IDAHO FALLS, Idaho (KIFI) – A controversy is brewing as the City of Idaho Falls reviews its alcohol ordinance.

The goal is to consolidate four existing ordinances for beer, wine and liquor into a single law and ensure compliance with state code.

However, at its meeting last Thursday, the Idaho Falls City Council unanimously voted to remove the proposed ordinance from its agenda, in order to receive and consider additional public comment.

The proposed ordinance would:

1. Require commercial establishments selling, dispensing or permitting consumption of alcohol – including beer, wine or liquor – to have an alcohol license, alcohol catering permit or a charitable event permit.

2. Business events with 20 or less employees consuming alcohol at the business would be allowed.

3. Require alcohol servers to complete training every three years.

4. Individuals who violate the law could be charged with a misdemeanor.

Idaho Falls City Council President Jim Francis said the changes were the culmination of months of collaboration between law enforcement, business owners and city attorneys.

“We wanted to provide a safe environment – the primary point here – for public gatherings,” Francis said. “We recognize that certain antiquated elements of the current code are overly restrictive and needed to be addressed. We wanted to make the code more accessible to the public. We needed to address over-pouring issues. We wanted to reduce penalties where possible for violations, particularly the first offenses, and yet make the code clear enough to be enforceable consistently by law enforcement.”

But City Council Member John Radford said the changes represent an overreach by city government.

“I believe it’s a bad policy. What problem are we solving in the name of trying to solve a non-problem?” Radford said. “We’re becoming big brother around alcohol in your private property. I’m concerned that landlords will be at risk of being charged with a misdemeanor if they knowingly, which I made sure that was in there, because that is what we’ve been talking about, allowed people to drink in our business. We will be outside the norm of Idaho cities. This is a big step, and I don’t think the public has weighed in on this.”

At a City Council Work Session on June 1, Idaho Falls Chief of Police Bryce Johnson cited an increase in alcohol-related crime – particularly downtown – as a reason for the changes.

“DUI is there, but this would include sexual assaults, assaults, batteries, disturbances, urination, public vandalism, shooting – all sorts of crimes,” Johnson said.

But business owners are concerned about the potential impact on commercial enterprises.

“The ordinance doesn’t address the real problem – which is people drinking … at one event and then showing up in a bar or restaurant already hammered and causing problems anyway,” ” said Terri Ireland, representing the Idaho Falls Downtown Merchants Association. “The industry is really well-regulated by state and local laws already.”

The City of Idaho Falls began the process of updating its alcohol ordinance in January 2026, seeking input from community stakeholders.

Multiple community members spoke out about the ordinance.

For more in-depth information, you can read the full 39-page proposed alcohol ordinance here.

The Idaho Legislature won’t eliminate property tax next year. My bold prediction. There will be a few bills introduced, a lot of chatter on talk radio and online, and then action will be kicked down the road. If it looks like a winner in the 2028 Election, it’ll sail through in session a few weeks before the 2028 Primary. Wet an index finger and raise it in the air. Then vote.

As an old Libertarian (with a capital L), I’m familiar with the basic argument. If you own it, why do you have to pay rent? The answer always comes back to, “It’s the best system we have to fund local governments”. Forms have been in place since colonial times, even if scattered geographically. The idea gained steam in the years after the Civil War when a handful of economists blamed property ownership for growing poverty in cities. Property accrued value as space became a premium. So-called reformers believed the tax would balance economic inequality, and appealed to noblesse oblige.

Your Taxes Get Sprinkled Like a Good Rain

I live in Twin Falls County, where we have 78 taxing districts that rely on the current system. If you ask what can replace it, you’re called a Republican in name only (RINO) by compatriots. Obviously, not everything funded by the tax is a waste. First responders and snow plows come to mind. It makes me think of the calls to gut the federal government, but while maintaining Social Security and Medicare. The former makes up nearly a quarter of the budget. Medicare is only 14 percent, but additional health spending brings the tab to another quarter. Historian Niall Ferguson grew up in Scotland, and he summed up Great Britain a couple of weeks ago. People want more, not less, welfare spending. Are we different?

Before anyone in Boise wipes out property tax, legislators need to consider what voters want to stay, and how to fund it otherwise. If they don’t, they’ll see a backlash at the ballot box. Just because I say I want taxes reduced, I didn’t mean the programs that benefit me! The answer won’t be available over 90 days next year.

More than 20 years ago I hosted a weeklong series on tax alternatives. Among the proposals we examined were Flat Tax, Fair Tax, and Automated Payments Tax. People are most familiar with the first. Everyone pays a flat percentage. Say 12 to 15 percent. Of income, I guess. Of course, we need to define income. Professor Gad Saad is leaving Canada for a job in the United States and has to pay an exit tax based on his estimated assets. Estimated is the dirty word! That’s left to bureaucrats.

This Requires Study and Gaming Outcomes

Go ahead and adopt the flat tax, and please the conservatives, however. Many people, even on the right, have paid very little when it comes to present income confiscation. See how they react when they get a wake-up call. The Fair Tax is a national sales tax of 23 percent. Or it was the percentage proposed 20 years ago. That sounds large, but when you consider your overall tax burden right now, if it replaced what currently exists, you would be better off. This isn’t to say that local governments wouldn’t institute their own taxes. If you live in a blue state or city, that’s a given. Proponents argue that citizens have the option of not paying taxes if they choose not to buy. Obviously, you need to buy some things, unless you’re destitute and living exclusively on handouts.

Automated Payments Tax (APT) is a 1 percent charge on every transaction. A company buys steel to build trucks; it pays 1 percent on the steel. And on every other purchase. The dealer buys the truck for his lot and pays one percent. You buy from the dealer and pay one percent. An economist at the University of Indiana told me it would cover the federal budget. We had that conversation in 2005, when the national debt wasn’t even a quarter of what we see today. None of these plans address the debt, but if state and local governments are creative, maybe we can find something that replaces property taxes.

What we’ll get is a commission from the politically connected who’ll meet once a month for bagels and orange juice. In three years, they’ll provide a solution that works best for them.