An Idaho Falls councilman has sounded the alarm over a proposed alcohol ordinance and expressed concerns over how it could jeopardize private property rights.  

Councilman John Radford posted on Facebook Wednesday that the city council will vote on the alcohol ordinance Thursday, July 9. The meeting is slated to start at 6:30 p.m., and it will be livestreamed on the city council’s website. 

Radford claimed Idaho Falls is transforming into “Big Brother” over the use of alcohol on private property.

“In the name of trying to solve a non-problem, we are becoming big brother around alcohol in your private property,” he wrote. “I am concerned that landlords will be at risk of being charged with a felony if they knowingly allow people to drink in their business, we will be outside the norm of Idaho cities.”

“That is a big step and I don’t think the public has weighed in on this,” he continued. “The ordinance is going to make hosting events in Idaho Falls difficult and if you own an event center you are in for a rude awakening!” 

He urged people to attend the city council meeting and express their views before advising residents to also run the ordinance by their attorneys.

He then posted the 579-page meeting agenda, part of which details the proposed ordinance (see page 379), to Facebook. The lengthy agenda is a prime example of government doing what government does best: burying new regulations in hundreds of documents and hoping no one notices. Congress does this routinely with massive omnibus bills, and local governments are following suit. 

Radford appeared to take issue with the proposal’s language concerning landlords and renters under Section 4-2-2 of the revised draft, which concerns license requirements.  

“No person leasing or renting a Commercial Establishment, or any part thereof, shall sell, offer for sale, dispense, or knowingly permit the consumption of any Alcoholic Beverage on the leased or rented premises of the Commercial Establishment unless permitted by Idaho Code or an Alcohol License, Alcohol Catering Permit, or Charitable Event Permit,” the proposal stated in part. 

“This prohibition shall not apply when Alcohol is dispensed to or consumed by only twenty (20) or fewer employees of the person leasing or renting a Commercial Establishment while on the premises of the Commercial Establishment,” the document added.

The proposed penalty for violating any part of Section 4-2-2 is a misdemeanor. 

In response to a comment, Radford asserted that “knowingly” is too expansive of a term for a landlord, and that alcohol in the state and county is sufficiently regulated.

The proposal is an omnibus ordinance adjusting Idaho Falls’ ordinances pertaining to alcohol within the city, according to the agenda. The ordinance would combine three different chapters – one chapter each for liquor, beer, and wine – into a single chapter to craft a “more cohesive ordinance structure.” 

The proposal would also impose restrictions on the sale or consumption of alcohol at commercial establishments unless allowed by the law. The ordinance would additionally allow the city attorney and police chief to “compel certain documents and video from alcohol licensees to enforce the alcohol ordinance, ascertain compliance, or investigate a criminal matter,” the document states.

It also aims to decrease, “over time,” the amount of alcohol catering permits allowed at specific locations. The ordinance would further establish an alcohol server training program, identify the grounds and procedure for suspending and rescinding alcohol licenses, and provide an appeals process for alcohol licenses and various related permits. 

A previous version of the proposal prompted pushback in March, particularly over its “Approved Server Training Program” section.

Radford told KIFI that several business owners had brought their concerns to the council regarding the training program. “All of them said, yes, they’re in favor of training, but the burden of how this was written currently just didn’t meet their needs,” Radford said.

A prior draft of the proposal from a March 9 meeting agenda stated that alcohol servers and security persons, unless already certified, must complete the training by June 1, 2026, or within 60 days of starting employment. Businesses with the applicable licenses would also be mandated to make sure their employees are certified, maintain records of their certifications, and turn them over to law enforcement when requested.

The punishment for violating the server training provision, a misdemeanor under the March proposal, also prompted concerns. Radford told KIFI the penalty was “pretty harsh for a judgment call.”

“You can train people, but ultimately you don’t know that someone comes into your bar that hasn’t already had more drinks than you served them,” he said.

The July agenda, however, now states that any alcohol server or security personnel who violates the server training requirements will be guilty of an infraction and potentially face fines. Repeated violations could also result in the suspension or revocation of alcohol licenses.

The deadline for completing the program would also be extended to Oct. 1, 2026, under the newest draft. But despite the adjustments, the ordinance is still receiving pushback.

Many individuals in the comments of Radford’s Facebook post expressed disagreement with the ordinance, citing the numerous regulations businesses already face. The Idaho State Police Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Bureau currently monitors establishments producing or selling alcohol to ensure they are licensed and adhere to the law.

“I worry we are working through a very complex legal environment around alcohol and we are not getting enough input from normal citizens and landlords, who have a lot to lose here,” Radford’s post concluded.

City officials aren’t the only ones seeking to impose more regulations or fees on those selling alcoholic beverages. During the 2026 legislative session, state lawmakers introduced at least two Senate bills aimed at increasing alcohol-related fees. Both received negative (-3) ratings from Idaho Freedom Foundation. 

Idaho Falls, in its proposal, maintains that the ordinance is intended to mitigate unsafe drinking and enhance public safety, among other goals. While the agenda points to government statistics regarding alcohol-related deaths and drunk driving, the proposal does not appear to solve a specific problem, but instead introduces additional regulations for businesses and caterers. It raises the question of who is behind the ordinance because, based on the public response, it does not appear to be a popular proposal.

Regulations are often introduced on behalf of existing businesses to hurt their competitors, and that could be what is happening in this case. The July agenda contains two drafts of the proposal, and the first draft has numerous documented revisions. Clearly, a lot of effort is being put into this proposal, but why? Are businesses and alcohol providers wary of new competition? Or is the motivation purely concerning public safety?

Preventing car accidents and deaths from alcohol is a noble aim, but there are already laws against drunk driving. Strengthening penalties for DUIs and cracking down on individuals who harm others makes sense, but introducing additional licensing rules will only hurt Idaho businesses, raise prices, and make it harder for new competitors to enter the market.