a jurisdiction that they're coming. And so kind of one of those is very valuable to have that ability. And the system does have that ability to also using the AI to figure out what the make and model of the car is, and also identify stickers on windows and things like that. So if you have a make and model of a car, you can put it in the system, date, time range, and it'll bring up hits on that type of vehicle. card skimmers um... so this was also a case here in post walls where uh... someone was using card skimmers at a local uh... gas station if you don't know what a card skimmer is it's something that reads your credit card so as you go and pump gas and you run your credit card through it's capturing your numbers And so it's a little attachment on a credit card reader. So they were able to use the system to be able to identify the suspect vehicle again, get a plate off of it, identify those suspects, and get them arrested. A stalking case, again, locally. There was a case where we had a suspect that was stalking a resident, actually, of Coeur d'Alene, and she made the report. and Coraline was able to put that vehicle in the system and the next time he came over, headed to her house, it registered and hit and they were able to cut him off before he could get there. And so arrested him for stalking and he had no good intent while he was going there.

So there is some degree of real-time tracking. It's not just an officer or a detective going in and asking for data from the system. It is also actively tracking and alerting.

Yes. So there is what's called a hot list that is uploaded to it twice a day. So every 12 hours that hot list is updated in the system. And so typically it has stolen vehicles, missing persons, any violent wanted. And so when these cars go through the system, it's not running your plate. It's just really all it's doing is checking against this hot list. If it's on the hot list, then it'll send an alert. If it's not on the hot list, then it just goes to the database. So you've got two parts of it. It has that hot list scanning looking for those vehicles, and then you have the after the fact of when you have a card skimmer and you have a vehicle description, now you can go and search that database looking for that suspect vehicle.

Okay. We must save all of the data that it sees, though. You're only alerted about the hot list, but you would save every car that goes by because you could query.