Nampa Town Hall on Ford Idaho Center Conveyance - August 11, 2025
Nampa Town Hall on Ford Idaho Center Conveyance - August 11, 2025
The City of Nampa held a town hall meeting on August 11, 2025, to gather public input on a proposed conveyance of the Ford Idaho Center property to the College of Western Idaho (CWI). Mayor Debbie Kling opened the meeting, stating that no decision has been made and that the process is transparent. The meeting included a summary of facilitated community discussions, a legal presentation on the city's authority to convey property, and over three hours of public testimony from approximately 30 speakers. Topics included the center's deferred maintenance costs, potential funding options (including a possible levy override), economic impact, and community concerns about transparency and rushed process.
Consent Calendar
- No consent calendar items were discussed.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Ronaly Lindsenman (county resident): Expressed shock that conveyance was even considered, questioning why taxpayers should give away a facility built with their investment. Opposed the idea.
- Ed McNeil (Nampa): Spoke in favor of a strategic alliance with CWI, citing the college's visionary management and potential for economic growth. Supported the conveyance.
- Bob Pinkleton (Nampa taxpayer for 50+ years): Strongly opposed giving away the property, suggested selling it to CWI instead. Called for better street maintenance and questioned why the city would convey a $120M asset.
- Noreen Nunes (Nampa): Raised concerns about no ballot election, potential changes to events (gun shows, alcohol sales), and loss of community voice. Mayor clarified that existing events would be protected under an agreement.
- Kenny Roden (chair of Venue Advisory Commission): Asked for more time to consider options, noting the center is not underutilized and that the decision feels rushed. Opposed quick sale.
- Mark Mitchell (Nampa): Supported exploring CWI ownership to avoid tax increases, but emphasized need for maintenance. Acknowledged the center's economic impact.
- Clint Child (President, Snake River Stampede): Read a board statement supporting the conveyance, noting the Stampede's $8M investment and trust in CWI as a community partner.
- Stuart Heidman (Nampa business owner, 30+ years): Opposed transfer, citing past votes against CWI, loss of public voice, and no compensation. Called for stopping the process.
- Chris Troxel (third-generation Nampan, horse community participant): Supported the process but not yet the conveyance, noting guarantees for continued horse park use. Thanked CWI for commitments.
- Patty Evans (Nampa, recreation professional): Alleged secrecy and backroom deals, called for a citizen board to oversee the center. Opposed conveyance without public vote.
- Glenn Morgan (Nampa): Questioned the $25M deferred maintenance estimate, suggested costs could be lower. Called for more time and public awareness.
- Beth Ernest (Nampa): Proposed forming a Nampa Citizens Board to oversee the center's future, opposed rush decision.
- Jill Hallows (Nampa): Requested an open forum for ideas, criticized transparency, and called for more time to generate solutions.
- Arlen Hanker (Nampa): Expressed concerns about commercial development, neglect of horse park, and need for contract protections for community events.
- Sherry Boardman (Idaho Horse Park Foundation): Supported CWI as potential landlord, citing positive engagement and contractual commitments.
- Tammy Conneber (Venue Management Commission member): Spoke out against the transfer, citing lack of transparency and failure to involve the commission. Called for more public input.
- David LeRoy (on behalf of Hubert Osborne): Opposed the transfer, suggested a five-point plan including an appraisal, detailed maintenance analysis, and exploring alternatives (auction, auditorium district partnership).
- Randy Reaken (Nampa): Urged delay on levy override vote, suggested using auditorium district funds for maintenance instead.
- David Taney (Nampa, mergers & acquisitions expert): Called the deal structure flawed, argued the property is worth $200-300M, and urged the city to retain ownership.
- Cynthia Reynolds (Nampa, longtime resident): Proposed public-private partnerships, fundraising concerts, and 'adopt-a-feature' programs. Opposed free conveyance.
- Jan Zar (Ada County resident, entertainment venue expert): Questioned facility fees and naming rights, suggested renegotiating. Opposed tax increase but supported exploring options.
- Robin Knight (Meridian, horse foundation member): Emphasized the horse park's economic value ($29M impact), supported CWI ownership with formal commitments to equestrian events.
- Mike Pena (CWI Foundation Board president): Supported the transfer, citing expanded educational access and refocus of city resources. Noted CWI's foundation fundraising success.
- Tammy Edwards (Nampa): Asked about levy amounts and timing, expressed concern about rushed process. Questioned CWI's ability to fund maintenance.
- Ray Booz (Nampa, four-year resident): Preferred city ownership, suggested sales tax or hotel tax options (noted they are not allowed in Idaho). Opposed property tax increase.
- Steve Almer (Nampa, retired contractor): Advised city to obtain an appraisal, re-evaluate deferred maintenance costs, and ensure contract protections. Questioned CWI's commitment if the facility becomes unprofitable.
Discussion Items
- Legal Authority to Convey: City attorney Preston presented on Idaho Code, affirming broad city discretion to convey property. Four steps required: declaration of intent, public hearing (14-day notice), ordinance adoption, and execution. Appraisal is optional.
- Facilitated Community Feedback Summary: Shannon McGuire presented key themes from two facilitated sessions. Participants valued the center as a community asset, preferred preserving current uses, and showed mixed support for a levy override (9 yes, 11 no from community leaders; 5 yes, 12 no from general public). Concerns included lack of transparency and fear of losing the asset.
- Financial Challenges: Mayor and council members discussed $25M in deferred maintenance, $20M+ in city subsidies over 20 years, and limited funding tools (e.g., auditorium district funds cannot be used for maintenance). Councilman Haverfield proposed land lease of three acres on Idaho Center Boulevard to generate revenue ($200K-$500K annually). Councilman Bills noted OVG's offer to fund amphitheater improvements but stated it does not solve overall deferred maintenance.
- Levy Override Possibility: Mayor noted a levy override could be voted on by council on August 18, the final deadline for the 2025 ballot. Specific amounts were not yet available pending State Tax Commission meeting.
Key Outcomes
- No Decision Made: Mayor reiterated that no decision has been reached; the town hall was a listening session. The process will continue with further council discussions.
- Public Input Will Be Considered: Council members expressed appreciation for all testimony and committed to reviewing ideas.
- Levy Override Vote Possible on August 18: The council may vote on a levy override at the next regular meeting; details will be released later in the week.
- CWI Remains Open to Partnership: President Gordon Jones stated CWI is committed to preserving existing events and expanding educational opportunities, but urged timely resolution due to competitive pressures in the Treasure Valley.
- Council Divergence: Council members expressed differing views. Some (Bills, Reynolds) favored CWI conveyance to avoid tax increases; others (Haverfield, Rodriguez) advocated for exploring alternative funding models and retaining city ownership. The process will continue with further public engagement.
- Next Steps: Staff will compile financial data and present options. The public can monitor the city's website for updates.
Meeting Transcript
Thank you. Good evening. Good evening. Thank you guys for joining us tonight. I really appreciate everyone being here this evening. We have a full evening ahead of us, and thank you all for being here. So this is a town hall. It is not our normal city council meeting, so I'm not going to open it with roll call because it is a town hall meeting. Um so the one thing I do want to do as we get started is first and foremost say thank you. Thank you for being here. Thank you for using your voices, thank you for being engaged. It is greatly appreciated. So tonight, as we get started, we're gonna have each person's gonna have three minutes. Now, some one of the things that was communicated was that people are frustrated with only three minutes. However, by the time we do three minutes, if we let someone go on longer, then maybe the people at the end wouldn't have the opportunity. We do want to ensure that we end by 10 o'clock tonight. One of the things that we have learned just historically is anything that goes after 10, it just gets really tough because we're all tired. And so that'll be our we want to end by that time frame. Um tonight, after you speak for three minutes, and I think you'll see it on the other side of the, you'll see it when you're standing up there speaking. We will have an opportunity if you have a question for the council, then there can be a response from council, and I've encouraged us all to be really short with our comments so that we don't go on too long. So we'll have maybe a minute for response or question. I appreciate President Gordon Jones being here, um, so that if there and then his team is also here. If there is a question that is focused that is an answer that needs to come from the College of Western Idaho, then they would be available to answer that question. So we can do that. Um at the very end, council then is going to have an opportunity, they're each gonna take three minutes and provide a closing comment this evening when we get to the very very end. Council will provide that for you. Um I don't we've had so many questions. One of my thoughts tonight was I could answer some of those questions so then you don't have to ask them and then us in turn answer them. However, this evening is about you, and so I don't want to take up a lot of time at the beginning answering all the questions. I will say a couple of things. There have been some comments that it's a rushed process, that there's a lack of transparency, and and that we've already made the decision. So I just want to let everybody know. The other thing I want to say though also, we have had some excellent questions that help us move to a better decision. And I can tell you I greatly appreciate that. Thank you for those that that have asked good questions and that have helped us along in this process. It's really appreciated. So um just a real quick note to say, a decision has not been made. This has been um really a very transparent process. It's not done yet. If it needs to go on, it'll go on. If we've answered the questions, then we may come to a decision. Um that said, on the realm of transparency, it's not very often that you post a contract online when you're in the process of negotiating. And our our contract's online. So our financials are online. We are really working diligently to answer every question that's out there. It's just hard to keep up with the pace because there's a lot of nuances and questions that maybe you ask it a little different way, and so then we're trying to get responses. So our intent is to provide responses and to be transparent, and the decision has not been made. We do have one deadline, and that is next Monday night, the 18th, we have a city council meeting. If we were to consider a levy override, that is the final date that we could vote on it. So you will see a levy override on the council agenda for next Monday night the 18th, and that'll be an opportunity for council to consider that and to have discussion.
openpublica.com