The City Council Reacts to New State Laws

The Moscow city council dealt with recently-passed state legislation this week, and it’s safe to say that they were NOT happy about it. We cover their discussions in this video, and we’d be glad to have you along for the ride.

Content Warning: This video contains the full reading of the text of an Idaho public nudity law, which may not be suitable for all viewers. While we have kept it in for the sake of accuracy and context in civic reporting, we ask that the viewers exercise discretion when it comes to engaging with such content.

Read the full transcript of the video below:

Buckle up folks, this one’s a doozy.

How’s it going, y’all? Aiden Anderson here with the Moscow Minutes. How’s the county doing this week? It’s doing fine. How’s the city doing this week? Well… let’s take a look.

The meeting began on a normal enough note, with a proclamation for bike month and a proclamation for public service recognition week, which somehow didn’t make it on the agenda. This was followed by public comment by Sam Mcgregor and Fred Mcdonald, both who came to speak in regards to affordable housing concerns, with rent increases and limited incomes being at the forefront of their minds.

City Administrator Bill Belknap presented the next item, which was a follow-up on an item from back in February. Back then, Council on Aging and Human Services, operating under the name COAST for its public transit services, presented a request for funding from the city for the purpose of initiating an elder-care-focused public transit service in the region between Colfax, Albion, Pullman and Moscow.

COAST returned to the city this week with some updates related to their search for funding. They are quite close to completing their goal, having been pledged $40,000 from the Port of Whitman, as well as $5,000 from Avista, provided that the city of Moscow matches or exceeds a donation of $5,000 as well. The action on the table was whether or not to pledge that $5,000 donation.

Discussion from the council on the subject was focused on both the quality of services which COAST provides as well as concerns about fiscal responsibility and not setting a precedent for which the city will be accountable every year, ensuring that whatever gift the city gives would be a one-time thing. The council voted 4-2 to approve the $5,ooo, with Gina and Hailey being the dissenting votes.

Bill Belknap again presented on the next item, which was the first of two proposed repeals to city code. The first had to do with daycare regulations. Moscow has had its own regulations for child care centers for some time, but the state legislature this past year passed some bills which removed the ability for local governments such as the city to self-regulate these organizations. This means that the city was required to repeal the regulations contained in its own code, and adopt the state’s regulations as its own.

If we take a look at the state regulations when compared with the city’s we can see a number of differences — some slight and some significant. Staff ratios, which define how many staff members are required per a certain number of children, saw a few changes. The city required licenses and background checks to be renewed and reviewed more frequently than the state now does. When it comes to training and CPR, the state minimum is 4 hours every 12 months and at least one adult employee on the premises trained in CPR and first aid. The city required 12 hours of training each year and for all employees to have Infant CPR and First Aid certification.

Another change can be found in the “disqualifying offenses” category. Obviously, there are a lot of crimes on the list that would disqualify a person from working at a daycare. However, while the state requires an actual court sentencing to be conducted, whether through guilty verdict, plea, or withheld judgement, the city also adds in the phrase “admitted to the elements of.” I can’t speak as a lawyer here, but essentially this means that if a person has ever had a police report written on them related to the possible neglect or abuse of a child, then according to city policy, that person is disqualified.

Now for all this talk about city regulations, it’s these same regulations that were slated for repeal on Monday night. Let’s take a look at what the city council had to say…

… As Mayor Bettge put it, the council reluctantly approved the repeal 4-2, with Sandra and Julia dissenting.

Now onto city code repeal number two. If any of the viewers watching right now are more sensitive, I’d suggest that you tune out for a bit, because we’re gonna be talking about Public Nudity™.

I think the mayor, the council, and myself all kinda wish this was a joke, but it’s not. Belknap presented some changes that the state legislature just made to the state Indecent Exposure statute. Now, the city of Moscow already had its own Indecent Exposure ordinance on the books based on an incident back in 2002 related to a topless car wash situation. That said, the new statute which the state has adopted is actually broader in scope than the city’s ordinance, creating a conflict between the two laws.

As such, the city is again required to repeal their own code and adopt the state’s statute as its own, and in this case, it gets pretty weird. There’s really no easy way to do this other than to just dive into the text itself.

The city’s code was dealing with a very particular situation, and so its code is written to reflect that situation. This includes, among other things, a somewhat intricate definition of “breast cleavage”. This is important, because in the original city code, the exposure of “breast cleavage” did not constitute an incident of public nudity. According to the mayor, this involved a degree of “measurement specificity” when it came to the initial enforcement of this particular public nudity law.

Now, the new state code is written a bit more broadly, and it’s probably best that I just read it.

INDECENT EXPOSURE. (1) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if the person willfully and lewdly, either:

1. (a) Exposes his or her genitals; exposes developed female breasts, including the areola and nipple; exposes adult male breasts, including the areola and nipple, that have been medically or hormonally altered to appear like developing or developed female breasts; exposes artificial breasts, including the areola and nipple, intended to resemble female breasts; or displays toys of products intended to resemble male or female genitals in any public place, or in any place where there is present another person of persons who are offended thereby; or (b) Procures, counsels, or assists any person so to expose his or her genitals; to expose developed female breasts, including the areola and nipple; to expose adult male breasts, including the areola and nip-ple, that have been medically or hormonally altered to appear like developing or developed female breasts; to expose artificial breasts, including the areola and nipple, intended to resemble female breasts; or to display toys or products intended to resemble male or female genitals where there is present another person or persons who are offended thereby
2. Any person who pleads guilty to or is found guilty of a violation of subsection (1) of this section of a similar statute in another state or any local jurisdiction for a third time within five (5) years, notwithstanding the form of the judgment (s) or withheld judgment (s), is guilty of a felony and may be imprisoned in the state prison for a period not to exceed five (5) years.
3. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the breastfeeding of a child or the expression of breast milk for the purpose of feeding a child.

Again, we should hear the council’s thoughts on this one as well…

…And with that discussion concluded, the city council (reluctantly, as the mayor said) approved the code changes unanimously. You can all come out of hiding now.

The meeting concluded on a much more normal note. Tyler Palmer presented on the installation of a permanent restroom structure at Indian Hills park. This project began in 2021 and was the result of coordination between multiple city departments. Justin Kilborn of city staff explained the process of construction and how they tracked numbers related to building costs.

In particular, the city was interested to see how expensive it would be to do this sort of project in-house rather than contracting it out. As it turned out, they spent $90,000 on this bathroom installation project, with initial cost estimates being around $146,000, and contract estimates proposed at $269,000. As such the city is looking at this as a case study for potentially expanding their in-house construction efforts.

This week has been a wild ride. I don’t think I heard the phrase “truck nuts” used in a while, and I hope that I won’t have to for a while again. Regardless, it’s interesting to see that the city council is unhappy with both these changes based on state law. Changes like this, though made at the state level, can sometimes look different when applied in practice at the local level, and if they are to have staying power at the state level, then they likely need to have support at the local level.

Changes like these are being made across Idaho, and we’re not the only city who is looking at implementing and enforcing these new changes. We’ll just have to wait and see how the cities of Idaho as a whole feel about them. However it happens, I’ll be here to talk to y’all about them.

As always, we’ll have the relevant links posted with this video, and if you have any questions, please reach out. I’m Aiden Anderson with the Moscow Minutes. We’ll see you next time!