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.

So we'll have more discussion next Monday night, the 18th, and then after tonight, we'll see where we go.

So this is an important evening.

As we get started, I just want to thank you in advance.

And I want to thank you.

You know what?

I'm always proud of NAMPA because we're respectful.

And we do a lot of public hearings here.

And I would ask you to please do the same, and that is be respectful of us, be respectful of each other, because it is one thing that I've been very proud of NAMPA that we've been respectful in all regards.

The one thing, the other thing that I know is that everyone is here for the same reason, and that is we have a treasured asset, which is the Ford Idaho Center in that property.

One that we're proud of.

And that is we all want the best.

We all want the best.

We may have different avenues by which we're getting there, but I think we could all agree that we want the best outcome.

So we're on a journey right now.

We're on a journey to explore what that is, and our intent is to make a wise decision.

So thank you for being a part of the process.

Thank you for helping us get there.

We look forward to hearing from you tonight.

As we get started, one of the questions that has come forward has been can we convey the property?

So while we're all together, we're gonna start.

Let me think about this.

So I think maybe I should start with Shannon though.

Um let's start with Shannon McGuire, and then we'll move into can we convey the property?

So we had a couple.

Shannon, go ahead and come forward.

Do you have a presentation?

You do not.

Okay, so you're just gonna talk to us, which we appreciate.

So Shannon McGuire was hired to facilitate a couple of the community discussions.

We have asked her to provide a summary of those discussions.

That summary is posted online.

Shannon, thank you for giving us an overview of what you learned.

We appreciate you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um, counsel.

I will read from the executive summary from the report to highlight the key themes.

I would like to open by saying that the Ford Idaho Center is one of NAMPA's most treasured and recognizable community assets.

That came through in both facilitated discussions with community leaders as well as the public.

During the sessions, we gathered very intentional feedback from members.

We have them write down responses on post-it notes.

We had an open discussion with community leaders where they spoke to one another.

At our public meeting, we had table discussions so neighbors could speak to neighbors.

It was centered around five key questions, and those questions were structured about the highest and best use, the opportunities to increase utilization, potential funding options, and perspectives on tax levy override, and above all, why the Ford Idaho Center is a treasure and why it's important to community.

So I would love to highlight some of the key themes that came out based on each question.

The Ford Idaho Center matters.

Participants frequently cited its role in driving economic impact and tourism through hosting signature events such as the Snake River Stampede, the horse park, and concerts.

There was also a strong sense of pride and ownership in the facility, with many citing it as a pillar of NAMPA's identity and heritage.

Some of those comments are horse events bring millions of dollars into the NAMPA community.

It not only provides an economic impact but brings people together in big and small ways.

It matters because it's ours.

The Snake River Stampede, one of the largest rodeos in the USA.

For highest and best use, most participants felt the Ford Idaho Center's current mix of events serves the community well and must be preserved.

Many emphasized enhancing the equine and entertainment functions, while some suggested integrating additional educational or community uses.

A particular interest to some was including more commercial and retail space.

Some comments, quotes.

Its current use is the highest and best use.

The Ford Idaho Center was custom built for the purpose it fulfills.

The highest and best use is to leave it as it is.

A strong booking of national shows, lease land and ad commercial, ways to increase utilization.

There were suggestions about facility upgrades, expanded amenities, more marketing, varied programming, and strategic partnerships.

Some participants link these to broader ownership and development considerations.

Update, so some quotes, updates and modernization, raise the roof, book more events, examples, hockey, ice skating, better more advertising of events, hire any efficient, aggressive, innovative management company, and utilization has been tremendous with current management.

For funding options, responses covered sponsorships, partnerships, commercial development, event revenue, and for some public funding mechanisms.

Many sought clarity on maintenance costs and the use of auditorium district funds.

Some comments.

Use auditorium district funds for the Ford Idaho Center maintenance.

Land lease revenue, more restaurants, retail, commercial development.

OVG has offered to provide funding for the amphitheater improvements, multiple million dollars.

And finally, for a levy support, there was a question asked if uh participants would support a tax levy override to maintain ownership under the city.

These uh votes we had from community leaders, yes, nine, no eleven, and unanswered ten.

For general public, yes, five, no, twelve, unanswered eight.

For the general public, they left comments as well.

And those included no blank check and pardon my French, hell no.

Some conditional support.

Uh someone uh commented I would support it, but would prefer the conveying.

I would like to also add that there were concerns and tensions with Madam Mayor, you have addressed ownership versus stewardship.

There was strong sentiment to not give away the asset.

There was conversation around underutilized versus well utilized.

How do you define utilized?

And there was some discussion in the community leaders group around bait and switch.

Uh that came up because it the group felt that the decision has been made, and when it came to the auditorium district funding, the community was promised one thing, and this may impose something different.

At that discussion in particular, we had city leadership and members of the public that were involved in that process, and they provided exceptional input and helped balance that conversation.

There's an urgency, as you've addressed, madam mayor, that this process feels fresh and not transparent enough.

The pride in ownership.

There were a number of folks at both sessions that need more information.

There are about 25 unanswered questions that were collected.

And overall, I will tell you my role was neutral facilitator, objective.

I was there to be a listener and a guide to compile the voice of participants to provide to you, mayor, and council as you weigh your decision.

Um mindful of time, Madam Mayor.

Are there any other points that you feel I should clarify?

Thank you so much.

Council, do you have any questions?

Thank you so much for facilitating this as a neutral facilitator.

Thank you for compiling all the information.

And again, the information is online if you go to the City of Naple website.

I believe it is already posted up there.

Yes, Amy's thumbs up.

Shannon, thank you so much.

Thank you.

So to the question about conveyance, I would like to defer to our legal counsel Preston, who has a uh PowerPoint for us.

Mayor, Council, thank you, and thank you, everybody, for being here.

Uh mayor and council have asked that I prepare some high-level general summarization based off the amount of questions we've received.

There's been a lot of commonality in those questions.

The goal of this presentation is to try to address as many of those as we can, and hopefully we do for those in attendance tonight and watching.

The question is about conveying city-owned property.

The question has come up often.

Can the city convey property which it owns?

A city's legal authority to do so is derived from two sources.

Uh, that's the Constitution and the general statutes of Idaho.

Uh, the constitution says legislature, you decide what powers a city has and does not have.

So the legislature has empowered the city in two different chapters of code.

First, an IDO code 5301, it states that municipal corporations or city have the power to contract, be contracted with, acquire, hold, lease, and convey property real and personal.

And then, in addition to that general grant of power, um, the legislature has adopted a chapter 14 in Title 50, and that grants additional powers on the process and standards for conveying property that a city owns.

And I'm gonna interrupt real quickly and just say we will put this on our website since this is the public meeting, so people don't have to take notes necessarily unless you want to take notes, but this will go up on our website just like other.

Is that okay?

That's great.

Yep, this is just general, generic um recitation of Idaho Code and case law.

Um, where we left off, so Idaho Code, the legislature has given cities clear statutory authority for conveying its property or leasing it.

Um it explicitly states that cities shall have general authority to manage real property owned by the city in ways which the judgment of the city council deems to uh to be in the public interest.

Furthermore, the standard is that when a city council is determined uh that conveyance is in the city's best interest, it can do so with or without conveyance.

And I'm focusing for tonight's discussion on a conveyance.

That is the general proposal here.

Um this chapter of code talks about leasing property, talks about selling property.

Um, but as you'll hear here tonight, um, Idaho Supreme Court has reviewed under all those lenses selling, conveying the leasing, and the conclusions and holdings are all clear that the city is vested with explicit statutory discretion.

A recent case, uh, maybe some of you might recall from 2023 was um Henderson versus Sandpoint, and in that case, the issue was taken up about a city's authority to convey, or in that instance to lease property that it owns.

And there the court ran through all of chapter 14, all the sections that apply here tonight.

And the wording I will quote from that opinion about the city's authority is the following.

The court describes it, the city's powers as sweeping authority, vast discretion.

The court will not second guess the city's discretion.

There are few limits, and there is broad discretion.

Here I've highlighted two sections from that uh court opinion uh highlighted here in yellow.

I think it's important to understand that the general municipal corporation's power to convey real property.

A court has held that there's few limits on that authority because very importantly, this is a discretionary function.

Um, and I say this to council, and they are familiar with this phrase.

You're put into your seats at this time to voice your opinions.

That's where discretion comes into play.

We have other decisions they make where they have to take off that discretion hat and call balls and strikes.

Here, this is a policy discretionary decision, and the court has says that the court uh Idaho legislature has entrusted these elected officials with that, and absent a clear abuse of that discretion, any decision made will not be overturned on appeal, and the court importantly says it wants to reiterate as it did in a case called BOP from 1986, that leaders since then and now of Idaho cities are vested with vast discretion to make decisions they consider in the city's best interest when leasing or conveying city property.

That's kind of the substantive standpoint, um, what power and authority the city has when it wants to dispose of its property.

Um, what is the procedural standard?

The court has said that it's also a very high bar to challenge.

There's a lot of discretion.

The court says if there is a glaring informality or illegality in the proceedings, unless there's something like that, we will not disturb the city's discretion.

For the public awareness and council and mayors, there really is just four steps on the procedural aspects.

Um we have not hit step one yet.

There's been a lot of buildup, a lot of collaboration, a lot of communication.

But when the time comes, if the city wants to go forward with the proposed conveyance, the city will make an official declaration of its intent to do so.

That'll be by a resolution at a later public hearing.

After that, that resolution will state that there would be a public hearing noticed no less than 14 days after the city would then adopt an ordinance authorizing the conveyance, and they must include uh certain findings in there.

And finally, the execution of that conveyance.

Think of it as a conveyance of property through a warranty deed or whatever uh means the city ends up going.

Um, all this is to say, just to wrap it together, Mayor and Council and the public.

Um, as to the question, does the city have authority to do what it's proposing to do?

Um the requirements of this transfer are found clearly in Idaho code, and when the city follows the procedural steps, it will fit squarely within the explicit grant authority, and the courts have stated that you city have a broad discretion and sweeping authority as to deciding what to do with your property that you own.

And a court is not gonna second guess the city's judgment, your discretion as what is in the public interest or whether property is underutilized, and that is a discretionary decision reserved for this body, the council, and mayor.

Mayor, I'd be happy to answer any questions, uh, but that is a high-level general overview of uh the legal framework that we're here in tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Council, do you have any questions?

Mayor, I do have one question.

So what is Idaho State law concerning the conveyances of property such as this one that is authorizing and requesting first statute that if this has to be appraised?

The land has to be appraised prior to conveyance.

Mayor?

Yes.

Trying to answer that question.

Yes.

Idaho Code 50 uh chapter 14 states that it is optional.

It does reference an appraisal, may be obtained by the council if it so wishes, but it is not mandatory.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

If there are no other questions from council, I think let's step in.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate that.

Okay.

So let's go ahead and step into our public hearing.

And just as a reminder, when you come forward, go ahead and state your name and your address.

You've already signed signed up, but Shar will take us through that one by one.

In fact, one way to be faster is to let's get people in lines of three, maybe, and get the first three people in line and uh state your name and address, and then we'll get started.

So Madam Mayor, first I want to apologize to anyone if I just destroy your name.

I'm gonna do my best not to do that.

So our first speaker is Ronaly Lingjamin, and on deck is Ed McNellis and Bob Pinkleton.

My name is Ronaly Lindsenman, 6821, Deer Flat, Nampa.

I'm not a resident of the city, but of course, being in the county and everything.

Um question is who initiated even such a thought?

We plain chain citizens are just gobsmacked that this is even a thought.

And all of the years, the blood, sweat, and tears that residents put in to getting that facility, and now I don't know.

Is it just because we have to pay maintenance?

I know for myself going to a few events and uh hanging around down there that there were some of the employees there, and this has been years ago, that complained about the lack of maintenance on that facility.

So is it because we've been slackers not doing that?

Because city council, you come and go, you know, and so it's no skin off your nose what the next guy has to face.

So I just say it's like building my house.

Thirty years later, I go.

I don't want to do the maintenance on this little sucker, so I'm just gonna give away what I own, no sweat.

It's ridiculous in my humble taxpayer opinion.

So I pray we don't do that.

Thank you.

And our next person is Madam Mayor.

Our next speaker is Ed McNelly, and on deck is Bob Pinkleton and Noreen News.

And I do want to apologize.

We are having some issues with our timer, so I am doing the timer on my phone right now.

Thank you.

Mayor Kling, City Council.

Uh my name's Ed McNeil.

I live in 621 North Robinson Boulevard, Nampa.

Uh my background is in finance, and uh I'm a horse guy.

Uh I travel across the country, a lot of different places, and showing racing, all of us, so I have a big background in that.

Several years ago, I came here with many of the individuals here tonight when the city council is asking for input about selling a four-acre parcel of the horse park.

I spoke passionately against the idea.

Today I'm speaking in favor of the strategic alliance of the city of Nampa and the College of Western Idaho.

We live in the center of the Inn Mountain region, and there's a huge opportunity for the city of Nampa, college, and the citizens of our state.

The city will benefit with the economic engine of the college growing and the related growth of the coin industry and the entertainment venues.

The college has a visionary management team and access to resources to do things right and to properly and timely develop the land and maximize the opportunities available.

I've been impressed while doing my research on the college and their management team.

They're good.

Citizens will benefit with the access to more resources, development of the horse park, and the related industries, it will be it will attract to the area.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Bob Pinkleton.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Bob Telkington, 4100 Airport Road in Namba.

Taxpayer for over 50 years, all levels of government.

And it's very frustrating to me when I see elected officials being generous with somebody else's money.

It's very frustrating.

I know it's not just you guys, it's all over our government.

Um, but it just is very frustrating, and I would never ever support this giving a conveyance.

I would uh can I would support selling it.

If if like Ed just said, the college has great finances and can generate lots of money.

Why can't they buy it from us?

Our streets need help.

It just is jars by teeth every time I drive around NAMPET, which is every day.

So if if that is if we have so much money in our budget, why aren't we taking care of our streets?

If we can just give away 120 million dollars and not say boo about it and just say, okay, you guys have it.

Not not on my not out of my book.

My my checkbook is not going to do that.

I just have one question, and I like to ask the council, because there's a lot of experience on this council.

Is there no the young lady that spoke first that gave us the update?

She mentioned some other avenues of revenue from that property.

And it would it would I would like to have one of the council members uh maybe expound on that.

She didn't expound on that very much with the rest of my time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council, do you want to make any comments?

I'm gonna ask.

Okay, I'm gonna ask that you hold your applause.

You're gonna be applauding often on all night.

Please just hold your applause.

Typically, in a public hearing, this isn't a public hearing, we don't allow any type of applause.

I would appreciate it if we held it, and that way we could just keep moving.

But council, do you have any um comments?

Do you want to answer his question at all?

Councilman Haverfield.

I'm happy to just one minute real quickly.

Well, yeah, there are two sides to every story.

I said this earlier.

Um I personally believe that there are ways to fund the center that uh we have a five million dollar fund balance as it is.

Uh an idea that I'm going to be asking the council to consider as we go forward is if we uh had a zero balance at this point for deferred maintenance needed, if it was zero dollars, would we be having this conversation tonight?

Um because that's I think what's driven this um driven us to this point is the concern about deferred maintenance.

Twenty-five million dollars is what's been posed by CWI and a report.

Um finally we have uh something to look at and to try to challenge as we go forward.

I think I heard today that the auditorium district now has uh at least the consideration that they can help fund improvements, not only just for new improvements, but for maintenance-related items as well.

If that's the case, we have money that we can work with, uh money available through the auditorium district, and then uh an idea that I I presented uh that has not been supported by some of the council and mayor is the fact that we could look at a land lease of property along Canada, approximately uh three acres, be able to generate another revenue uh uh source of four to five hundred thousand a year that could go to directly towards maintenance purposes.

So I think there are ideas still to be considered raising uh ticket prices, uh OBG has offered to improve the auditory or the outside amphitheater with their own dollars, so discussing further and getting an understanding of what that truly means uh with ticket prices, uh, revenue share and land lease of the uh Amphitheater itself.

I think there's ways, things that we can talk about.

So that would be my answer.

Mayor, Mayor.

Mayor.

Bob, I think the reason why that the that the council has proposed, which I disagree with, is a another tax increase to our taxpayers.

So let me right.

And that's to me as a scare attack.

I don't follow it, I don't like it.

We're already paying enough as it is.

But what we can do as an alternative is establish a different course of action.

For example, if Oakview Group would designate a certain amount of increases to the horse park.

The horse park generates almost 16 million a year in our local businesses.

And I think that deserves a whole bunch of priority when it comes to the to the Idaho Horse Park and the Fort Idaho Center.

The other thing was is the only thing is this.

Maybe um uh if the concerts bring well, give me a point let me put that in perspective.

If concerts come in, attendees come in and they leave.

Horse park people don't, they stay, and that's where all this money comes from, the revenue.

But you know, folks, some of that comes from sales tax.

We pay a lot of that sales tax, it goes back to the state of Idaho.

So I would be thinking I look at the state legislators hey, get off your bus and give us some more of that money we invested in.

That's what we need to do as well.

Councilman Haverfield has a good idea with presenting budget uh precinding businesses on Canada, a lease agreement.

Wow, we can't go wrong in any of that as well.

So uh different direction and not relay it on the taxpayer.

Thank you, ma'am.

So I just want a couple comments uh regarding the property along Fort Idaho Center Boulevard.

We have been trying to sell that, and we have been negotiating and working with people to come in.

Those deals fell apart when the tax our economy became shaky, and actually the interest rates went up.

So we have been working on that for the last since I've been in and before I've been in, we have been working on trying to find someone to come in and develop along Idaho Center Boulevard, and it has not happened, and it isn't for lack of trying.

It just has to do with the market and return on investment and what that costs.

I want to clarify the OVG 16 million.

So I think what you're talking about is the economic impact of the horse park, which is about 29 million.

It is big, it is incredible, it's awesome.

But that is an economic impact.

That is not cash coming to the city to OVG.

So I just want to make sure that that's clear.

It's not $60 million that the city's getting or OBG is getting.

That is the economic impact, and the economic impact of the horse park to our community is very significant and positive.

It's great.

So just as a follow-up to that, there may be something else, but um please for clarifying that.

Yeah, yeah, it's really that must be the new report that you that is, yeah.

So just so you know, so yes, it is, and even yeah.

Thank you.

Okay.

There uh, yes.

I was mentioned the NAP Auditorium District had their meeting today.

I wasn't able to attend that meeting.

It was there going to be a report or any uh feedback for how that went or any testimony regarding that.

Uh Councilman Bills was actually there.

I was there, and so yes, we did have a discussion around that.

Councilman Bills, what was your understanding?

My understanding is it's the auditorium district board uh has guidelines for expenditure.

Uh it's not towards uh deferred maintenance, uh it's for improvements as they choose to help fund it uh has restrictions in summary as to what they can do.

It's not a pandacea, and a lot of folks have commented and and oh gee, we can just go get the money from the auditorium district, and no, there's a set of different rules and guidelines and law, and so uh it's it's very guided, it's guided underneath the board, and uh so for the portion that I was able to sit in on and listen, uh it's a auditorium district could take a year, two years in collecting funds, and then upon submission of request of funds, they can vote on that and decide whether they're going to release those monies.

It's not an automatic to come in and subsidize uh deferred maintenance, and it's not an automatic that gee, we have that money, we're gonna be able to take care of everything.

Uh it's an avenue, but it's not it's not a panda sea, it's not gonna solve uh the deficit.

Uh so I'm gonna segue for just a moment in terms of a couple of the comments, you know.

Why why would who even thought of this issue?

Right?

Well, shoot me.

Okay, and and and that's okay.

Because see, I don't like property taxes.

I don't like property taxes in the deficit, and like one gentleman said, I don't like the roads that don't get improved.

I also don't like to see deficit spending.

Twelve years ago when I was appointed on the council, there was 1.8 million subsidy of the Ford Idaho Center, 1.8 million for one year, 1.6 million the next year for the two years that I was on council, three point four million dollars of your property taxes, subsidize the operation of the Idaho Center.

So when you count it, it's 20 million plus over time.

Yes, there's been some two or three good years recently under a new management company.

We should be applied OVG, but the capital deferred maintenance is at least 20 million.

It's not a simple overlay of the parking lot.

No soil engineer has looked at the issue and given the estimates, it's not just a quick band-aid of the roof, it's 800,000 to fix the boiler, replace it.

We haven't even got into the eFus around the building.

So when you're faced with that, and you sit here every other week, and you're challenged to spend your money and approve the budget, which is final approval is next week.

It's an increase.

Now there's two council members who have said no to any increase in the expenditure.

They're the same two who are saying we can fix the Idaho Center without having to do anything.

How do you not raise money and how do you not spend money to fix something?

It's a conflict of terms, an absolute conflict of terms.

And so for me, I absolutely, if I could change anything for the state of Idaho, it would be to convince the legislature to do away with property tax.

It's the most penalty-oriented tax.

You don't pay your tax, the government can seize your property.

But why not pay sales tax?

Why not pay income tax because I'm spending money and I'm making money?

But property tax doesn't come into play.

But that's the rule.

That's the three-legged stool that Idaho has.

And we're limited.

Then we're limited five million dollars in the last three years because of the rules that the legislature changed.

Our finance director months ago laid out for us.

And the reason I'm kind of going long-winded is to try to give you the background.

You say, well, who came up with this idea?

Why do these discussions even begin?

Because they began months ago, last year.

The finance director gave us the projections.

Where is the city of Napa going?

We're going in the hole.

Because we can't raise the money that's needed to fix anything.

I hate driving over the bumpy roads.

I hate not having sidewalks where we'd like to have sidewalks.

The basics of what a city should provide.

Now I'm not a I'm not in agreement that the city should be in the entertainment venue business.

So consequently.

Don't give away any.

But if we do what we are proposing and what we've been talking about, and when I say we, there's two or three of us, it's that you still have control and an agreement of how it pervades in the future.

If you just publicly put it out there, it's okay to disagree.

What I'm trying to convey to you is the decision hasn't been made.

These decisions have been, this discussion has been going on for months and months, trying to find resolution for what's forthcoming.

But so far tonight, I haven't heard anybody say, yeah, you can raise my property tax, two or three hundred dollars a year for the next 10 years and dedicate that money to the Ford Idaho Center.

I'm sorry, Mayor, but this has gone on quite long enough.

I can be proud to be one of the two that you spoke of earlier.

But I I feel I have a disagreement as far as in the process going forward.

And that's just because I'm a businessman and I look at things from a business standpoint.

Well, so raising their taxes is not always the best answer.

Maybe there's another way to approach this that wouldn't require that.

That's what I want to I want to pursue and see if there's more dialogue available.

Push this off a little long so that we can or longer so that we can talk about it more.

That's all I would want to do.

So you'll know I'm the elder, I'm the other one.

Okay, so for those of you, I I hear some agreement out there.

I'm hoping you signed up.

If you didn't sign up, please go to the back and sign up to speak, because what we do want to hear are some of those ideas.

So tonight we want to hear ideas.

So I there were quite a few people applauding, and so if you're not signed up, please sign up so that you can come forward and share those ideas with us.

Because what we want tonight, um, we really want ideas.

We want solutions.

What David brought out is we have a problem.

We're the reason for this isn't that we don't like the Ford Idaho Center.

We love the Fort Idaho Center.

We just want it to be vibrant down the road.

So giving it away.

Well, giving it away, it isn't giving it away.

So it is.

Well, let me explain what I was going to say there.

So we have a responsibility as a city that we're guided by state statute that if we sell, we have to sell to the highest bidder.

Okay, so that is a that is a rule.

The question is we can put some deed restrictions on it, which could guide who purchases this property.

The deed restrictions actually will reduce the value.

But the deed one deed restriction would be our rodeo, that they need to maintain that arena, and they need to host the Snake River Stampede every year.

The other thing that I know that a number of people want is they want to protect our horse park.

They don't want that to go away.

If we sell the property, some of those things may not be here tomorrow because they'll be gone.

So let's go ahead and go through the process of listening a little bit more.

We'll have a little bit more dialogue and we'll listen.

So let's see who's up next.

Mayor Yes.

I just want to say I think it's important tonight that we don't speak in hypotheticals anymore.

A lot of these ideas that we've been hearing are the same things we've been spinning now for weeks.

So we need to know hard numbers.

First of all, the auditorium district is not guaranteed funds.

The legislator has already said, namely Mike Moyle has said, that he would like to abolish auditorium districts in the state of Idaho before 2028.

So that's a real concern that we have to think about moving forward.

These funds are not funds we can rely on.

Also, this idea of the auditorium or um not the auditorium district, the um enterprise zone.

Yes, that's a great idea, but we need hard numbers.

It sounds like it sounds good in theory, but how much is that going to generate and where do we break with that?

So, Councilman Haverfield, do you have numbers on that on those three acres if we were to to do that, what that would generate in funds?

Approximately five to six hundred thousand minimum.

Um we're looking at six buildings totaling about 50,000 square feet on three acres.

I've said that the parking can be reconfigured with compact spaces that currently are not there today.

Um any other municipality that I work in, that is an allowance, and that allows you to then on the same footprint utilize a land lease for those frontage properties as an example of Starbucks.

Uh they normally look at about 150,000 uh a year as far as in what they pay or willing to pay for uh rent or land leases, uh other restaurants, other um commercial type uses.

I placed, I I think I told you I created a computer model now since I was challenged to do so to actually show that the six buildings approximately 50,000 square feet could easily be placed along that frontage.

I'm willing to show that.

Um I'll save it for next week so that it becomes a part of the public record.

But that's that's just the basis of going forward.

I have developers that I'm working with right now that are more than happy to be uh considered for this development uh along that frontage.

Uh to say that it has no uh future for it because it's uh failed in the past.

I don't think that's again that's not where I live.

I live live in a world.

I said that we haven't been able to to date.

And I just want to follow up on David's point earlier uh when he talked about oh no, I'm I'm spacing it, but it was to substantiate what he was saying as we go forward, and it'll come back to me.

I'll share it a little bit later.

But uh again, I think we can talk this through.

Oh, I was oh, back to your coming on city council twelve years ago when you took Bob Henry's place.

Our charge uh when we ran for election, there were three items that were the big items.

One was the subsidy to the Idaho Center.

But prior administrations never thought that the Idaho Center or the Civic Center should ever be in the black.

They never thought that that was what our charge would be.

Uh the paradigm needed to be shifted.

Up until that point, it was okay to be in the red.

We started making the changes, getting forward uh naming rights, uh working, getting a new event manager out there, new food service.

It started whittling away, getting that high uh red down to now to the point where we've worked so hard to get to the point where it's in the black.

Same thing with the rec center.

When it was first built, it was in the red until they started generating the memberships.

The other thing was the levy rate was the highest in the state, so we didn't take any, if you remember, we didn't take any budget increases for two years as a council.

Yeah.

I mean, it was what we chose to do to try to get things going in the right direction, and then we took over the uh Napa Development Corporation as a body, and then uh got just city residents on that commission.

So those were the things that we did.

Those were hard decisions back then.

We got that to the point now where we're in the black and we should be celebrating that.

Instead, we're looking at conveying it to some uh one else that is not a um a taxable entity.

That's where I have some issues.

I would love to see it go into the hands of someone that was generating a tax back to the city, but that's not going to be taking place here.

Um it's a bigger, it's a bigger discussion.

I think that uh it warrants time to really vet things out to uh Natalie's point.

Can we look at some other ways, some other things that we can be doing?

I know that um ticket prices have been offered to maybe go up a little bit extra.

The negotiation with OVG was just the beginning of that uh to move forward on.

So I think that we have room to be able to really sit down and discuss this further if we choose to, instead of being divided as a council, which obviously we have been, so I'd like to see that go away as well.

It would be helpful though if you have ideas that you would present them to the council so the council could consider them because right now they're not you're holding them, and then they're gonna show up at a public meeting rather than saying to the council how can we solve this and working collaboratively?

And so that is really quite challenging.

And I'm just gonna say, Mayor, anything that we share in executive session is privileged and stays there.

So I can't share it with these people, and they're the ones asking the questions.

So if if I share it in executive session, it becomes privilege and information, I can't share it anymore.

So I try to be respectful of that.

But you know, again, uh for the longest time we've been sequestered in a sense, not being able to share anything with the public, and they're the ones that we should have been talking to six months ago when I mentioned that to you.

Okay, I want to.

So I will say, just in answer to that.

Typically, you don't negotiate, first of all, it's so highly unusual that a contract that is under negotiation is made public so that it can be negotiated by committee.

That is very unusual.

We have done that.

We have put our contract out public for everyone to see, and it's not done.

We're just in the process.

When we, when you begin a discussion just to consider something, when it's strictly an idea, you don't throw it out until you decide if it's actually an idea even worthy of consideration.

That's what we did.

We had to talk about it and say, is it even worthy of consideration?

What would it look like?

Then we brought it out to the public.

And so this process today is what that process is.

No decision has been made.

We're trying to get the input from the public, so it is a phased process.

The process is you consider something, you think about it, you talk about it, you decide if it's even worthy.

And then the next phase is that you go to the public, and that's the phase we're in now.

The next phase will be when we get to a decision.

But we're not at that phase yet.

We're in the public phase right now of putting it before the public and getting feedback.

So it's just part of the process that we're going through, but it isn't that it's hidden.

The reason we're doing what we're doing is because it is a public process and we're bringing it to the public.

So with that, let's go to our next up testimony.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Noreen Nunes, and on deck is Kenny Rorden and Mark Mitchell.

Hi, my name is Noreen Nunes, N-U-N-E-S, and my address is 5547.

Thank you.

I'm pretty loud usually.

My address is 5547 East Victoria Falls Drive in Nampa.

And I don't have a computer and I don't do social media, so I just learned about this a few weeks ago.

So there are a few questions here, and if they can't be answered tonight, I'll try to get online in the next week or so.

My biggest issue here is the fact that there was no ballot election held.

This affects all of the citizens of NAMPA.

Actually, the residents of Treasure Valley.

And to be fair, I think we should have been able to vote on this matter.

With the large amount of people moving to NAMPA, the taxes really should not increase significantly as they would be spreading out more.

So there wouldn't be so much for the few people we have now.

How how do we know that CWI will not change or remove a function of the CETA center that's been taking place for many years?

Will there be an agreement or bylaw signed as to prevent any changes CWI might want?

Well, they hold school there when there's at least three facilities already in the immediate area within walking distance, and the new three-story building that was just completed next to the Fort Idaho Center.

Changes that may affect some people could be the gun show held at held at a school.

Many people attend the gun shows shows, and will they allow guns on school property?

This would be an issue to many people.

The large amount of concerts held there have alcohol sales, which are quite busy if they don't allow any more at a school facility, that would affect the vendors negatively.

I see this change as a very bad move, which can negatively impact not just our city, but all of the Treasure Valley residents, because there's more than just NAMPA that it's going to affect.

Thank you.

Thank you, Noreen.

So I'm going to answer a couple of those questions very quickly.

So just a quick thing.

The ballot, this cannot go on a ballot unless it's a general election, which is, and we did double check this with the Secretary of State, it cannot go on a ballot until next November.

So that's when it would go on is a year from now in November.

Um and then just uh in answer to the um agreement, it does protect the existing events so that they are protected, so the average public would see no change in the events.

The stampede would go on, the events would go on, the horse park would go on, there would be no change in that regard.

And then in answer to the gun shows, yes, they would continue because they're allowed to continue per state statute, and regarding guns at events, currently, many of the events that are held there, the promoter does not allow guns.

And so if they were required to come on to campus, we would lose a number of the concerts because the promoters do not want guns in their concerts.

And so the gun shows will, that was a yes.

The gun shows will continue to take place because they're allowed.

So the gun shows, yes, the agreement does protect all of those things.

Yes, taxes do get spread out, and the ballot the reason there isn't anything on the ballot is because nothing can be on the ballot until November of 26th.

That would be the soonest that something could go on the ballot.

So hopefully that answers that question.

And then the alcohol currently, Boise State University football, they sell alcohol.

So if there were something to change, it would change their big, big, big time.

I don't think you're gonna see the legislature uh override a university campus and tell them they can't sell have alcohol because that would impact Boise State University football.

So okay, next mayor, our next speaker is Kenny Roden, and on deck is Mark Mitchell and Clint Child.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council.

Appreciate y'all being here tonight.

Um as Randy uh Councilman Haverville pointed out.

Can you state your name and 4537 East Tuscany Avenue, Nampa?

As Councilman Haverfield pointed out, some of these these meetings evidently had been in executive session or or certainly with DNA's and and uh um it worked really well because I chair the venue advisory commission and I didn't hear about this until June when it first came out.

Um Andrew comes every month to my meeting and gives me an update on how the center is doing.

Um we get this stampede coming in, you know, Homer, uh Curtis Homer comes in and and we have staff from the city council.

Um so people with my reports that I get, we haven't used a lot of black ink on the reports that uh the IDO Center generates.

Um it's not necessarily it hasn't been considered an enterprise fund.

We've had to subsidize that in the past, and very proud of what OVG has done.

Um we've had other management uh companies in there, and and I think Andrew and OBG have done a great job.

We've got Live Nation that they work with, so um, it's a busy, busy busy venue outside, inside, and of course the horse park.

And as pointed out in many of the the meetings is the quality of life and the economic impact that the IDO Ford Idaho Center throws off.

That's the importance.

It's not a it's certainly not a cash cow, and and um is you know over the years it's certainly not been a revenue generator, but it never was planned to be.

That that wasn't what it was built for.

Um and I'm not here tonight because like I said, I I'm still gathering information as well.

Um we've gotten certainly have gotten the impression from the city that there's not funds to support it in the in the way that it may need to be.

Um the projects out there are not small, as mentioned.

If there's a boiler that that goes out, um we had to get you know million and a half dollars to put in the new RV parking spaces, which that investment will pay for itself.

I mean, I think that ROI is gonna be in two years.

Um but there's not a lot of money.

They've got the five million dollars saved up.

Uh but my question would be what's that override gonna look like if you have to vote on the 18th.

I didn't realize that we had such a a time frame.

Um that's coming right up.

That's next week.

I'm hoping that we have longer to decide on this.

Um, because there's a lot of moving parts.

People don't want to sell it, you know, and some do.

You only get to sell it once if you do, and then it's gone.

But the economic impact is what's always been important.

And yeah, it's about 29.

Madame Mayor time.

Oh, million dollars of impact.

And so the sorry I ran out of time.

But go ahead and finish your thought.

But the point is, I really would like to have more time to just discuss this.

CWI in the last 15 years talk about impressive what they've done and their vision is growth.

And if I'm hearing from the city, we don't know if we can keep the doors open.

That's your option, or you know, you're gonna tax us more.

Well, that's you know, that's I am a taxpayer and have been you know here for all my life, and um I I guess there's there's no magic in that.

Well, we can raise your taxes to support what needs to be done, but maybe some of these other options at least ought to be considered, but I'd sure like to have some time to to digest it and understand what it means, because if we have to decide on the 18th about the override, man, it's like my skydiving instructor.

I said, What if my first parachute doesn't open?

How long do I have for it to open my second one?

He said, the rest of your life.

You know, it that date's coming up, and it just seems that we're we're getting pressed.

I've only known about this really since June, and here we are just the middle of August, and and it's a it's a big project.

We've got I think we've got very good players involved.

Uh CWI is is i impressive of what they've done, but we ought to look at all the options.

So thank you, Kenny.

Okay, hang on, Kenny.

Just to be clear, um, the levy override decision is next week, but you still have till November to decide how to vote for it.

If it goes on the ballot.

You do have time to think about it.

And there's been going to be more discussion between now and then.

That's just the only deadline that's in place.

Good.

Good.

Thank you for clarification.

Councilman Helpville.

Just a quick question.

Uh in your opinion, do you think the uh Idaho Center is underutilized?

Underutilized, no.

I know they're they're busy, and that horse park is busy, and and as was pointed out, they're busy a week at a time, you know, ten days at a time.

You know, the Ida Center is different.

I mean, it's sometimes you've got dark days, but there's other times where there might be three events going on on a weekend or a day.

You may have something in the amphitheater as well as in the this Ford Idol Center itself, as well as at the horse park.

And you know, these are some of the events that we are getting now.

I mean, that's part of the quality of life.

Some of these are you know many of the Ford Ido Center or national stars coming in that we get uh that we wouldn't Napa wouldn't get otherwise.

The horse park, national world uh events that we have to compete very hard to get.

That's why we had to invest in the RV spots.

Now, with the deed restrictions, I don't know that any other buyer would pay for that.

I don't know that they could operate it without you know making fifty million dollar investment for $400,000 return.

Whereas perhaps CWI that has other funding options and is promised would promise to maintain those advances.

We know, you know, that's I is something to consider.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Thanks, appreciate it.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Mark Mitchell, and on deck is Clint Child and Stuart Heideman.

I don't like this camera, it shows my bald spot.

Name is Mark Mitchell.

Up my name is Mark Mitchell.

I live at 12355 Landau Way, Napa, Idaho.

Um, I kind of want to address you people.

This is really full tonight.

You know, I know I've been coming here for two years consistently.

If you don't believe me, ask the council members.

I'm embarrassed that it's takes something like this for you guys to show up.

And I don't appreciate some of your mute remarks.

I really don't.

It's rude and it's inconsiderate.

Don't care.

Thank you.

All right.

Um property taxes.

The last three years we've seen a decrease in property taxes, um, which has been great.

I'm sure it's a lot because our prices in 2020 went up 35 percent.

In 2021, they went up 35 percent in Canyon County.

That's 65 percent over two years, six percent in 2022.

We lost a six percent in 2023, and we probably lost another six percent in 2024.

We're still well above 50 percent increase in values in the last two years.

Here's the relation that we've got to look at.

An existing home, and I'll take my home for example.

I live in Carriage Hill, 2400 square foot with a 1200 square foot shop on two-thirds of an acre.

That house in Lone Star states would be 1.4 to 1.5 to replace.

I ask a builder about that, so it cost my best offer would be 800,000.

The comparison here is this.

The Idaho Center is 25 years old.

I understand there's a new facility coming in in Caldwell that we are gonna directly compete against.

People like new, they like clean.

We can't really compete with Boise State.

Why?

Because it's a state-owned operation, and they can make a lot more money than the Idaho Center owned by the city.

So if we keep it, our taxes are gonna go up.

And I really don't want to hear people complain about that two or three years from now.

I really don't.

Randy or excuse me, Councilman Hablerfeld, great idea.

I've thought of that for years.

Why don't we build something out there with the parking?

That that makes to me it makes total sense.

Um councilman member Bills.

I totally agree with you on the tax structure and and and all of that you that you said.

It was very informative.

Um I think we really need to look about um the horse park, the 29 million dollars.

If we don't keep that up, we're gonna lose the 29 million dollars because that's not revenue to us.

That is community impact.

And if Caldwell builds a nice one, we could lose that to Caldwell or Boise or Mountain Home or Ontario, name it.

They see somebody doing good, they will duplicate it and people will come.

So we do have to maintain, we do have to keep that up, and as a community, we need to take that responsibility on.

If we're not willing to take on the responsibility as a community and the financial obligation that goes along with it, then we need to.

So go ahead and finish your thoughts.

Um, really, that's pretty much it.

I have a whole thing here of lists and um deferred maintenance is huge.

Additional.

Do we have an idea what the taxes would go up or how much they would go up?

Whether we keep it or get rid of it.

Um I'll answer that and say that I think next week we'll have a good idea of what that might be.

Okay.

Yes.

Because I do remember when our finance advisor did set up here in Bronze and said, guys, we're going backwards.

We lowered the taxes too much.

We're gonna have to raise taxes.

I do remember that.

So anyway, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Clint Child, and on Dak is Stuart Heideman and Chris Choxel.

Thank you.

My name is Clint Child, addresses 109 Crestview Drive in Nampa.

I'm here tonight in my capacity as the current president of the Snake River Stampede Rodeo.

And I'd like to start with a little history and then read a statement from our board of directors.

The Snake River Stampede is proud to have called the Fort Idaho Center home for nearly three decades.

The city of Nampa has been a great partner, helping deliver a world class rodeo experience every year.

And this partnership has a long history.

In the late 80s and early 90s, the Snake River Stampede was considering options to replace a nearly 50-year-old wooden stadium that was used only two weeks out of the year.

At that same time, the city of NAMPA was considering developing property in North Napa for an entertainment venue that would enhance the community and drive economic growth.

The Snake River Stampede and the city decided to collaborate those efforts.

In June of 1992, the Stampede entered into an agreement with the city to transfer ownership of the Stampede property located at Garrity Boulevard, along with $200,000 in stampede savings.

In return, the city agreed to construct a stadium that would be used for two weeks out of the year to host the Stamped River Stampede as long as the rodeo continued to exist.

And in 1998, a more formal agreement was implemented for the use of the facility where the Snake River Stampede took on the operating expenses for those two weeks of the rodeo.

And since 1992, the Snake River Stampede has invested nearly $8 million into the Fort Idaho Center, and we plan to continue investing in that facility.

When the City of Napa announced its plans to consider transferring the ownership of the Ford Idaho Center to the College of Western Idaho, pending the required votes and approval, the Snake River Stampede Board of Directors met and we discussed our thoughts on this topic.

And we have the following statement that we have already issued.

Our Road Rodeo greatly appreciates the strong working relationship we have we've enjoyed with the City of Nampa since 1915 and throughout our tenure as the Ford Idaho Center.

And this relationship will continue forward in a different capacity.

Now as the city completes passing ownership of this treasured event space to the College of Western Idaho, our board is looking forward to embarking on a new era for the facility.

The Ford Idaho is the official and forever home of the Snake River Stampede, and while change is inevitable, our fans can rest assured that we will not anticipate any changes being made to our rodeo traditions as NAMPA Premier at NAMPA's premier community event.

And based on CWI's proven track record as a community partner, we trust that their potential ownership of this facility will only bring new and exciting opportunities for NAMPA.

So I want to thank you, Council and Mayor, for your service and for grappling with issues like this.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Stay put for council.

Do you have any questions?

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Stuart Heidman, and on deck is Chris Stroxel and Patty Evans.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council Member members.

My name is Stuart Heinmann, 621 North Midland, in Napa, Idaho.

I've lived in Nampa since 1981 and have owned several businesses here in town.

And I've been part of the local business community for more than 30 years.

I'm speaking in opposition of transferring the Idaho Center to College of Western Idaho.

First, our community clearly expressed its position on CWI when it was established and created.

Both NAMPA and Canyon County voted no, except for Ada County, we wouldn't have had CWI in the first place.

And then in 2016, when they asked for a quarter of a billion dollars in a bond, we voted no and told CWI we don't need to be funding you.

That continues to this day.

I believe that this community, if given the opportunity, would vote no again about transferring any assets to CWI.

This history shows a clear pattern of disagreement with CWI's expansion and funding efforts.

That's the way we've voted in the past.

Second, the citizens of NAPA received nothing in return for this transfer.

The Idaho Center was built and maintained with taxpayer dollars, our dollars giving away without compensation is poor fiscal stewardship and ignores the investment our fact our communities have made for years.

NAPA will still pay for the police and fire protection out there.

We don't get away from paying money out to manage that piece of facility.

Third, once the Idaho Center is governed by the CWI board, our citizens will lose their voice in how the facility is operated, maintained, and used.

The lack of direct oversight puts a vital community asset at risk of being managed without regard to local priorities.

The Idaho Center is more than a building.

It's a public investment, an economic driver and a cultural hub.

Decisions about its future must be made with the people of Napa and not behind closed doors.

I urge the council to stop this transfer, open the process to full public participation and protect the interests of NAMPA residents.

We owe it to our community to ensure transparency, accountability, and respect for the will of the people.

Thank you very much.

So I just want to say something.

When you say you urge to stop, so nothing's this is a consideration.

So it's a consideration, it is transparent, it's with the public input.

That's what we're doing tonight.

So you vote your recommendation is to vote no.

Yes.

And so that's what I would say.

Um it's not like you're stopping something that's happening.

It's this is the consideration phase.

So I just want to say, be clear on that.

That this is a consideration phase.

It isn't something that a decision hasn't been made.

So uh thank you.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Chris Troxel, and on deck is Patty Evans and Glenn Morgan.

Uh thank you, uh NAMPA City Council.

Um, my name is Chris Troxel.

My address is 6101 Airport Road.

I am a third generation NAMPIN.

My grandmother was a second grade teacher here in Nampa.

My mother was born and raised here, and she was a lifeguard at the Lakeview.

Um I'm sorry.

Oh, my apologies.

Okay.

I'm sorry, I just realized Councilman of Ruffin.

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead and continue.

No, no, no, no problem.

I'm just saying uh indicating that I'm a third generation NAMPAN and that I come from a long line of NAMPA's.

Um I'm also a very longtime participant in the horse community here in the state of Idaho.

I have been a member of a number of boards, including the Idaho Rain Cowhorse, Gem State Stockhorse, Snake River Raining Alliance, along with committee member of the National Rain Cowhorse.

And I have been a national level competitor in a number of our horse communities.

It is actually the center of a multi-million dollar horse industry that includes trainers, all of their employees.

It includes veterinarians, it includes farmers, feed suppliers, ranchers, it includes trainers, it includes auto auto dealers, tire shops, retailers, and a number of uh horse owners that are from all over the United States and Canada that bring in again multi-millions of dollars.

Um I have attended all of the meetings and all of the uh community events since the announcement of the potential uh transfer of the Fort Idaho Center to CWI.

And by the way, I'm a supporter of CWI and I voted for CWI.

So not everybody in Kenyan County voted no.

Um I have attended all of these meetings.

I've read through every one of the documents that has been provided, and I'd like to thank the city for providing all of those documents on the website because I found them quite illuminating.

I've looked at statutes, I've discussed this with people across the country that I deal with who are involved in similar kinds of facilities, you know, in Oklahoma and Texas.

I've dealt with people in Fort Worth and so forth.

And we all find similar issues with respect to taxing and so forth.

And I am one of these people that sees the Idaho Center as a public good and not just a property tax generator.

Um of the things that I've been impressed with is through the work of both the Horse Park Board and the Stampede Board and others and the negotiations.

It appears that there are now some guarantees for the use long-term use of the property, and I'd like to thank CWI for that.

And that it appears that the existing uses of the property will be able to continue.

And as such, I would like to support the process that is going on.

I am not yet ready to say I absolutely support the conveyance, but I support the process that is existing.

Thank you very much.

Does anybody have any questions?

Thank you.

Council, do you have any questions?

Mayor, I just wanted to say I spoke with Chris on Thursday, and she brought to my attention and I told her that I would bring it forward just to this is the form that the city put out with.

It's on the website.

On the back side, she was mentioning, and you can correct me if I'm wrong at any point, but that the horse park had concerns because it looks as though on the back where it says conveyance considerations that the recreation facilities, the public safety training facility, and the CWI soccer fields would take place on the Idaho Center property.

Therefore, they were concerned that it was going to take up their space.

Right.

Um we did clarify that it was that that's encompassing the CWI property as well, and that the horse park landscape.

Yes, we had a very good discussion about that.

That those properties or those activities or potential developments would not, and once we understood that, it it tended to relay a lot of the concerns much of the horse community has because obviously, if you were going to try to put in a recreation center or a said, the post facility or additional um soccer fields, the only place on the Idaho Center that that could happen would be what would be basically called the Esterson plot.

Well, if those three items have absolutely nothing to do with the existing footprint of the Idaho Center, then I think that does help to answer some of our concerns.

Thank you for the homework.

Thank you for reading.

Thank you for being engaged and making a difference out there.

The horse events are amazing.

Oh, yeah.

And I appreciate the fact that you recognize the process that we're in.

Yeah, it's a process.

Thank you.

And so keep going on the process, and all of us as citizens should then be able to make an informed decision.

Thank you.

Thank you.

For the basis of transparency, Mayor, though, it needs to be stated that there is no immediate intention for CWI to build a rec center or a police station on that property.

So it's in the event that they do, but that's when it might be, but there's no promises made that they are.

All that to say.

That's on that flyer as well.

Thank you.

I would like to ask a question.

Uh President Jones, do you have any any do you want to make any comments at this point?

You can wait till the very end, or if you want to respond to that comment, you're welcome to thank you.

I I think I'm going to continue to listen.

Um this is obviously a lot of feedback.

Um I think it was accurately characterized that our desire to preserve the existing cherished activities that occur there.

It's something that's been publicly discussed.

So I would just at this point just maybe limit my comments to whether it be the Stampede Rodeo, the horse park activities, the high school basketball or graduations, etc.

Those are activities, whether they're stimulating economic activity or not.

I I would argue that those would be in place regardless of who were to own the property because our intent would be to start from the standpoint of what exists there is gonna be continuing.

So I'll just leave it at that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madame May, our next speaker is Patty Evans, and on Deca's Glenn Morgan and Lamon Fostrum.

Hi, my name is Patty Evans.

I live at 3616 East Rolling Green Place in Nampa.

I have a degree in recreation park and tourism sciences from Texas AM University, and I was a park ranger for 15 years.

During that time, I always operated my parks and my programs in the black.

I was taught at AM that public recreation facilities should be in the black.

That whole thing about operating in the red is bogus.

It's it you should never operate in the red.

And so I was able to do that.

It's very doable.

You cut back, you make concessions, and you work with your contractors to figure out a way to fix the things that need to be fixed.

You address the things that are top priority and you piecemeal it together until you get it done.

And I've also done this in other facilities, a synagogue in San Antonio that was in severe disrepair, a chiller system that would go down every day and break.

And I operated that from my desk.

I worked with the contractors, and we even had somebody to come and try to take it, and they got burned real bad trying to break into it.

But uh we were able to work with all of our contractors and take care of the maintenance that needed to be done on those facilities.

Um but I'm a bit I'm a bit concerned about this because this is all new, and I just started hearing about it, and um it kind of bothered me, and I and I have some things that I need to get off my chest, because last year, about this time we were talking about a um a um auditorium district that we just had to pass.

We had to pass it, and it got passed.

And those funds were to support the Idaho Center.

Well, now here we are.

We're um we haven't even collected the first dollar of the uh auditorium district things because you know that's a and you're always talking about that you started talking about this last fall, about a year ago.

So um these have been conversations in back rooms and executive sessions, secret conversations that we as the general public haven't been privileged to.

This is all new and quite a shock.

Um we um are looking at this and um thinking, wow, what the heck?

We're gonna give away something that is this significant to a 13-year-old community vocational school, but you know what?

They just got accredited to offer their first four-year course.

That's the first step into becoming a four-year college, and every college wants to grow up and become a university.

Well, that's I've been also a real estate appraiser, and for the past four years, I've been asking myself apartments, apartments, development, apartments.

Why all these apartments?

Are we not supposed to own our property?

Are we not supposed to take pride in ownership?

What are these apartments for?

And then I went to this meeting Thursday.

Madam.

May I continue?

Thank you.

And I and I come up with it.

Duh, we are going to convey, give away property to a vocational school that wants to become a college that wants to become a university eventually.

I'm like, this is crazy because I don't want Nampa to become a college town.

I lived in a college town.

I went to college.

I don't want my 20-year-old self living next door to me now that I'm 58.

Trust me.

Texas AM, we studied hard and we partied harder.

So that's what that's what bothers me.

I had to come out and say that.

Then I'm like going, well, we got a lot of people on city council who aren't running again.

Maybe they're going for jobs at this soon-to-be college university.

Maybe we're going to be able to do that.

Just real quickly, do you have any solutions?

Do you have any solutions?

Because I think I do.

I do.

I think we're over.

And I am over time.

I would like to say that you know there's some there's a reason for all of this secrecy, and it's not appreciated.

And one thing that you said in the meeting in at the horse park, mayor, is that it cost too much to educate the public.

And that's why we couldn't hold it over and vote on it.

And I took offense to that.

That it costs too much to educate.

It's difficult to educate the public.

It's difficult to educate the public.

Well, I am a thinking human being, and I can look at facts and I can make decisions.

I was offended by that comment.

And I think a lot of people in this room were also offended.

And likewise, I will say there were no secret conversations.

There are no backroom deals.

That is not how we operate.

We are a city that operates with transparency and integrity, and you have speculated a world that is not the world we are in.

I will say when this Facebook ad is up, and it doesn't say what it's about.

I'm gonna quit now because I have said some things, I've said a lot of things.

I think you get my message.

How long have you lived here?

I've lived here for eight years.

Okay, and so you brought some real ideas with you from someplace else, but it's not necessarily NAMPA.

And one of the things I hear some people saying yes and some people saying no.

So with that experience.

So NAPA, the one thing about our city is we're a city, and this is how we have operated here.

That is with integrity, that is with transparency.

I have all the time.

I'm not saying you don't.

I'm saying that what you had shared here is that there were secret backdoor meetings going on, and that we were looking to get jobs and that CWI is looking to become a university, and that we're going to be.

No, no, no.

But we're not speculating sitting here.

You can speculate, we are not speculating with that.

President Jones, would you like to speak to the plans?

And you can have a seat.

But President Jones, would you like to speak to the plans for the College of Western Iowa?

Sure.

I um I would just say that uh CWI has absolutely no intention to become a four-year university, a college.

Uh there's 900 community colleges roughly in the United States, 160 of them have been turned to because we've been recognized for our affordability and our ability to put people debt-free out into the workplace, making good livings.

And in this state alone, I had made an appeal to our State Board that statistically it's now a six-figure endeavor for some of our four-year institutions for an individual to earn a bachelor's.

So, like the 160 other community colleges in states like Florida and Texas, we petitioned and received approval to offer one applied bachelor degree for $22,000 total.

And that is a game changer.

I stand by that, and that is a tool used by community colleges around this country, again, led by states like Texas and Florida as solutions, recognizing that community colleges are focused on affordable employable education for all.

So I would just factually, as the leader of CWI lets you know that there are zero intentions for this school to be anything other than a place where we do affordable employable education for all, and that is a community college hallmark, which includes that technical or as you say, vocational education.

Thank you.

Okay.

I think Glenn Morgan, go ahead.

Yes.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Glenn Morgan, and on deck is Lamont Bostrom and Beth Ernest.

Excuse me.

Hello, and my name is Glenn Morgan, and my address is 3616 East Rolling Green Place.

Uh thank you for allowing me to speak.

Most of the talking points that I had have been covered already, so I'll kind of narrow it down to a few.

And I have heard 150 million dollars, I've heard 250 million dollars, and I threw out a number at the at the uh town hall meeting of 100,000, and Mayor you had corrected me and said no, it's more like 25,000.

Do you remember that?

I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

I'm sorry, not totally, but please keep going.

Yes.

Um but I will say that uh typically um our assessed prices in the area are a little bit low.

What the assessor says the value of the property is as opposed to what it really is.

And our assessor, Brian, uh has indicated that that property, the two actually two parcels next to each other, including the horse park and the um and the uh Idaho Center combined are around 44 million, not including any improvements to the Idaho Center, which would be the buildings, uh the stadium, the outside um park, and so my assumption is it's probably close to 100 million or more if you add it all up.

So I I wanted that to be clear because I have heard in meetings that it was around 25, but I feel it's more like a hundred thousand.

I wanted to make that clarification.

Um there's uh been a study by College of Western Idaho, and I don't know if it was commissioned by the city, but to determine what the deferred maintenance of this property is.

And uh and uh I've heard I've heard conversations that the deferred maintenance over the next five years would be 25 million dollars.

Have any of you heard that number?

Okay.

Um where did that number come from?

It came from that feasibility study.

So College of Western Idaho indicated that it was 25 million dollars.

Well, and that is not our we did not commission that study.

Right.

So but go ahead, tell me where you're going with that.

Okay.

Uh so I believe the study is incorrect.

Uh one of the items in the study that I was made aware of is that the parking lot has cracks in it.

So their solution to fixing the cracks is to dig at six and a half feet deep, haul that away, put in new fill, and put in a new parking lot over the top of it, which is a large part of that 25 million dollars.

And I don't understand why we would have to do that when our streets, which are the same age as that property, are getting a chip seal for really inexpensive.

So why is that $25 million not $5 million or $6 million?

So that's a question I have for anybody on council.

Thank you.

So yes, David.

So experience has been and and so just background is the section of that parking lot.

Don't know what that section is.

But uh for years in the 90s and the early aughts, the city of Napa had a particular standard on how much uh base gravel and then what was the asphalt.

And what was determined uh was to go back and enlist the help of the uh soil engineering community and develop a new standard.

And so that standard went from 18 to 21 inches of uh section on the roads.

And so you'll find that uh from about 07 to further on, closer to probably to uh 2010 and thereafter, the road sections changed in Napa, and you'll see less wear and tear and less cracking, etc.

But the road sections prior have taken a great deal of maintenance hits.

And uh so from the standpoint of why dig out and why change is because an overlay uh is a band-aid.

An overlay doesn't uh solve the issue if your base underneath is deteriorated or oversaturated, uh so it'll just continue to crack up.

So uh chip seal is to extend the life, but chip steel in it in and of itself isn't a solving issue if you have a dilapidated road base.

Okay, I understand that.

But with Victory Road, for example, by where the cement plant was turned down.

Uh Victory Road is a roller coaster.

Why was Victory Road not repaired as opposed to a parking lot, which gets uh uh one hundredth of the use of Victory Road?

So Victory Road uh originally called East Power Line and then changed to Victory to map match with Ada County, was a highway district maintained road.

And it uh highway district for years has always done overlays and more gravels over the other road section.

And so they had their style of uh how the roads would get maintained and rebuilt.

Most of you, if you've been out in the county, you've watched a county highway district overlay.

They'll go in and sometimes they'll strip the asphalt, sometimes they leave the asphalt, and they'll lay a new pit run section and they'll raise the road.

You wonder why the borrowed ditch is now deeper than what it was before they did the work.

That's one style of how they handle that base.

So Victory Road was maintained by the county highway district.

Nampa inherited the and took over the maintenance of that strip of uh road with the annexation of other properties that then got developed.

So does that help?

It I understand it's a walk around, but I don't understand why it's more important to dig six and a half feet deep on a parking lot that gets one one hundredth or one-tenth of the use of a of a road.

I don't understand why NAMPA would make the decision to spend so much money to repair a parking lot.

So if I could answer that question, so first of all, they're totally different budget streams, and NAMPA isn't making a decision to do that.

So but that was Mary Kling, you're basing your decisions or your choices on the study done by Jensen Corporation that basically picked the highest number they could pick to make the NAPA citizens think that they were going to have to pay a huge amount of money in taxes to fix it when the actual cost is going to be much lower if you do it the right way, like a chip seal.

So actually, okay, so Jacobs, who did the study, they're a professional firm, and we deal with this a lot in our depending on it.

They're a professional firm that was hired to do a very objective study.

They weren't trying to go a different direction.

We deal with this a lot when it comes to uh public hearings and transportation issues where you hire someone to come in and give you an estimate.

Sure, let's understand.

Let's hire an independent source to do that.

Well, that was an independent source.

And that's why they're not commissioned the study.

Let me finish up with this, okay?

Let me just say that I think that we haven't had enough uh transparency at all.

I think that uh we need more involvement from the cities before you make your final decision.

I think there's been uh a lot of process in the in we talked about this already that we're not aware of.

All my neighbors, only three of them knew that this was going on with the transfer of the CWI or conveyance of the CWI to CWI.

Only three of them out of all my neighbors that I talked to, the rest of them had no clue.

We need more time for the public to be aware of what's happening.

So please take more time and inform the public and do a correct setting.

Mayor Kling.

Thank you.

I'd like to speak to Mr.

Morgan's uh question in response to Councilman Bill's um uh information as well.

In the report for Jacobs, um, and again, I've said this before, what we put our confidence confidence in matters.

If we're gonna be putting our confidence in the Jacobs report, we better understand what it says and be uh happy with it.

Uh it states that 34 acres of uh pavement is going to be removed along with the sub-base material and replaced.

That would set the facility off target as far as being able to perform any anything out there for a period of a month or more.

Uh so that's that's an impact.

But the cost associated with chip ceilings, about 50 cents a square foot.

That's what you see on the roadways, and and it is uh band-aid, it's not meant to be a long-term fix.

What I proposed and what I stated before, instead of paying 11 to 12 million dollars for a total uh payment uh removal and replacement, going in and putting a filter fabric on, and I've got three different studies that I've I've pulled up that they use a Miraffe paper.

Um it's a product that is put down over the surface of the existing asphalt, it bridges all the gaps, all the cracks, whatever.

If there is an area that's uh that needs to be removed and replaced, you can do that area.

But this instead of taking 34 acres away, you add 34 acres of two and a half inch asphalt on top of the existing surface over the filter fabric, and it's like a brand new asphalt surface that's on an already existing um consolidated material, which is the asphalt over the base that's there.

Uh so you have now four to eight uh inches of asphalt, depending on uh where it's being placed, and the only thing that might need to be corrected is maybe some sidewalks that need to match in with that asphalt.

So instead of paying uh what they were anticipating six plus dollars a square foot, you're paying two to two and a half dollars a square foot.

Eleven million goes down to about two and a half to three.

So it's a major shift in paradigm as far as approaching how you uh fix that asphalt, and then you just re resurface or uh repaint it as far as parking stalls, looking at those compact spaces as you're looking at three acres for an enterprise area for a land lease.

So I that's what the thought was that was conveyed the other evening at the uh Hispanic Cultural Center.

Thank you.

Okay, I think we're ready for our next speaker.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Lamont Bostrom, and on deck is Beth Ernest and Jill Hallows.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

Uh I've already given you each a copy of what I was gonna say.

I know that there's like 30 more people after me.

Uh but I want to go on record.

I'm sorry, could you state your name and address?

Lamont Bostrom, 3601 South Green Basin White, Napa.

Uh I first moved to Napa 48 years ago, so I'm kind of I grew up in Boise.

Um I own several businesses here in town, and I manage quite a bit of commercial property.

Thing that I'm concerned with, number one, is I've tried to rent the Idol Center a couple of times.

Okay.

One time was to bring the president here.

Six days of calling the management company and never could get a response.

Three weeks ago, I got an email from the management company wanting me to advertise in the arena.

I have emailed back five different times, and I've called every extension and never once got an answer at the IDO Center Management Office.

Who in the heck is running it?

If I want to hold an event there, I have to pay a fee, or they're going to charge for parking five dollars a car.

That went on for several years.

Can anyone tell me how much money was brought in for parking fees?

Is that a question you're looking for an answer right now?

I would turn to the management company to tell us what the revenue is from parking.

Which one?

How many?

There's been what four?

What are you saying?

Four many four different management companies.

We've had the same management company.

I'm trying to think how many years we're in.

Are we eight, ten?

And they are the best, and they're doing a phenomenal job.

They've turned us around close to three million dollars a year, which is incredible.

They're doing a good job.

So if you have a complaint, we can visit with them about that specific complaint, but we have got an excellent management company that we don't want to lose.

Because if we do, we're going to go back to a huge financial loss.

And so tell me what your I know these are somewhat disparaging remarks against the company.

What does this have to do solution wise for the future?

Well, first of all, the money that's been collected to maintain the parking lot for the last 20 years.

Where is it?

And what has it?

Where is it gone?

Well, that's gone to the bottom line.

It was not intended that the revenue was to go to the parking lot.

The model was the city did the capital expenditures, and we were trying to do it year by year, different sections, but it wasn't a designated fund in that regard.

In the very beginning, it was okay.

And I can tell you as someone who's tried to lease the facility that I have to pay an additional fee in order to do that, or they will charge for parking.

So there's been a lot of revenue raised.

Has any of it gone into repairing the parking lot, maintaining the parking lot, striping the parking lot?

It's a simple question.

The second thing is I guess I'm concerned that until a little over a month ago, that very few people in NAPA knew of anything about this conversation about CWI wanting to do this.

Okay.

And I think the best.

Pardon me?

I would like to answer to the okay.

But let me finish first.

The second thing, I just never been run as a business.

As a business owner, I have expenses, I have payroll, I have all this, and I've got a if I buy a property and I run it as a business.

Guess what?

I want to make money.

One year out of twenty, it's been in the black.

Okay.

I agree with the lady that spoke earlier that was from Texas AM.

These things are built to make money.

They're not built to be an asset.

Um it is an asset of the community.

But over 50 million has been dumped into this thing from the beginning.

And it just I am absolutely opposed to the way it's been handled since it's become public.

I think it needs to be, if anything, go on the ballot next year.

There is no rush to do this.

If the management company is so great that's in place, they can manage it for another six or seventeen months until it gets on the ballot.

Thank you.

Anyone have any questions?

No questions.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Beth Ernest, and on deck is Jill Hallows and Arlen Hacker.

My name is Beth Ernest, and I live at 702 Visa Terrace, Nampa.

Umor and Council, I have a possible solution.

I would like to make some positive suggestions for the future of the Idaho Center.

We need fresh ideas and a new vision for the Idaho Center.

I would like to suggest forming a NAMPA Citizens Board made up of two city councilmen, qualified and non-qualified, visionary citizens to brainstorm ideas for the direction of utilizing the center and coming up with creative ideas to generate funding for maintenance and profitability and ways to utilize the property to benefit the city of NAMPA and the Treasure Valley.

The board can also, this formed a board, can also come up with creative ideas for the citizens of NAMPA to participate or volunteer in the upkeep of the property as well.

This property belongs to the citizens of NAPA, and we the citizens should have a long-term opportunity and a voice to find viable solutions for its prosperous future.

Just because something appears to not be prosperous doesn't mean we just give it away.

Why I am asking the council, why is the council presenting only one solution, which is giving it away.

Can we slow this runaway train down?

Please help us understand why is there a rush and can we form a board?

So my solution is since the citizens do own the Idaho Center and the land, then I suggest a citizen board to be formed to oversee its function and contribution to our city working with the management company.

Thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you, Bill.

Mayor, our next speaker is Joe Hallows on Dak is Arlen Hacker and Sherry Boardman.

Thank you.

I do want to say so, Beth, thank you so much for speaking.

I appreciate it.

I do want to comment though, we keep saying slow down the runaway train, the rush, and I don't know if I maybe didn't make it clear, and if I didn't, I'll make it clear again.

We do not have a deadline.

This is a process.

So this is not a runaway train.

This is not, we're not coming to a decision.

This is a process that we're that we've entered into.

And in the process, we're going through these steps in the process to identify what the right outcome is.

So this is we've had a number of meetings.

If we need more meetings, we'll have more meetings.

But it's a process.

So the only deadline that we have is the levy.

If we were going to do a levy override, that's the only process that we have.

So that's the only deadline, and we'll have information out before next Monday, but that there we're not going to be this is not a rush on the decision.

So just to make that clear.

Good evening, Jill.

Go ahead and share your name and address.

My name is Jill Hallows, 603 West Crimson Loop, NAMPA.

Ditto what our last speaker said.

In fact, she took the two-thirds of my what I was going to say.

Thank you.

You said it way better than I could.

So let me just kind of rethink here.

When I did Citizens Academy in January, I kind of came into it as a real novice in government and how it works, and that was one of the great things that I did that helped me understand what you all do.

Our city is an amazing place, and I love it here.

And I respect all of you for what you do.

And uh Mayor, I have respected and admired you from day one.

But I want to tell you something.

I'm concerned.

The transparency that you have stated hasn't come across to me the way that I would have transparency.

So let me do a little analogy.

So my husband and I have a deal.

When he's going to make a big decision or spend money that we haven't talked about, we have a conversation first.

And then we brainstorm and study it all out and put it out on the table, invite the family's input, and then together we make a decision that's best for the whole family.

That kind of hasn't happened because if my husband came to me and said, hey, I've developed this contract I want you to look at, I would be furious that he hadn't consulted me from the very beginning at the at the concept level.

So when you say transparency, I appreciate what you're trying to do with with these meetings.

The first meeting to me, in all due respect, that felt like a joke to me because it was just you telling us what you'd already pretty much figured out.

The second meeting, we had certain questions we had to answer.

And it generated some good conversation.

Now we're here with three minutes to talk.

And I sort of feel, and forgive me, because I mean no disrespect.

I sort of feel, especially after what you said about how much power you all have, that I'm coming before the Queen and it and her court.

That just doesn't feel right.

As a tax-paying citizen who literally owns the Ford Idaho Center.

We give you a lot of trust that you will do the right thing for our citizen family.

And I don't feel like we've been included in that.

So I have a question.

What are we doing here?

What are we doing here?

Because we've spent countless hours answering questions, scheduling meetings.

We've gone through three different phases of meetings.

The first phase was just trying to be available and answer questions.

Get the find out what the questions are, which is what we did, answer the questions.

That's the and then of the process.

The beginning of the process is to introduce the idea that you had.

But we had to consider the idea before in a public process, to put something out that we don't even want to do would be a waste of time.

So we had to at least consider to say, is there an interest?

And we've been trying to figure out how do we fund.

So how do we do that?

So what we've tried to do, and it's it's amazing to me because I feel like we've had nothing but insults when actually we're trying to be transparent.

We're trying to say, okay, guys, here's a process.

You may not like our process, but trying to get out there and say, okay, we're doing the research, we're we're putting it out before the public, we're gonna answer the questions, we're gonna try to have an independent facilitator because I heard you say, well, it was like the uh president mayor show, and that wasn't the intent at all.

It was just to answer questions.

So we've met with a whole lot of different groups, we answered questions, then we did an independent facilitator to get input, and then we're doing a town hall to listen and get input and to have a dialogue, and then at the end of this meeting, we're gonna figure out now what is missing.

So no decisions have been made.

We're trying to go make sure we meet all the legal stuff, whatever.

I haven't heard a lot of good solutions.

I hear a whole lot of complaints, but I we're not hearing a lot of good solutions, and we have given a lot of consideration to how we can fund this.

Again, it goes back to the fact that we have a great asset in our community.

Great asset.

The Ford Idaho Center, the horse park, all of that is a phenomenal asset that we value and treasure.

My concern is is that's gonna be become like the Houston Astrodome that's been sitting in mothballs empty because the new brighter thing got built, they couldn't figure out what to do with it.

If you don't maintain a facility, a new facility is gonna come online, and this is going to become the has been.

We have to invest, especially if we want the top management companies in the nation to bring the best shows and the best events here.

So the only way we can do that is if we have capital investment, and it's not a little capital, it's a lot of capital.

Because we haven't, and this is the downside, when it comes to discretionary revenue and capital investment in the in this venue, every year it's like okay, we need a boiler.

Well, are we gonna put a boiler in?

Are we not?

What can we do?

We need this done, we need that done, but we don't have the money, we're trying to figure it out.

How do we fund it?

At some point, you have a decaying venue, and we want to have a wonderful venue that you have to fund it somehow.

The impetus to this was when our state legislature passed House Bill 389 and the next year 673, and we have 5.8 million that is new construction, new growth, funding growth is not funding growth, and that's where our bottom line is getting really tight.

So we're trying to figure out how do we have an asset, and right now, tonight, all we're talking about is the financial bottom line, but we're not even talking about the vision of our young people.

Our young people are the greatest asset that we have in this community.

Our go-on rate is not what it should be in the city of Nampa.

My thought is how about if we inspire our young people to want to go to the College of Western Idaho, which is an affordable education that has a campus that they can enjoy, and that we maximize the benefit of that, and it becomes a campus environment instead of just a venue.

There is such opportunity before us instead of just looking at the bottom line.

And we get to keep the stampede, we get to keep the horse park, we get to keep all the events, we keep everything we have, but we increase the utilization.

So I know that you don't like the process that we went through or don't feel like it was adequate, but we are attempting to be transparent in everything with all of the financial with whatever.

And people are shaking their heads no.

Okay, but do you live here in the city?

Do you pay city taxes?

Let me just summarize.

This meeting should have happened many months ago.

Okay.

Where the city councilmen were not restricted to tell us what their thoughts are.

Where did you get them?

And where we could where we could speak freely without having a time limit.

An open forum.

So we need we need an open forum to exchange ideas because that's where you're gonna get your solutions.

So what are we doing tonight?

The speaker before me stated.

What are we doing tonight?

No, we're not in three minutes, though.

We're way past three minutes.

This is an open forum.

The other thing is we we need more time so that we can generate helpful ideas as a family to bring solutions that we can all be satisfied with.

Thank you.

Mayor.

Jill?

Jill, question?

So so we are sitting in that family setting right now, so what solutions do you have to bring forward?

I don't have them yet because I've only known about this for a little bit.

I've heard a lot of one side, and I haven't had a chance to visit with other people to generate ideas.

The first opportunity I had for that was Thursday night, and I did like 17 sticky notes of ideas.

So I'm trying.

And I know all of us will try, because we all want the same thing.

We all want this to be an ongoing successful thing that we can all enjoy for years to come.

Yes.

Jill.

Sorry, I'm just giving you some exercise.

First of all, I've always appreciated your attitude, so thank you for that.

And uh we do appreciate your ideas.

The uh the comment you made about the first event.

You thought it was a joke, and um, those questions were submitted by you guys.

They were not submitted by city council or anybody else, they were submitted by the audience and answered by the president of CWI and the mayor.

So that to me was an informative thing.

I've I learned things there by listening as well.

Um, and this is the start of our process that we are listening and trying to generate ideas and feedback, and so we're we're a ways down the road on this, and and we have a ways to go.

But uh those ideas would be appreciated if you could present those to us.

I will try to do that.

Uh the the meeting that we're talking about, uh, those were questions related to what we were being told was already planned.

It they weren't open questions for brainstorming, they were and not all questions were answered because those pages that we you know forwarded up to Mayor Kling and President Jones, not all of them got read because there were so many that well, this is redundant, so we'll set this one aside.

I had one red and two not red.

Jill, what are the questions you had that weren't read so we can answer them for you?

Oh gosh, that goes back too far.

I can't remember.

Can you get those to us?

No.

Because I gave the papers to you.

Okay.

It was related to what was being told to us in that meeting.

It wasn't an exchange of an idea of ideas, it was you telling us what you had thought of and planned and us responding with questions.

You would only take questions, you wouldn't take feedback.

People wanted to raise their hands and speak, and they couldn't speak.

And the mayor of the we had a little talk about that.

Right, and so that's why we're doing this.

Let's do another one where we don't have time constraints and where everybody can speak their mind and we can have a tabletop conversation like we do in our family.

Well, we did one Thursday evening.

No, it wasn't the same because we had to answer certain questions.

Well, we could do it again, but we only had 23 people show up.

So we we spent an evening and we pushed with pushed the word out.

We only had 23 people show up.

So we had a room for 200.

Would all of you come to uh the open discussion?

I wish they would have come to the last time.

I don't want to be disrespectful in any way, but this just never did feel right to me.

Thank you.

Mary Kling.

Not yet, Jill.

Jill.

Not yet.

Jill, thank you for what you're saying.

It's unfortunate that you're you're getting some bad attitude here, and I don't appreciate that.

And I want you to know that I appreciate what you just said.

I hear your solutions.

I hear everybody's solutions.

And the solutions have been engaged the community at the very first.

Let them determine direction.

Let them decide because they're the ones that pays the taxes.

They're the ones that's going to be affected.

And don't convey it.

Am I right, Joe?

Exactly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So we've we're about halfway through our list.

We are two hours in.

So we are going to end at 10.

So we may or may not get done tonight.

We are going to take a break as soon as and I'm sorry, I forgot your name.

Carlene.

Okay, as soon as you're done, we are going to take a break.

We'll take about a 10 minute break and then come back, and then we'll see what we can get through.

So go ahead and share your name and address.

Thank you.

My name is Arelyn Hanker.

I live at 43 South Pitt Lane in Napa.

I wish I had better solutions.

I do have some concerns.

One of the concerns I have is with Mr.

Haverland's suggestion about making that commercial property of the three acres that he wants to do that.

Directly he wants to put in a strip mall, basically there.

Across the street, there's a strip mall that isn't filled.

And constantly is rotating businesses in.

The same thing adjacent to the horse park on Franklin.

We also have Westgate, which is a basically a huge shopping area, which is has only a handful of businesses in it.

We also have a Dutch brothers right on the corner.

So Starbucks coming in doesn't seem to be like a good solution.

We need something better and more substantive than another strip mall, because there's enough of them.

We don't need another one of them.

Now the management company has been doing some very positive things, and we're very pleased with that.

However, they have grossly neglect neglected the horse park itself.

What we've been talking about is 25 million dollars basically that's gone to the Stampede Arena.

We're not talking about the deferred maintenance that is required at the horse park as uh somebody who's on the expo committee.

I can tell you that those outdoor arenas are in desperate need of work.

And if we're going to take and be attracting high-level national level uh horse events, we need to have something that is like you said, shiny and glitzy and up to standard.

It is not at this point.

I mean, they've done what they can, but that deferred maintenance, they don't have been put into the stampede, and the horse park itself has been neglected.

The other thing that I'm concerned about, as somebody who, as you probably know, I go to a lot of zoning and planning commissions, not just here, but throughout the Treasure Valley as somebody who is an advocate for tra uh equine trails.

Unless you have things written into that contract, concrete dates.

Written into it that these horse events, especially not only our national ones, but our local ones, our local one community clubs, they don't have large visit um large budgets.

You know, they might have a two or three thousand dollar budget.

And they're having to pay a thousand dollars for an outdoor arena that is in disrepair.

So we need to have them take and it written into the contract that they will not be neglected, that we they will still have the opportunity to participate, perhaps at us a sliding scale, so that they can take and pay what they can.

But bring in, and I don't feel I know that um that Chris Troxel and the Rayners have worked really hard about getting some national events in here.

But they we came in second.

We need to be coming in first for these national events.

Yes, there are years down the line that these people have to take and put their events on.

They've got them planned five years, but we have to have a glitzy, shiny, great sound system, great electricity, cleaned, polished uh horse park, so that we can attract those major events.

Whether it and we need to have that on a dated um maintenance thing.

And why the heck do we I know it's for money, but why the heck do we have so much deferred maintenance?

Why isn't maintenance being taken care of at the time it needs to be maintained?

It just has to do with again.

It's unfortunate and it's years worth that it's a budget.

The other concern, which you have brought up, and this is one of the reasons I'm concerned about if the this facility goes up for sale, that people have to realize that there is a high probability that the highest bidder is going to be a developer who's going to strip it right down to putting in more apartments and strip malls.

So we really need to protect our facility, and we need to keep it strong, and we need to make it viable financially.

That's it.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments, appreciate them.

Okay, so we are going to take a ten minute break and we will be back to finish.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll get started in about two minutes.

You did whoops, excuse me.

Okay, I think we're ready to get started.

Could our council members come back and get their seats?

City council members.

Okay, I think we're ready to go.

We've got our city council members back.

And the next person on deck.

Thank you.

Is our next speaker ready?

Yes, she is.

Thank you, Sherry.

Go ahead and give us your name and address again.

Thank you.

Uh Sherry Boardman, and I'm with the Idaho Horse Park Foundation.

And first of all, I want to say how much I do appreciate the mayor and the city council.

And what a huge controversial thing this is if we have members of City Council that are opposed and people that are trying to protect.

So to me, a sale is not a good option.

I do appreciate that you have looked into other options for us.

And again, I feel like you do want to protect the horse park in the Ford Idaho Center.

And so I quickly went on a fact-finding mission too.

I understand why people are twitter pated about this because it's a big change.

It's a huge change.

And so I've been on a the fast track fact finding.

And I will let you know that CWI has been very open and accommodating to the foundation and listening to our concerns, and also trying to learn our trade.

The horse park world, the horse show world is completely different than a lot of other business modalities.

It's just very different in how you manage it and how things go.

And they've been very interested as educators would be to learn how the horse park is run, what we need to do, what our needs would be for the future.

And they've been very good and have committed to a contractual support for us for unchanging our events for quite some time.

So to me, that's a positive in this light of what's happening here and this change, and I appreciate that.

So I do feel that with the input from the community and with the city council being who you are, that we're going to find the right answer.

To me, I think CWI is wouldn't be a bad landlord for the horse park.

I wouldn't mind at all.

We're going to continue on with our management company.

Things are not going to change.

I appreciate that.

So I'm sure we'll find the right answer.

And if CWI is our new landlord, I open arms to that and look forward to a good future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Tammy Connect, and on deck is Brian Harm and Dave LeRoy.

Madam Mayor, City Council, thank you.

My name is Tammy Conneber.

16288 North Franklin Boulevard here in NAMPA.

I have been a resident of the city of NAMPA for 18 years in the Treasure Valley for 50.

I am also currently on the venue management commission, which the purpose, and somebody had mentioned this earlier, the purpose and duties of the venue management advisory commission is to advise the mayor and council with regard to the operation, maintenance, and improvements of the Ford Idaho Center and the NAMPA Civic Center.

So we do have a commission set up through the City of NAMPA to help develop ideas, information.

I'm addressing the NAPA City Council to speak out against the proposed transfer of the Ford Idaho Center to the College of Western Idaho at this time.

While I support CWI's mission and value the role it plays in our region, this proposal is deeply flawed, not just in execution, but how it's been handled over the past year.

The Ford Idaho Center is a community pillar.

For years, the Idaho Center has served for more has served as more than just a venue.

It's a cornerstone of NAMPA's identity from murdios and concerts to trade shows and high school graduations.

It's a gathering place that bridges people, brings people from across the Treasure Valley and the nation together.

Transferring this vital public asset to CWI, especially without a clear, transparent plan for its future, risks displacing existing events, reducing public access, and weakening NAMPA's culture and economic landscape.

One of the biggest red flags is the conflicting information coming up of CWI about how they plan to use the property.

At times they've re-referenced educational development and private public partnership.

Other times they said they have no immediate plans and that they're still exploring options.

What is the game plan?

They've had a year or two asked their trustees what kind of programs that they and timelines for those programs.

If there's a plan, why hasn't it been shared with the public?

And if there isn't one, why is the city rushing to hand over a major public asset?

These mixed messages raise serious questions and about intentions, readiness, and transparency.

The public deserves clear answers before any irreversible decisions can be made.

CWI's assurance so far have been limited to honoring existing contracts at the Ford Idaho Center as presented at the first two meetings, the private meeting on June 30th and the first public meeting, covering events like concerts, radios, Idaho's park, horse park activities, high school graduations, very community various community events and state athletic competitions.

Well, this might seem like a process.

So I have been on the venue management commission.

If I could do this one last little statement, please.

Discussions between the city and CWI have been going on for over a year.

Yet throughout this time, there has been no meaningful communication with the public.

And perhaps more concerning, not the venue management commission either.

That is our job.

The VMC exists specifically to provide oversight and community representation representation regarding city-owned venue venues like the IDO Center.

Failing to include them in this process not only bypasses critical input, but also undermines the public trust in our local institution.

Transparency is not optional, especially when the future of a major community asset is on the line.

Thank you.

Mayor.

Tammy, what um what solutions does the venue management commission have about the 25 million deferred maintenance?

So we have not even been presented with that information.

We have not at our meetings, we have not been presented with it.

Came out in one of the public meetings about improvements to the amphitheater.

The first I heard it about it was at a public meeting.

The first we heard about it was on June 30th at a special meeting of horse park people, the venue management commission, the stampede at the at the facility.

At that date and the next date, I think the issue with the transparency and the rush, the mayor did say we're doing our public meetings, and a decision will come from the city council on August 11th, because that's why I put it in my phone.

That's why I think people are very confused about the speed, because that was the initial message was tonight the city council would be making a decision.

When is your next meeting?

You said 30.

Sorry, 3.30 that was?

3 30, yes.

Do you would you like someone to be there?

I don't think we've received any invitations to join, but I know it is because it's part of public record.

The meeting notices go out publicly from your Josh, your assistant.

Um we always have a city council representative.

We have a mayor's office representative, but none of these issues have been brought to the commission whose specific task is to help deal with this with the city of Napa.

Well, it's with operations and maintenance, as you said, and it's casting vision for utilization, for utilization of the facility.

This came up really more of a how do we fund the facility long term.

But I appreciate your comments.

Um part of this mission, the venue management advisory commission will participate in long-range planning as needed in order to assure continued viability of the Ford Idaho Center.

The uh and I pulled these specifically off of the City of NAMPA's website today.

Well taken.

Thank you.

Point well taken.

I will say though that you did say something that really made me go, which is the very challenge that we're we're facing.

You said that there's mixed messages, which could be the timing, but without a clear plan, which part of the reason why there was discussion before coming out is because if you come out with no plan, then you're accused of having no plan.

Right.

So you try to establish a plan and get an idea, but then you're accused of planning without so it candidly we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Every way, but but your point is well taken.

With within it's been questions to CWI, they've had a year.

They could have gone to their trustees and said they haven't had a year.

Well, the conversations have been going on for approximately a year per both of your conversations at the meeting.

Our internal conversations began probably.

I'm I'm guessing I've got to go look at a calendar, but it really began when we were talking about funding for the Ford Idaho Center.

It's when we needed to upgrade the amphitheater.

And the amphitheater, it's we the first deal was not a deal we could do because it was added to a financial loss.

Which we as the venue management commission knew nothing about.

Well, the venue management commission doesn't typically get in in contractual deals because those are confidential.

The reason they're confidential and the reason why it's important to respect the confidential nature of agreements has to do with their competing against other venues, other cities, other contracts that are going on, and that is protected information because it undermines their ability to compete in the market.

If all of that information is outpired.

I understand that.

So that's why we come to our mission meetings and say these are the things that we would like to be done, these are the costs.

And we how would you help us recommend to the city council?

And that is been part of the meeting.

And I've been on this commission for going on six years now.

And so it it came as a surprise to me that this is what we're supposed to be overseeing, and the conflicting information coming out from the tonight was supposed to be the vote.

CWI has said, well, we'd like to do these things, but we're not sure.

I think if there were definitive plans and exit, you know, that said, hey, these are our goals, that that would cause less confusion with the general public.

So I might just say, and thank you for that.

And so the goals, what we did was we put together a term sheet, and that was just the very beginning to say, could we agree on some things?

That term sheet is up online for anybody to look at to say that this is what we're considering, right?

So but you make you your points are well taken.

And I don't blame you for your feelings a little bit on the fact that you were not in the loop a little bit earlier.

Well, and I'm also a citizen of the city of Nampa.

Right.

And I'm Joe Blow citizen on all of this.

I'm not involved in the Chamber of Commerce or the Koanists or anything else.

I am your generic citizen of the City of Napa.

Yeah.

I hope the citizens of our community can understand and respect the fact that in business dealings, you don't put, you don't lay your cards all out on the table, and as a city, we can't, because that really hinders the ability for to compete in the market.

We get requests for certain things that it makes it very difficult because we have a company that has to compete in the market against their competitors in the local market.

And so you if you put all the quote deals on the table, it makes it very difficult.

So there is an element that can be confidential when it has to do with commerce and the effect of the commerce and how in your competing I'm gonna say use the word arena, but I don't use the exactly.

You said it was it was we are supposed to deal with capital investment.

Well, capital investment would be expansion of the amphitheater, wouldn't it?

That would they were asking for capital investment from the city of Napa?

That's a little different.

The capital investment that the venue management commission gives recommendations on are our annual budgetary requests that are coming to City Council on a real basis.

That was not a budgetary request.

Thank you for the and and you know I I think that there are some options out there.

You know, whether why can't we go into partnership with CWI on the facility?

Why can't we do if they want to do a public private?

Why can't we do a public private?

And I know there's some legal limitations, but I think there's also probably some loopholes and some other auxiliary options.

So thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Excuse me, Mayor Tammy.

The Chairman of the Commission of venue management is Kenny Roten.

Correct.

He was up here earlier.

He also expressed the same concerns that you just did.

Well, I am the liaison officer with the venue management.

And uh I want to tell you that I understand what exactly what you are talking about.

And uh you're very gracious of what you just said.

But I know you're not happy about it.

And that's just a point.

But uh it's gonna be out in the open now.

And please do not stop.

Continue.

Yeah, I I appreciate it, and and I know that it's public information and it is put out there when these meetings are.

Anybody can attend, and nobody does except for the board members.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Brian Harm.

On deck is Dave LeRoy and Randy Reiken.

I'm sorry, that name again was Brian.

Brian Harm.

Is Brian Harm here?

Okay, so he is not here.

Okay.

And our next speaker is Dave LeRoy.

David Leway.

Good evening.

Madam Mayor.

It's nice to be with some old friends and some new friends.

And go ahead and share.

Yeah, if you don't mind saying your name one more time and address.

Thank you.

I'm Dave Leroy, P.O.

Box 193, Boise, Idaho, and I appear on behalf of a client, uh, Hubert Osborne, who lives at 4199 East Switzerway.

And it's still nice to be with some old friends and some new friends.

And let me say, having sat in uh seats similar to those that you sit in as elected officials.

I want to congratulate you on the dialogue and the openness and the back and forth.

This is the way that uh communication with your constituents is supposed to work, even if it's sometimes contentious, and even if there's some divisions between and among the members of you on the council.

So thank you.

Thank you for what you're doing.

Uh Mr.

Osborne does oppose this.

Uh he and I attended the July 15th meeting.

Uh at that time I passed out it, and the Secretary has uh additional copies of the uh two-page uh memo that recited about five policy questions that I thought needed to be considered right at the very front of this endeavor.

And then I also have attached uh an additional page where I went through some of the case law that uh pertains to this operation in which you're uh doing tonight.

And the city attorney has done a nice job of laying out for you that's a statutory material.

Uh Mr.

Rutter and I don't agree on everything because you do have vast discretion to consider property activity, but there's a limit to that discretion, and that's called abusive discretion.

There are procedures that must be followed, and my case checklist down toward the bottom talks about some of those cases where you are limited and compelled to follow strict procedures.

Uh accepting your challenge to give uh a compass to the journey that you explore.

Um, Mr.

Osborne from the point of view of an opponent would suggest to you uh a five-point common sense decision tree or a process tree or even a solution tree.

Uh first and foremost, I think you've heard tonight uh a great deal of concern about uh the value of this uh property.

I suggest that you do an appraisal uh and that you make that part of your proposition.

It may not be legally required, but I think it's politically required in this circumstance.

Secondly, I suggest that you do a very detailed reworking of the specific maintenance costs.

This number 25 million dollars is helpful to nobody.

It's of concern and it uh uh must be dealt with, but a sharp pencil and reworking that to an annualization, maybe a taxpayer by taxpayer, I think is very necessary.

Third, I think that you need to provide a particular list of underutilizations if you're going to use that part of the statute, if you're gonna deal with that part of the statute.

As counsel says it may be legally optional, but it is politically mandatory, in my opinion, if you're gonna move toward the solution that you're talking about.

Uh I think it's important to focus realistically on the motivation that drives you here.

I heard uh with great uh uh concern and angst uh Councilman Bill's observation about what he has wrestled with uh in terms of these big numbers.

But I don't hear that CWI has the realistic solution to those big numbers either.

Uh I heard and on July 15th, the president very carefully say that he would not raise pres the student fees and he would not uh raise taxes.

So where's the solution?

There's there's none easily readily there, other than to approach those donors, those corporations, uh, and none of them have stepped up just yet, obviously.

Um finally, and fifth, I would suggest that you look for, as you're hearing tonight, some realistic solutions uh to mitigate these risks.

Uh sale with uh restrictions is obviously one.

Collaborating with the uh auditorium district is another, and even if Mike Moyle eliminates the statutes uh under which auditorium districts are convened, uh he will not be able to eliminate um the existing auditorium districts.

You have a willing partner there, and you could even contract with them in some particulars, as you're proposing to do with the college.

Uh I like the idea of uh exploring, and it's an urban legend that you at one time had a letter from OBG that suggested they would ante up uh some number of million dollars to help collaborate on some of this deferred maintenance.

So, in some from an opponent's point of view, there are things that you need to do that you must do that you're politically obligated to do, even if not legally so, and those would be due in appraisal.

Uh work your sharp pencil on these maintenance costs and annualize them, give them something that the taxpayer can actually understand.

Um give us these underutilizations, and the mere fact that you can have additional programs with and interrelating to the college, which is very proximate, does not constitute an underutilization for the city.

Uh those uh must be addressed uh if you will go that direction.

I'm most hopeful that you'll find those solutions, but from an opponent's point of view, you've not done so yet.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

David LeRoy, I just want to say thank you.

I wish everyone addressed us as you just did, because you did it so respectfully, so well versed, and you gave us great solutions and suggestions.

Thank you.

I greatly value it.

And I appreciate the compliment, but this is the first time in 84 years that Hubert Osborne has actually been speechless.

That is good.

That was great.

Thank you, sir.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Randy Riken, and on deck as David Taney and Cynthia Reynolds.

My name's Randy Reakin.

Live at 724 South Lancaster Drive in Nampa.

Seen a couple of you already today.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Um I have I've I've really abbreviated my list.

I should be well under two minutes now, but um a couple of quick quotes.

Uh, one from an Idaho statesman interview uh with someone involved, uh, March 21st, 2024, who said uh district would have district would save NAMPA residents taxpayer dollars that would normally go to fund upkeep and repairs at the event centers.

Another quote from uh someone, these are viewable on television.

Um an interview on KIVI on July 11th.

There's an independent auditorium district board who's in control of those dollars, and they can choose to spend those dollars how they see fit at the Ford Idaho Center and NAMP Pacific Center.

Um those are some of the reasons people voted for the auditorium district.

Um learned today that there are some restrictions on the way maintenance is done, but uh did discover maintenance is actually a viable possibility with auditorium district funds.

Uh basically MOPS, no roofs, yes.

So there are some significant things that could be taken care of uh through those funds.

Um I would ask that we delay a vote even on the uh levy override, because if we're not voting on a transfer or no transfer, the levy override seems like it's a little bit horse before the cart.

Um I personally do not want to see the Ford Idaho Center or any of the other properties transferred to anybody for free, and that's all I have.

Thanks.

Thank you so much.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is David Taney and on deck Cynthia Reynolds and Jan Zawan.

Well, my name's David Taney, and I live at 12232 South Hunters Point Drive.

And um I've written to all of you, I've talked, I think, to most of you, have testified before.

Um spoken to a lot of you one-on-one.

I don't like this idea at all.

Um I probably, because of my professional career, testified and sat through maybe a hundred or two hundred council and commission meetings, and I've seen some really bad ideas come before them, but I my opinion, this one's uh grand champion.

Um I don't like the deal structure, I don't like the valuation, I don't like the financial performance the way it's been presented.

I don't like the process.

Um councilman Jan Goul, Councilmember Chan Goula has for solutions, there are solutions out there, give you a couple.

Um I've raised the issue of valuation before.

I got a letter back from one member of the council that said, Well, what difference does it make if it's worth a billion dollars?

Uh there's so many uh restrictions, land use restrictions to be put on it, nobody would ever want to have it.

The other problem I have is that the only valuation or the only number we've seen is the building and the uh improvements.

Nobody's taking into account the value of the 100 or so acres that go along with this thing.

There's probably a valuation here that's somewhere around two to three hundred million dollars, and that's been totally overlooked in any conversation we've seen.

Um there's a number of uh possibilities as far as how to structure this deal.

One deal that one structure that doesn't make sense is the one you're looking at, and that's to give a fully paid for uh $300 million or $200 million asset free of charge to an organization that's never run anything like this without any commitments or promises to do anything with it.

Uh the only commitments they've made is to form a committee, has no TIF as far as uh enforcing anything to form a committee to give advice.

That's one commitment they've made, and another commitment they've made is uh rent the ticket office out to the Stampede for 50 bucks a year, except for that there's no commitment on their part to do anything uh in exchange for this uh exchange.

Um the process hasn't been very effective uh in my opinion.

I've talked to several council members and they've said, well, I don't really like this deal, but I can't explain why, because we've talked about it in executive session, and we're sequestered from being able to discuss anything like this.

On the other hand, people that like the idea can talk to their blue in the face, but anybody that's not in favor of it isn't allowed to speak about it.

That's what gives people the idea that this is a backroom deal, and that's not a good sign.

It almost creates an odor of uh it creates an odor of elitism or superiority that really should not uh exist on a part of the city council.

The uh financial performance, in my opinion, is misstated.

Uh, we hear that uh the things only made what is it, 400 million dollars or something like that uh since it was put together.

Well, that's not quite true.

It's also paid for itself, 20 some odd million dollars uh that is paid for itself, and uh that counts as money that was made.

So you've got a fully paid for asset here, it's making a million or so dollars a year, at least it has over the last four years or so under this management company that you have.

You've got another access to maybe another million or so from this hotel tax, and even if you do have 25 million dollars worth of repairs that need to be done over the next 10 years or so, you've got five million dollars put away toward that, and you could easily program these repairs out over the next 10 years or so.

It's not a horrible number to deal with.

So, my only request is do your job, run the thing, and uh don't give it away for free.

So I guess yes, thank you.

If I could respond to you, David.

I seen you that email about the valuation, and uh I stand behind that email, David.

We had that discussion.

It doesn't matter to me if it's worth 10 billion dollars because we're not gonna sell it.

If we were to sell that, we would lose what we value most, and that's our Stampede Rodeo, our horse park, everything that's valuable to this community, we would lose.

I'm a fourth generation, Idahoan.

That's part of our culture.

We need that, but we need help because we help to support it because we don't have the assets, nor should we be running that.

So yes, sir.

Can you and let me finish here?

So the five million dollars that keeps getting referenced, we need to address that.

That's an that's an operating capital fund.

So if well if we pull all that money out of there today, OVG doesn't have money to operate.

That money is set aside for operating capital, and you being a business owner will understand that.

So if we pull that money out of there, we don't operate, we don't get any concerts in here, we don't get anything else.

So that money is just not sitting there waiting to be used for deferred maintenance, it's sitting there for a purpose.

So and then um the uh the stampede building is part of that deal, the ticket office, we have a strong desire to memorialize the stampede in its 110 years of being here in NAMPA, and that office we feel like should be a museum for the Snake River Stampede.

So to do that in the agreement, we asked for that it be leased to the Stampede for a minimum fee per year for a 99-year lease or whatever that amounts to.

But we want that to be a draw to our economy, we want it to be a draw to NAMPA that we have a Snake River Stampede Museum that people can come to and see our history and see who we are, and that's important, and that's why that's set up that way.

I I know and I agree with you on that, Councilman Reynolds.

The issue I have or two.

It doesn't say in those agreements that you're gonna have a stampede, just that you're gonna rent the ticket office to them.

That's part one.

And part two, if you truly believe the CWI is a partner that you need uh to do all this, then put together a joint powers agency or something like that, where you have a true shared risk partnership with CWI, so they have some skin in the game, as it is now, it's just been given to them.

Well, I I would disagree with that because there is there is risk for them, and we are we do have language that uh we've been talking about putting in there that would be a benefit back to the city of Nampa and um our citizens, including soccer fields for our children.

So that's something that we are looking at very closely.

I would like David, need to get back up, please.

So do you know how much the CWI guess in the contract wants to lease the uh IC ticket building for I don't know the answer?

$50.

$50 only.

You know what it was before?

Oh, sir, $8,000.

I think this is a business deal.

This is not a cultural deal.

If that I have said before that if the Stampede Rodeo was given so much to this community, if they want that building for a museum, this is the business deal.

This is funded by taxpayers, then they ought to buy it.

Well, and I would also say in in response to Telsman Reynolds, um, if you think that you have all of these restrictions, you don't, not any agreements that you put out that I've read.

Uh so none of those requirements that you're talking about, other than the $50 ticket deal.

Other than that, none of those things are requirements.

They're not written under your documents.

You may intend for them to be there, but they're not there yet.

Okay, so uh Sebastian is online.

Sebastian, do you have a question?

Uh yes, I just wanted to confirm, David.

Uh, has Red Hawk, has the board given an approval for uh the position to be made on behalf of the HOA, or were you speaking as an individual tonight?

Tonight I'm speaking as a person that has 50 years experience doing mergers and acquisitions, five years as a subcontractor to local government, another five years is working as a uh department director in local government, a person that has graduate education in public finance administration.

I'm not here speaking on behalf of anyone other than the taxpayers in this city and people like myself that just want to see this entity continue to exist and be an asset to the community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I would like to just real quickly, I want to clarify something.

I and maybe I misunderstood David.

When you were talking about the financial side, um, so when it comes to the funding, we s we just updated because that we had failed to put the cost of the RV park into the capital investment, but we had a net income for in 20 years of 410,000.

And so, but we had contributed the new numbers of city funding is 22 million plus, not exact, 22,313,000 is what we have invested into that property over the last 20 years.

So if you take the 410 out of profit, it ends up with the net support of 21 million 900,000 rounded.

So I I think I'm not sure what you shared, but I wanted to make sure it was clear that $20 million is what we've put in over a million a year for the last 20 years.

That's not counting what it costs to build the building.

So and today, when you mentioned like making a million dollars or a million two, if you look at the financials, if if we net a million two with the Ford Idaho Center, out of that, because of the way the deal is struck from a long time ago, and I won't go into details.

You have 200,000 is what it costs on the park side that comes out of that.

Plus there's an incentive fee, approximately $800 to $860 out of that.

So that's a million out of that net profit of a million two, a million in expenses.

So it's not a million two that comes to the bottom line.

That also does not count any additional maintenance.

For example, we need a boiler.

Today, when we asked the auditorium district, would they fund a boiler?

The answer was no.

Okay, that boiler is $800,000.

So they did say no, Randy.

We were there today, and they said no very clearly, they wouldn't fund the boiler.

That's what the answer was today.

Were you there when that question was taken, David?

When they asked that question?

I can't remember.

Jeff Agambrod was there, and he's not when you asked that question.

So there was a question, and they said they would not, and I need to say, Jay, did I misunderstand that?

That they would not fund the boiler.

Because that is a maintenance piece.

As I recall the question, it was that the board themselves would not be interested in that sort of expenditure.

The desire of the board at this point being the new board of the new district would be one enhancements rather than the main books.

Thank you.

And that's what okay, so thank you.

You stated it better, and thank you for that.

Point being that that would come straight off the top of that profit.

So let's say we made it, we made 200,000, but if we replace a boiler, you take 800 off and you have lost 600.

So that's the picture of finances that we are looking at, just to be clear.

So you're there's a lot of apples and oranges going on in your documents.

I've looked at the documents that go back to the first year when you operated it.

Those are city documents, they are not mine, and I've looked at your budget for this coming year.

And I have also read that you have five million dollars that have been put away in a capital reserve account.

Now you can bury that in the general fund or wherever you want to put it, but that's it's nothing's buried and nothing's hidden.

But that's just okay, that's insinuating something is buried and hidden.

We have been really clear.

The whole role of that five million dollars is to give them operating capital so that we don't have to fund general funds.

So if they enter into a loss, we've got some cushion room.

It also is used at some with some of the ticketing ebbs and flows financially.

And nobody is insinuating anything, Mayor.

Nobody is insinuating anything, Mayor.

Maybe it's an issue of classification.

You may think it, well, it's a safety debt, but you have five million dollars that you have put away in whatever category you want to call it.

That's money that has been a good thing.

It's easy to say that the capital approvements.

Pardon me.

So the five million dollars being referenced is what we call the fund balance, which is roughly equivalent to cash.

That's as that five million dollars is what was on hand as of October 1st.

The balance now is down to $3.6 million because as Councilman Reynolds has referred, this is an operating account used to run the business.

It was down to $1.8 million less than a month ago.

So this is an operational account.

The $5 million exists at that point in time, has been spent down.

It may, and I hope it does go back up, and it should go back up as the event center successfully completes the year.

But we don't have five million right now.

It's been a debied to me.

That was as of a point in time, as well.

I can show you the bank statement if you would like to see it, what's in there right now, $3.6 million.

Now, let's suppose it doesn't exist at all.

You have got an entity that's profitable.

It's making approximately a million dollars a year.

It made four million over the last four years.

And you have got hotel tax that's it's made how much over the last twenty years?

I said over the last four years, it's made approximately four million dollars.

It's approximately a million dollars in net income.

And you have that's what it shows on your documents that you that you hand out.

That's I would love to meet with you and go through the details in more in detail so you understand the complexity of it.

But what we show on the city documents is the net income.

It includes the amount of money that the city has given them for support to operate.

Without that gift of money from the operations and the capital, you have over the last four years, we would have lost about a million, almost two million dollars if you subtract the amount of money given to them for operations and capital support.

And I will be glad to show you the documents on the other.

I would be happy to look at them.

And they are online.

This document is online.

It's just that it I think the one thing I would say is public finance is complicated and it just if you look at it, you're looking at their net income line over here, but you are not looking at what the city is putting in to make it run.

And it takes both of them together.

And if I am reminiscing it, and if it is profitable as an enterprise million dollars a year, and if you do have available to you funds from your hotel tax, you still have the ability, regardless what the uh deferred maintenance costs are, if they are 20 million or if there's some other number to program those out over time.

They don't you don't have to throw your hands in the air and say we can't handle this anymore and give the asset away to College of Western Idaho for free.

And if you did want to have them as a partner, they should have some skin under game.

They could buy their way in.

This isn't shouldn't be a free ride for them.

They have an 8 to 1 positive current ratio in their balance sheet.

They could afford to pay money if they want to be part of this.

Mayor?

Thank you.

I think we're good.

One more comment?

One more comment.

And then we're going to move to the next one.

Who is the next person if they can get in line?

It's Cynthia Reynolds, if she can come up to the Cynthia, if you can come up and be ready for your time.

As the finance person, I love the dialogue.

I love the discussion back and forth.

It is what is to me is good about government when we have these opportunities for back and forth.

When we begin the budgetary process for the entire city, we do that in February.

And we continue it on through July, and we wrap it up in August with a public hearing.

One of the things that I would love to see more of is more public involvement throughout the budgetary process.

We publish the day we start, we publish the information we are doing, we publish the budget book deck, and we struggle to get public involvement in that discussion.

Because, like for this year, our budgetary increase, total budgetary increase was a 0.9 percent.

We're struggling so hard to not put a tax burden on the citizens that we look at every expenditure we can to be very respectful and to use your money with the with the utmost respect.

But I would absolutely love it from my perspective if the people that come here tonight would also be part of the budgetary process to discuss that, to learn the challenges we go through and why we are struggling to fund that now, because there is more than just the Fort Idaho Center.

There is public safety, there's streets, there is parks.

So I will say that and then but when we have the budget cycle next year, get involved.

Thank you.

Mayor?

Okay.

Before begins?

Uh yes.

Go ahead, Councilman.

Just so there is full transparency.

We can hear Jay Schneider's comment, so I don't know what his response was.

And then I have a follow up follow-up regarding the auditorium district's uh recommendations or not, if I could.

Okay.

Um we have got someone standing here to go next.

And um so I may we may pause that for just a minute since we have moved away from the auditorium district.

So um Mayor, I I I need to make a comment here.

David, the information you have is based on the city numbers of that you have been researched.

Tonight, there was a new number, new numbers of the budget that came out.

You don't have those numbers.

But they that's why they're different.

They're 19.9 million is the difference.

It isn't very different.

If you go out online, it is 19.9 million.

The difference is, and Doug, you can speak to it.

He forgot to put in the additional 1.2-ish million that the city invested into the RV park.

Well, we didn't we didn't forget the one that was a that was a slightly different process in payment.

The one the millions, the 1.5 million we invested in the park was paid for by the city with city funds for the improvement.

It wasn't paid for by OVG or by the horse park.

We paid for it, and it was reconciled a little differently.

And then I looked at it tonight and recognized that had not been reflected in the amount of cost the city had given to them, even though it didn't show up on their books, we had given it for their benefit.

That is the difference.

So it increased.

It increased, it did not, there's no more comment.

We're do we have agreement on two things.

The facility is profitable.

And you have and you have the hotel tax that is available to you.

If you take out the city's contributions over the last four years, in in four years ago, they lost 237,000.

Two years ago, they lost 710,000, and in 24 they lost 555,000.

And the one thing to the city's contributions.

And the one thing we can say is the auditorium district, and then Jay, if you speak again, we'll need you on mic, but the auditorium district does not cover operational costs of venues that they don't own.

But I okay, I'm getting a nod.

That is a correct statement.

Auditorium districts do not fund operational costs.

So that's the real numbers operationally.

We can shake our head and we can say no, that's not true.

That is true.

So I hope people have a picture of what we're facing as a city.

We're trying to figure out how to move forward based on our financial numbers.

So thank you so much for coming forward and share your name and your address.

Well, I appreciate Madam Mayor and council people coming listening to our concerns this evening.

My name is Cynthia Reynolds.

I live at 12682 South Rhys Away.

I'm a longtime resident of NAMPA since 1968, and I've seen many changes with major development in our city in the last 25 years.

Residential development has definitely put a burden on the infrastructure of our city, and we are seeing the effects almost weekly.

Since there are so many in dire need of repairs or research restructuring.

The Ford Idaho Center is a landmark for NAMPA, a commonplace bringing events for all ages to enjoy, share memories and academic achievements.

So what can we do for this icon?

CWI's partnership with AlQuist Development to develop the 10.3 acre property downtown for Boise campus as a mixed use development to serve that community is brilliant.

And an opportunity I believe NAMPA needs to explore before making the decisions for a major property investment.

Has NAMPA explored these public-private partnerships to look for opportunities to gain other local stakeholders?

Lease our unused spaces for events, hold fundraiser concerts or shows with all proceeds going to fund the maintenance and renovations.

We have the perfect center to do that in.

Adopt a feature program.

Allow individuals to donate towards the maintenance or restoring specific features within the Ford Ido Center.

Charge for live stream access or premium seating.

We have we need to utilize the talent appointed to the auditorium district and allow them to work on plans to save our Ford Idaho Center.

It's time for the citizens of NAMPA to come out full support of saving our Idaho Center by whatever means that looks like to each individual.

Thank you.

Great job.

Thank you for coming forward with some I love that.

Thank you so much.

Any questions?

No.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Janza.

And on deck is Robin Knight and Mike Pena.

So you said Jan.

Mayor, Council, thank you very much.

I'm up here as I could you please state your name in Angela.

I'm sorry, Jan Zar.

412, East Boise Street, CUNA.

So I am not a resident of NAMPA, but I'm a resident of Ada County.

Most importantly, I want uh the mayor and I probably go back a while.

We were in the entertainment business.

We both have ran centers.

So I know what it takes to run facilities and to make them viable.

And I've heard a lot of things tonight.

One thing is that the centers are to be in the black.

That's not true.

I hate to say that, it's not true.

Most centers get about 50% of their income from ticketing or from rentals, et cetera.

And the other has to come from the community.

One way or another, it's got to come from the community, whether it's through fundraising, for naming rights, et cetera.

So some of the things that I would suggest, and I don't know right now what the facility fees are for the tickets at the Idaho Center.

So those facility fees are supposed to go directly for what we're talking about right now, really is to maintain the facility.

So my question, I don't know if they're here or not.

What are those facility fees and how much is being raised on an annual basis?

And are they being put to the facility and making those facility improvements?

Or sometimes, because I I ran into centers wife.

I've come into the center and those facilities were being brought to the bottom line and not to the facility with the maintenance fees.

So that would be one of my questions is how are they truly going to those facilities for those maintenance projects?

The other thing, of course, is the naming rights of the center.

Personally, I think that the Ford Center and what has been asked, and also then renewed for two million dollars is absolutely appalling.

I mean, if you have to look at what you had Boise State, I think they just would they renew their naming rights to extra mile.

Uh I think 2019 was it?

2019 for over eight and a half million dollars.

So there is some improvement there.

So instead of rolling over and saying, yeah, we're going to renew that naming rights for another five years for another million dollars.

You as the city needs to look at renegotiating that and getting a better, a better deal.

I think that would go a long ways.

But honestly, for um, and and I'm on the fence here, right?

I really am.

Uh time and I I don't know if I have any skin at the game.

The only skin I have in the game is that if CWI starts raising the taxes, my property taxes to help fund this, that's my skin in the game.

I don't want that to happen.

So other than that, we you as a community um have to buy into it.

You can't have us, you can't have a center and not buy into it.

One way or another, you're gonna have to.

That's all I have to say.

Any questions?

Mayor?

Yes.

So clarification.

You do or do not want your taxes raised to support it.

Well, Mike as a resident of Ada County, if CWAI took over that facility, and they started raising my taxes.

No, because I don't live.

I didn't vote 20 something years ago to have this center put in the city.

Sorry, I didn't.

And my as an Ada County resident, I taxes shouldn't be raised.

But there's no guarantee, they're saying it, but I don't they're gonna that's gonna have to be an agreement and in writing.

I would have to before I would sign off on that.

As a resident of Ada County.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you for your comments.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Mayor.

Yes, I just want to say I used to be Jan's uh hair stylist, and I just want to say whoever your new barber is, they're still making you look good.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Robin Knight, and on deck is Mike Pena and Tammy Edwards.

Okay.

I'm not a good public speaker.

Um my name is Robin Knight.

I live at 2945 South White Point Lane, which is a meridian, but I am an AMBA business owner.

I am a high Idaho Port Sport Foundation member, but I'm not gonna speak in an official capacity today because our board hasn't had time to vote on all of these things.

Um I also spent a lot of years on the venue management commission.

Um, and so I read the reports that came through of all the things that were they were asking for to fix, and the things that you know the city didn't have the money to do.

So like I have a huge amount of empathy for what um the city is struggling with in terms of their need to fund the facility as well as their desire to not raise taxes, because we all know how popular tax raises are around here.

Um it's a difficult situation, and I appreciate you guys are trying to find solutions.

Um I am here because we, as a border in active constructive discussions with the city and with CWI about the future of the horse park, one of Idaho's most valuable community assets in a world class and the world class events that it hosts.

For those who may not be familiar, the horse park is not just an arena with stalls and seating from March through November, it becomes a magnet for equestrian excellence, drawing top tier competitors from across the United States and Canada.

Riders, trainers and families travel here, stay in our hotels, eat in our restaurants, and shop in our stores.

They bring energy prestige and millions of dollars into the into Nampa in the Treasure Valley.

The events are not just a point of pride they are significant economic driver.

They directly contribute to the vitality of our local businesses and are expected to generate a substantial portion of the new auditorium district's revenue.

The reality is simple when the horse park thrives the whole region benefits.

The Idaho Horse Park Foundation has worked tirelessly for years to ensure that the horse park attracts and produces top caliber shows and events since the park's inception we have invested over seven million dollars in improvements always without a formal contract always in good faith.

We've done this because our mission is clear to promote and sustain the horse industry in Idaho to secure its future and to deliver economic and cultural value to our community.

Our partnership with the city has worked because our goals align the bus a busy horse park is good for the city good for the foundation and good for Idaho's horse industry.

Now as the possibility of the park's conveyance to CWI is considered we see both a challenge and an opportunity CWI has expressed that they are that they understand the value of the horse park and they have indicated willingness to commit formally to continuing these vents for at least the next 10 years this is not just about keeping the lights on it's about securing the future it's about stability growth and expansion into new areas like equine education and workforce training imagine students getting hands on experience and equine management veterinary sciences and event production right here in Nampa that is the kind of future that I would like to see for our horse park I do think that people have talked about selling it and and I think that is would be devastating not just to our local economy but also to the 1.6 billion dollar horse industry of Idaho the reason the Idaho has such a strong horse industry is because our horse park events represent Super Bowl caliber events in their respective disciplines because we host those events locally we have top caliber trainers who live in our valley these trainers bring in multiple horse owners to local barns horses that are in turn cared for by local horse shoers, vets and other others in the horse industry the domino effects of selling off the treasure that is the Idaho horse park would be far reaching and absolutely devastating so get my mic back on thank you so much.

So counselor do you have any questions for Robin thank you so much for being here tonight and thank you for sharing Madam Mayor our next speaker is Mike Pena and on deck is Tammy Edwards and Ray Booz Thank you Madam Mayor and uh council members my name is Mike Kenya 2659 West Prime Line Drive I am not in the NAPA city limits I am here as the the president of the foundation board for CWI and I do own a business that is in the city limits of Nampa I do love this community I've have about 24 years of community volunteer work in this in the city about 10 years on the Chamber of Commerce is two years as the the chairman of the board for the the NAPA chamber I'm about 10 years with the CWI I'm in my second year as president and I've spent four years on the board of the San Afonso's NAPA hospital so I do love this community I do appreciate the opportunity to talk and I would like to remind everybody here that although we might have different opinions on this complex problem we're all here because we love the Ford Idaho Center we love our community and it's okay to have different opinions but our hearts in the right place and we're just trying to do the best thing so I belie we we sent a letter that all the council members I hope have from our foundation board I'm just going to do a quick summary as I know we're a little short on time but as we know the Ford Idaho Center is a valuable asset to our community for cultural events entertainment our graduation events high school events our horse park we can all agree that that's a great asset to our our community and with CWI we're going to continue that opportunity to our community but this this transfer will also CWI will also expand educational access it'll provide additional space for large scale events commitments commencements community education programs workforce development we're going to preserve our community use it's going to support regional growth and the thing that is going to do is it's going to allow the refocus of city resources this will allow the city of Napa to focus its valuable time energy financial resources towards their critical initiatives such as public safety infrastructure community development and ensuring that the Ford Idaho Center remains in a trusted community focused entity CWI is very important to our community we provide affordable low cost education that provide employment for the folks in our community I think about 96 98% of the people that go to CWR from our community and

This will allow the city of Napa to focus its valuable time, energy, financial resources towards their critical initiatives such as public safety, infrastructure, community development, and ensuring that the Ford Idaho Center remains in a trusted community-focused entity.

CWI is very important to our community.

We provide affordable low-cost education that provide employment for the folks in our community.

I think about 96, 98 percent of the people that go to CWR from our community.

And that was my statement open for any questions.

Yes.

Thank you.

Mike, I appreciate the testimony.

And these questions are coming directly as chairman of the foundation, if you're able, and of what you're limited to, you can hold off.

For me, in my perspective, it's been who's going to steward the facility in the best way possible.

As the chairman, obviously, you've had discussions with your board.

What do the donors feel about this?

Have they been talked to?

Because they're going to be really a big driver of a lot of the economic activity that the vision that's been proposed to us will come from.

Can you give us feedback in the sense of where the future may lie, depending on how we go?

So as clarification, I'm I'm the president of the foundation board, which is I'm a volunteer.

We don't get paid, we do it because of community service.

So our role is to raise funds for scholarships and for building infrastructure.

A lot of this, a lot of the that most of that direction though comes from the trustees that are elected from both counties and from President Jones.

I would say that we we have a the foundation has a very good relationship with a lot of our donors and a good track record.

We've been breaking years, breaking records every year over the last several years on raising funds.

And I I believe that the community as well as the employers in the valley recognize the value that CWI provides and that the educational prospects because without a good trained workforce, um our local employers are in a tough position.

So I would I would say that uh we it's difficult to go to specific donors with a plan that has not been approved yet.

Sure.

Um but I I feel confident that if this transfer were to happen, we would be able to uh maintain our track record of of success and continue to continue to foster those relationships and raise money in other and break other records.

I feel confident in that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

Mayor, I have a question.

Um Mike, in looking at um just ballparking ideas, uh, obviously that's what we've been doing.

I looked at land lease rates for commercial development in NAMPA.

That's your job as far as what you do for a living, correct?

Correct.

I have a commercial real estate broker for over 20 years.

Yeah.

So uh when I look at industrial space, um, what I've come up with is uh approximately $13.30 a square foot per year, would be a typical land lease rate for industrial.

Would you agree with that?

Um typically, um this is so along the Idaho Center Boulevard, it would not be industrial, it would be more of a retail use.

Okay, then let me just jump to uh retail then.

We can we can forget the industrial since we're not talking industrial.

Historically, Councilman Haverfield, um, most of the retail land lease deals I've done are right around 8 percent of the fair market value of the of the asset.

So you wouldn't base that on square footage?

Well, you so you you'd you'd you'd you get a value of that land based on the square price per square foot?

And what that value would be your your typical land lease is around eight, typically around eight percent of a yearly lease rate.

Okay.

So I mean that's just a different way to twist getting to an end result, but would you agree then, for example, retail spaces are listed at about $23 a square foot per year?

Would that be a standard number, maybe 15 to 20?

So are you talking for land or are you talking for a finished building?

The actual building itself with a land lease approach.

Well, so typically a land lease is you're just look you're just leasing the land, and the the entity that leases the land builds the structure.

Correct.

Right.

So um so I I don't factor in a land lease, I typically don't factor in the value of the building because I'm not.

Yeah.

So I just looking at the I believe if I like to rephrase your question is what was the typical value of retail land?

If you were looking at, say um a land lease approach, three acres of property along Canada in that location next to CWI next to the Idaho Center, uh very visible location, what do you think the lease rates might be for that property?

I would probably assuming that we have uh the central city services stubbed to the facility, which I believe are in the Idaho Center Boulevard.

It would be shoveled.

I would I would I would value that land probably in that 23 to 25 dollars a square foot.

That's what I have written here is that amount.

And then the land lease I you know typically there are nuances to it, but in the if we're talking general terms, about 8 percent a year.

So $23 a square foot, is that for the um the ground itself, or would that be for the building?

So land leases don't include building, it's just strictly the land lease.

The and typically how that works is the we would lease the land, and then whoever is doing the lease would build the structure on top of it.

Correct.

With their own money.

So $43,560 square feet times three, that's $130,680 square feet, correct?

I'll trust your calculator, Councilman.

Times $20 a square foot, just as a round number.

Would that be the way that you would approach a land lease uh value?

That's that's what I would try to go to market at.

I would I would uh I'd attempt to get an 8% return.

Okay.

Well, the number that I'm coming up with is a lot more than I thought it would be.

Um so maybe we need to sit down and talk later, but that's well over two million dollars just in the property alone.

So if that's not the correct number, then there's something wrong with my council.

That's unfortunate.

That's the square footage times the dollar amount per square foot, and then you would take 8 percent of that for the yearly lease rate.

Okay.

So that would be more of an appropriate number at 210,000.

If that's what your calculator says, Councilman, I didn't do the math myself.

There is a way to come up with a value based upon the area.

That does sound like the ballpark, correct?

Okay.

I mean, I think for a reference point, with the 13 acres we did a land lease and uh that CWI did a public private partnership in downtown Boise, we were is that public?

Yeah.

Yeah, so we are around $550,000 for now.

I I would say that that is a trophy asset is in downtown Boise.

We can go 30, 40 stories high and it's right on the river.

So is there a taxable value of the improvements on the property also that the city would enjoy?

Um so the analysis that we did with CWI is that if we did a land lease in a public-private partnership, um CWI could potentially use funds to offset deferred maintenance, but the structure that would and though we're not a taxable entity, CWI is not just like the city is not.

But if a structure, the structure that would be built on top of that land lease would be taxable and would go that revenue would go to the city of Napa.

Right.

So there's there's two sources then of revenue.

One would be the land lease, and the other would be the taxable value of the improvements on the property, correct?

I believe that's correct, yes.

And that would be regardless of whether it's the city of Napa approaching it in this fashion or CWI, is that correct?

Correct.

Thank you.

So I think what I heard you say when you mentioned 500,000 of Boise, was that for 13 acres?

How many acres was that?

Yeah, then the the value of that land is totally incredibly high because of its the zoning, you can go 30, 40 stories high and it's right on the river and really it's and you can't compare the the Idaho Center land, no offense to the Idaho Center land.

That's where I office is at, but it's just they're different.

Different.

It is revenue, but it doesn't give us enough revenue to offset where we are, I guess would be it's an interesting number.

Um, but it's it would be part of it.

So thank you.

Mayor I do have a question.

Okay, so we've got uh Councilman Rodriguez and then Griffin.

Okay, Mike.

I know we don't have an appraisal.

And so I'm gonna just throw it out at you because of your experience.

You kind of have a pretty good idea.

Um CDU is CWI in their ownership of property and land and how much of an increase would they would the the value of CWI increase after being conveyed this property at Fort Idaho Center?

In my opinion, the difficulty of having an appraisal is the the current business model of running this facility as an entertainment venue is not the money-making business.

That's why the vast majority of these type of entertainment facilities are owned by government entities because they don't make money.

If if building these type of venues were moneymakers, then you would see private ownership on all of these.

And I hear the numbers, oh, it's worth 100 million dollars, or you know, different numbers.

The the problem is as a as a commercial real estate investor looks at the return of that asset or what the potential return of that asset would be based on revenue.

And if you look at the historical performance of the Idaho Center, I I think correct me if I'm wrong, I over the last 27 years it's made 410, 420,000.

Then you add that it's in a private ownership and they'll be paying millions of dollars in tax revenue on top of that because they would not be they they would be a taxable entity.

You know, my my opinion as a commercial real estate broker for over 20 years is I I don't see a private ownership entity ever paying a replacement cost value or fair market value because they would never see the return on that money.

Okay, so and I I figured that would be your answer because that's it's it's a tough and I care about the community.

I'm not an employee by CWI, I'm a volunteer.

And I I truly want to do what's best for I love this community.

My three kids live here in the City Limits, and I know I want to do what's best.

I know, Mike.

And I understand and I know that.

So we're friends, we've known each other a long time.

Yes, sir, we have.

So, but here's the other thing.

If the foundation that you're part of and the CWI Board of Trustees, and their funds, and the amount of money they have in the bank, I should say, um uh revenue, then if they know that this is a not a money-making deal from a business perspective uh perspective, which I have no idea about business, but I do know how to how to check my checkbook, if it doesn't make sense, to allow CWI to bring give you all our property.

How about this?

Then why doesn't CWI and the foundation invest in leasing the property so we the taxpayers can get a break?

What about that?

Well, so I again the the foundation raises money for scholarships and for buildings.

What you're talking about is more in the purview of the Board of Trustees and I see.

I'm not a I'm not a trustee, so I can't comment on that.

Okay.

And I apologize, Mike, for putting me on the spot.

But I but I know.

Yeah, yeah, that's part of my area of expertise.

Thank you, sir.

I think we'll go to President Jones.

Councilmember Rodriguez, just because it came up and it was a topic I think falls a little more as Mike said um to my role in our Board of Trustees.

I think um I understand the context in which people mean by giving it away, but fundamentally from CWI's perspective, and that's the perspective I'm speaking from, we're assuming, let's say the 25 million dollars.

Let's pick a number, 20, whatever you want to say.

We're taking that away, the responsibility for that and putting it on to um our vision and our ability to activate and turn to the sources that some of the which Mike Paena has represented and turned to.

So um while we're also a public entity, we're not a private, we're not a business.

Um, we are assuming millions, tens of millions of dollars of obligation that is now gonna be off either the creative engineering of you as a city council or ultimately taxpayers.

One or the other, 25 million dollars according to all of our independent Jacobs research is gonna come do.

It's a real number.

And so from our standpoint, that's gonna require us to activate as we do academic activation on top of preserving these cherished community events, it's gonna require us to activate the levers that come into a more ownership model for a school.

When you turn to donors and sponsors and others that look to this as a place where future generations of Idahoans are gonna be fueling our police forces, our firefighting groups, our trades, et cetera, this is where they're trained for the Treasure Valley.

The Treasure Valley is powered by CWI, I would argue.

And so our ability to do that necessitates an ability to go to donors and others with conviction that this is a place they're investing in as a forever home.

So leasing as a fundamental lever, it sounds great.

I I I would like it to if I wasn't sitting in my seat.

But what I know is that when you go to donors and say, hey, I got a rented property, do you want to invest big money, millions of dollars?

It becomes far less compelling.

And ultimately it starts to erode our ability to deliver with conviction the idea of academic activation.

And so I I salute the idea, there is nothing wrong.

It's ultimately an exploration you as a city council will do, but I can tell you that from CWI's perspective, that is not a compelling or viable solution for us as that partner because it depends on us activating these levers.

And so we're already gonna take on the 25 million dollars.

Um consultation with experts like Mike Paina suggests that that's um on a top of any of the academic activation we're doing, that's a very robust investment that approximates or exceeds what we understand to be the market value in our own research.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mike.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you so much for being here tonight.

Whoops, yes.

I apologize, Mike, just one more time on the reiteration because I was trying to follow the numbers.

How does the eight percent factor into that and that return if we did do the three-acre investment of the land lease?

So again, these are just basic industry standards, but you you look at the amount of square footage that you would do it be doing in a little at the land lease.

You look at the value of the per per square foot of that.

$23.

Multiply that times the the amount of square feet.

Three million.

And then you get you you're looking about it, get an eight percent return off that N number.

So on your on your calculator, if we did a land.

On your calculator, you would do your the I have the number three times 43560 times 23 times 8 percent, and that would be your that would be the goal of industry standard of uh annually annually.

Annually, okay.

So the three million dollar number is not what the annual revenues are going to be from a land lease.

Now I think Councilman Haberfield, when he was assuming he ran this calculation smart house and councilman's have smart.

I think it's 210,000.

So I did it 23, so we're at 240,000.

If we wanted to go, and I I'm not doing this to spin you up or circles, sure.

I I'd very much am in a position where I'm taking in every opinion tonight to make a decision.

If the city wanted to do this themselves just from a land lease alone, they could generate potentially, let's say a round number of 200,000 from a land lease opportunity annually if we hit the 8% benchmark.

Uh correct.

In making the assumptions that go to have city services there and the same thing.

I'm not going to hold you to it.

I just I think we're in the ballpark, right?

We're in the ballpark of those numbers, correct?

In my opinion.

Thank you.

Yes, Councilman Reynolds?

Mike, I have a question.

Um, just in your opinion and what you've seen in uh commercial real estate that you've sold over the last couple years with an inflated market.

So Glenn Morgan said he doesn't agree tonight with the assessors valuation.

Um what I found in the research, there's three assessments on that property.

And uh they totaled 50 million 5021810 is what the assessor has.

And according to state statute, does plus or minus 10 percent.

And uh so what I'm what my question is is uh in how close are you seeing numbers in uh commercial valuations of things that you're selling to an assessed value in today's market.

So most of the clients that I deal with and commercial assets that we've sold, I I think this typically the assessed value is pretty close, maybe five, ten percent low in most cases.

There are exceptions.

I think the difficulty in valuating this property is the revenue that it generates.

Um there's an inherent value to the city by the by the concerts that come in, the horse park and the basketball tournaments.

I mean you talk you talk with uh I have client uh Tanakhor with Cor Ford and Dave Edmark with Ed Mark uh Toyota.

Like when we have a state wrestling tournament, their their car sales go up like 20-30 percent.

So there's a there's a value that the city recognizes from that, but from the from a private ownership prospect, I would be very surprised to see it would pay that number because they can't make money with the with that entertainment business model.

You know, I I I would value the land closer to 25 million dollars minus demo costs.

So does it because I don't I don't think any I don't think a private operator would run that the Idaho Center facility.

And it I and it would be millions of dollars to I I have no idea what it would cost to remove the that and some of the bad asphalt on it.

So that would be deducted from the cost of of the land for a developer.

And I hope that's not a serious consideration because I I think the Idaho Center is too valuable of an asset and it's you know these are hard decisions.

Um but we we we can't lose this asset for a community in my opinion.

And to follow up on that, uh, with that evaluation plus or minus 10 percent.

And then we add deed restrictions to it significantly, would it significantly reduce the value in your opinion?

In my opinion, it would.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, Mike.

Thank you, Mayor.

Appreciate it.

Okay, I think we have two more people, is that correct?

We have three more people.

Okay, and we need to be done in about 15 minutes.

So Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Tammy Edwards.

Thank you, Mayor City Council for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Tammy Edwards, I live at 211.

Sorry.

214 South Secretary at Way and Nampham.

And uh so it seems like the two options that we're considering right now is to give the property to CWI or do a levy increase.

So if we did a levy increase, how much are we talking about?

We'll have that number later this week, and as soon as we have the number and get it published, we will put it, we will get it out there to everybody.

Okay.

And then um is it sounds I asked the gentleman before, but I'll ask it in public, so that uh CWI would plan on maintaining the agreement with uh OVG as the management company.

And you would still be operating it as an entertainment venue?

Uh yes.

Okay.

And so then um the the amount in dispute is okay, 25 million in maintenance, and then like we should have the figures for 2024.

So I'm not still not clear on it.

So it did make some money, but we're saying with the city's subsidy, how much did the city have to subsidize Ford Idaho Center for let's just say example 2024?

Do you have that number right in front of you, Doug?

I think you've got your sheet in front of you.

So in 24, you have your network revenue revenue levels.

We had uh two subsidies in 2024.

We had capital of 368,000, and um, let's see, what was the other was I don't I've got to do some mental math here because I've got the the the um horse park renovation in here.

Uh we had total operational total operational and capital subsidies of 1.993 million dollars in 2024.

Uh of that um So when you when you compare that to the 1.4 million dollars operating profit and you take that out, they lost 555,000.

Okay.

Now keep in mind the horse park investment will provide returns over time, but it's uh cash flow from us to them in that year.

Okay, and so then if we were gonna pass a levy, we're we're talking about we'll just say based on 2024, we're passing a levy to subsidize about we'll just say 600,000.

Is it and I'm I guess what I'm asking is when you're calculating your levy, what amount of money are you looking to raise and the levy to subsidize the theater?

Tammy, those are really really good questions, and I'll tell you what, we will um we'll have the answer to that later this week um when we put it out.

And Doug's done some preliminary numbers candidly, their meeting with the State Tax Commission is Wednesday, and so we don't have those exact numbers today where we would be, but we will have those, but you're asking very good questions.

I will say that Meridian's levy was uh five million and it was twenty dollars per hundred thousand.

I think if we were in a uh we would not, I wouldn't anticipate a five million dollar levy, but keep in mind if there were if this is a big if.

And so needless to say, lots of discussions.

But if there were a levy override, it would have to not only offset any potential losses, but it would also have to be uh helping achieve the capital investment that needs to be made.

Okay, and when we're saying capital investment, are we talking the maintenance?

The deferred maintenance.

I'm sorry, I should use that term, the deferred maintenance.

So for example, if we said we would like to maybe uh do a levy override, let's say for two million dollars.

If there were a financial loss of 500,000, you'd still have a million and a half to be putting towards a deferred maintenance over a period of time, long term.

And that amount, maybe I can't remember two million was maybe $66 per average $450,000 household.

That's just rough, don't hold me to that, very rough.

We will have those numbers, probably would I be correct to say by Wednesday afternoon, maybe, Doug?

By Wednesday afternoon?

Depending upon what this responses are.

If I have to do recalculations, I may have to compare with Canyon County to make sure they're accurate.

But Wednesday to Thursday.

So Wednesday or Thursday, we'll have those numbers, and so we'll be able to speak to it then.

And again, we're not, I think your average citizen isn't uh understanding, you know, like the rush.

Like um, why couldn't we wait until next November and put it on the ballot?

I um asked those the CWI gentlemen if from their point of view, if there is any big um, you know, total rush that would um call off the deal to wait and see how you know the public would vote on the issue.

And they said, well, I I guess your answer was probably not, but you'd like to have it be a done deal.

You said you would do whatever the city council decided.

So if the city council decided to wait and put it on the ballot next November, does that mean the deal it does not mean the deal is off the table in your guys' opinion?

Or let me just I mean, I know you're attempting to sort of try to clarify.

I think at the end of the day from the school's point of view, um this our determination is that whoever owns this property needs to put their track shoes on, not their walking shoes.

There's a lot of work that needs to get done, and it's gonna happen fast for the the growth and the competitiveness of this environment.

And so as a partner who is fully respecting a city council and a process that they will determine, we will live by that.

But I will tell you that this is an environment where our concerns have to do with it's less about the enthusiasm of academic activation and the investment necessary in this arena.

It's about the competitive environment in the Treasure Valley, and every month that goes by another missed 30 days where I have heard and I've had meetings, we are with community members here on topics like the horse park, where I've had members there explain that they are participating or aware of activities in Caldwell, and I've had others talk about activities in Meridian, and the moment somebody breaks ground with investor dollars or whatever participation that goes on from folks, and there's now an open competition, um, we're all going to be staring at an additional variable that has to be considered.

So it's a long-winded way of just saying at the end of the day, this is a process that this city council controls, and we're in dialogue with them, but we're very eager to see resolution one way or the other.

We're respectful of the process.

But I would just say at the end of the day, um yesterday was the best day for resolution, and tomorrow is the second best, and I'll let us determine what November is.

Uh ultimately the City Council will decide that.

And I will say that if we went to vote, let's say this November, the actual impact, the budget, it wouldn't hit our budget until FY27.

So that's quite a ways out.

So we've got to figure the funding model that's going to come from reserves.

It we're going to have to figure it out because it the it it's a long runway when you make a decision to do a levy override when the actual funds would come in would be the next fiscal year.

And then it sounds to me like CWI's pot of money to finance this would be the donors to the foundation.

Is that correct?

That the main brunt of the costs as far as CWI is concerned, how you would cover the maintenance costs and any operating deficits would be from drawing from the foundation funds?

No.

No, we're not drawing from the foundation funds.

We have foundation funds that people have donated.

Often those are focused on scholarships and other things, and those are restricted, and those will always be used for the purposes people have donated to.

That's our stewardship to those folks.

What you have heard me talk about is that the I've called out what vehicles, what levers, what means CWI has that are distinctive and separate from a city in terms of capabilities or believability, if not actual differences.

There are things that we both share.

If there were land lease opportunities, you had a city council member discuss how those could be opportunities.

There's you know a number of things.

I don't have a list in front of me, but there are things we share in common.

What I've called out with donors, corporate partners, sponsorships, or foundation efforts, are things that are typically unique, and schools tend to be more skilled and more historically productive at than cities at fundraising.

You have the University of Idaho uh promoting that $500 million has just been, they finished a campaign.

Boise State is in hundreds of millions of dollars of fundraising.

People get excited about investing in the future and facilities and people and the promise of our youth is something that a lot of people, many maybe some of you in this room get excited about contributing individually.

So that's the lever that I'm calling out that is distinctive for us.

But we also share some other levers in common.

And then if, say um the facility was looning losing money, we had a COVID year or something, there's nothing in the contract that prevents CWI from just selling the property, correct?

That's actually not true.

In the contract is language that says in the event CWI somehow is unable to or um to productively use this, or somehow it goes bad, you use an example there of a COVID-like event.

If we couldn't do that, and million dollars that's due on this thing in one way, shape, or form, it's gonna be it's gonna be due.

So it's a interesting terms the city has asked for that allows us to take it as is with the obligation, but we're obligated to return it in good working order.

But it is only one solution.

We are not we are prevented and is not an eligible thing to sell it.

Can you sell off any portion of the property?

No.

No.

So we are gonna be at time.

But do you did you have an hopefully you got your questions answered?

You had really good questions.

Good for you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Yes.

Short comment.

So uh the issue has been about secrecy and why we would don't start out with talking to the public right out of the gate.

Uh so what was presented to mayor and counsel via staff over a year ago was the whole aspect of the Ford Ido Center and the amphitheater improvements that were needed that were going to need to be put in to compete with competing interests in the valley.

And when you have an oversaturation of facility, you have an undercutting and losses at possibly at the facilities.

So uh, however, you don't negotiate those aspects in the marketplace because you are competing.

And so the whole idea of some of the conversations being held in executive session and to be uh exploratory in a vast number of things was in an effort to try to find a short resolution to give OVG the ability to negotiate and to stay strong on behalf of the City of Nampa.

Unfortunately, it's taken a year to get the answers that we had hoped to get in three to four months and then be able to get to the public.

As such, we have competition in the marketplace moving forward, and it affects how things will go, irrespective of whether it stays with CWI, or I mean stays with the City of NAMPA or was to be transferred to CWI.

And it's it's just really important for the public to understand that there's been no means to hide or to keep.

Now we want to get the public input.

And so the communication got out to the public and not in a succinct way.

And so there's no hidden agendas that have been, it's been succinctly to find a solution for the NAPA taxpayer for what could work well for the operators at the Idaho Center and how to keep that going forward.

And so and then CWI has means to raise funds far different than a city can.

So I'm I'm just trying to get close here to wrapping up the meeting with comments that we try to end on a uh we're still a viable community.

Sometimes we're going to agree to disagree, and we have you know ideas, and and we try to get there.

It's just uh it's important for NAMPA community to continue to wrestle with it, but at the same time to not demagogue, whether it's council members or community members who are uh trying to actively find good solutions for the taxpayer and for our community.

Excuse me, Mayor.

Are we in the comments period or we still have questions?

Thank you.

We're not, thank you.

Okay, we have two more speakers left.

And go ahead.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Ray Boozmann.

You've waited there so patiently, and thank you for saying your name and address again.

You put up with so much stuff, it's amazing.

Uh my name is Ray Booz.

I live at 2017 South Secretariat here in NAMPA, um relative newbie here four years, and uh I've been uh to the Idaho Center here for rodeos, uh gun shows, things like that, and um I was really s uh I didn't make it here till seven o'clock, so I apologize if I missed some presentation uh from you folks here uh having to do with your involvement.

I was at one of the earlier meetings where uh you and the president of the college presented this whole uh deal here.

The first thing that came to my mind and was touched on just recently now uh is why does somebody want to take on the burden of a losing uh proposition uh financially?

Uh a learning institution take on uh this venue as a huge uh looks like just a loss, and you say you have better fundraising abilities than the city does.

I'm not disputing that, but I just wonder uh if you go to um the people that uh donate to the college with something uh I I need money for something that's a loser.

Uh it just struck me as odd.

Um, and there's when it comes to the financial and the legal aspects of all this, all the minutiae here I I know nothing about, and I I probably don't want to you guys put up with all that and uh congratulations for that.

Uh as a citizen of NAMP and a homeowner, I look at uh the possibility if the city keeps it, and I was real pleased to hear you say that there's no deadline on the decision of this.

That was a real relief to me because I thought things were really coming to a close uh regarding a decision.

And again, as a homeowner and resident here, uh I want wouldn't want to necessarily see property taxes go up specifically for this, but possibly look at other ways uh to get money.

There was a mention of um uh is it hotel taxes?

Is it is that a surcharge that would go uh to the city for anything?

No.

It cannot.

Is there something like that that can be done, say within a 50 mile radius, every hotel room to two dollars?

Yeah, we can't do it.

We're not allowed to do it, correct?

It can't be done.

Okay.

And I'm gonna tread on something here that's probably taboo, and that's a sales tax, maybe a quarter percent with a deadline, a sunset of a year or something, see if that can generate some funds.

And we're not allowed to do we don't have any of those tools in Idaho.

We don't we're not allowed to do that.

Okay.

Well, I'm hoping is that just if if the city does decide to keep this, and to me, I would like to see that happen, basically.

Uh I would like to see this be our Fenway park 50 years down the road, we're going, yeah, we got the oldest place around.

And if it's structurally sound, give it a facelift, do what it needs to be done.

Uh see what other kinds of fundraising, and I'm sure you've all looked into this, but other ways that money can be generated without being specifically on taxpayers, because whatever you come up with with uh as property owners will be paying the same thing too.

It's just not all on us.

I'll let you guys go now.

So thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for sharing.

President Jones, do you want to answer the question why you would be willing to take on this project?

Well, I think um first of all, I'll try to give it a short answer.

There's plenty of additional information, but I know we're late in the night.

I would just say that as a school, we have talked a lot about the ability to activate the property and unlock planning as we're establishing this campus.

We have uh brand new buildings.

We're opening a new health science center on our NAMPA campus, a beautiful facility.

If you have an opportunity to drop by and see that, we have a new 40-acre agriculture uh teaching spot, Simplot Corporation is backed, that's going to be enabling our students to get jobs in our critically important ag industry here and the new student success building.

We see this as a very timely moment for the school because we have over 31,000 students we served last year alone.

I didn't mention this earlier, but just last year alone, over 6,000 of our students have a NAMPA address.

And we've served over 40,000 students over our 15, 16-year lifespan of individuals who have a NAMPA address.

So certainly the the uh the individuals in NAMPA who are interested in education, many of them are turning to CWI.

But we're able to, and we're known for moving fast within an education world.

So I don't know where that puts us relative to city government or other public entities, but I think we're relatively fast.

We've put up startup majors, we have a new mining technician degree, supporting our mining industry.

We have a lot of mines that are coming online in Idaho.

And so the short answer or the medium answer to what could be a lot longer is we believe academically activating this property, designing with the 200 acres in mind as opposed to the 100, and I'm using round numbers, is um an opportunity to really invite people into a future campus that's gonna look more like 50,000 students than uh something smaller than 31.

And that's ultimately what I'm a steward of is trying to plan for that.

And our view is that we can do that, and that we can, and part of the secret is not just the levers I called out, but it's the speed with which we operate.

And I'm not here to be scoring, but I am commenting that I think we can move potentially faster than uh municipalities are able to.

And that may be the need for the day as we think about the growth and the transformation here in Southwest Idaho and the need to keep this location, this property um competitive and the preferred jewel of the community.

So that's how we would that's why we would tackle what you call, and I assume if if you are uh characterizing that accurately, I would think that might be something if if you find my answer uh believable enough, you would find that to be a very exciting thing because if it is a money loser, it's coming off the taxpayer obligations.

If if you find my answer uh believable enough, you would find that to be a very exciting thing because if it is a money loser, it's coming off the taxpayer obligations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I think we have one last uh person to speak.

Madam Mayor, our last speaker of the night is Steve Almer.

Steve, I don't know how you got that lucky number that you are last.

But thank you for being here and thank you for waiting so long to come forward.

Thank you.

Uh it's great to see ourselves doing a great job in doing what you all are doing.

Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council, and all of you that are still here.

Um I wanted to quote one thing about Paul Miller.

Please state your name and answer.

Oh, sorry.

Steve Almer, 13663, Santa Rita Drive, Nampa.

I better go go home there because that's where my wife is.

Okay.

Quote Paul Newman.

I think what we've had here is a lack of communication from what I've heard here tonight.

And it sounds like you're all working on getting that worked.

So, how did we get here?

That's a good question that I always ask.

I'm a retired contractor.

I've done a lot of of municipality work, a lot of done heavy industrial work, and I've done some uh hazardous materials.

And um the devil's in the details.

And for y'all to look at uh the 25 million that's been kicked around here, I think you need to look at that with a better fine-toothed pencil.

I think that uh the way we should look at uh the things that are coming in from this specific area.

I've got a little accounting behind me, being a contractor, got to know what fund and what fund not to do, but to have that literally understood of what's the Idaho Center is costing you.

And I'm not talking about the capital funds that you're going in that should be 20 year or 25 year amortization, you're actually looking at a cash flow instead of your accrual fund.

That's kind of mixed up and confusing.

Well, you need to do get your phone to stay on.

Um stay on course.

So you need to look at those things.

Um for someone to say uh I'll pick on one thing that came out tonight was to say that there's going to be a six and a half foot underlayment that needs to be taken place and taken out and then replaced.

Well, first of all, you recycle your your road base.

That brings down a price immensely, and you you look at uh a parking lot is not 20 or 6.5 foot needing underlayment road base.

You need about maybe maybe 10 inch, but eight inch, you're not having your semis go across this thing.

And if you do, you you only do those parameters that's going to take the heavier artillery.

But where you're parking vehicles, my goodness, six inches is plenty good on two and a half road.

So uh the one question I heard tonight that you need to look at your your clauses.

I'm not I'm not privy of them.

Uh, nor do I care to, I'm retired.

Uh but the thing that you need to look at is I heard recently that CWI said that they was going to take it, and if they don't keep it up, they bring it back and they'll give it in good condition.

Does that mean that 25 million that you all are expecting them to do out there is going to be part of what you're doing?

Or is it something that you're not going to do and you're going to wait for five years?

And then three years they're upside down and they don't want it anymore.

I would make sure I have that down clear, crystal clear of what they were going to do.

Um, phone.

Sorry.

Oh, I've got 30 seconds.

So you'd look at that.

Your management firm you said has kind of got it almost close to black.

Well, that's pretty good compared to some of the people I've heard that you you when you take on an endeavor like this, you're looking at having a loss.

Uh I'd encourage you to know what your accounting ability is and finding out what that break-even point is.

Is that your goal?

I think that the last three months, last three months, last three or four years, you've put an emphasis on slowing down the loss at the Idaho Ford Center, and it's working and improving.

So, whatever that is, you're all doing a great job.

Um seconds late.

Um I I've heard also that CDI CWI was looking at what you're going to do for the youth.

Well, if you've ever been out to that equestrian center, you've got one of the best world class in or in my opinion that come to NAMPA for those equestrian events, and that's helping youth.

You're doing one of the best jobs.

I don't know that they could even come come close to what that is already doing.

Um you already know you'll lose control.

And and and that uh I think the question was asked previously whether they were going to keep the same management company which you guys have have invested a lot in.

Is that going to be still what you guys use, or are you going to use it on your own?

I like an answer to that one.

So my answer is twofold.

Yes, we would be uh looking to retain OVG.

Comment I made earlier today in a different meeting, though, is that OVG is a for-profit leader in venue management.

Um we have my number one thought is um ultimately is we need to make sure OVG sticks around.

OVG is a bottom line driven, profit-driven company.

They run 400 arenas around the North America.

I'll bring it short.

Are you looking at keeping them on?

That would answer the question of keeping it around.

Well, I'm trying to answer your question with the context.

So I can give you things out of context.

But fundamentally, um G is who we would prefer to be leading this.

We would look to do that, but ultimately OVG is going to get tugged wherever the market pulls them.

So they all they also have voice in this.

Okay.

Thanks for that answer.

If they are committed to a lease that you have with them, they can't go somewhere else.

I'll leave that.

Um I assume that I've heard that you will honor all the commitments that are there now.

Uh I didn't hear anything about what in the future you'll be doing.

Uh Snake River Stampede.

I heard a guy say, I thought he said billion, but he must maybe sent a million, that he had invested into your Idaho Ford Center.

And uh is that somewhere on your books that shows that that information was done to divest some of the expenditures that's been said.

So that would be part of the maintenance that you all have been deferred maintenance to call it correctly, what you are calling.

And that is not included in that.

That is those are funds that the Snake River Stampede put into the facility.

Also, the Horse Park Foundation has put a lot of money into the facility.

That's not included in any of the numbers that the city has put in.

So the 20 million that the over that the city has put in, in addition to that, you've got 8 million from the Snake River Stampede, and I don't know how many million from the horse park.

7 million from the horse park.

So I have a question.

Is that in your notes of your physical count of your cash flow, your your records?

Do you show that those notes are there so you can go back and see what it actual costs of this asset you are talking about?

Well, go ahead.

Those investments are not run through, funded by, tracked, or measured by the city as part of our financial statement process and the audited statements.

They are notified when they do that, and we can probably dig up records, but I don't reflect them unless it's something of a material nature that the auditors would want to see.

And when you're talking investment over time, it doesn't raise the level of materiality in any one year.

But they are critical, but we don't track them as we don't spend them, nor do we direct their investment.

It would seem personally thinking from the accounting side of me, saying those should be in your notes so that in the last 10, 15 years, a person could go back and say this is the actual number that the Idaho Ford Center costs.

That, you know, there should be a three to five dollar, whatever number that you you come up with, the finance team comes up and says, we're short dismount, we can get it closer if we put on a surcharge, and then it doesn't look like you're bringing a ticket sales, but you got the facility fee that it will cost you.

I think that would be very helpful, and I'm sorry I went over time.

You have really good suggestions.

Thank you for waiting, staying late and sharing your ideas.

Okay.

It's appreciated.

Thank you.

Hey, there you go.

You did it.

Yes.

Thank you so much.

Okay, so Mr.

Steve Almer, I think it's how you say your last name was our last person signed up tonight.

Um our goal was to be done at 10.

Um the one thing that I committed to City Council was that they would each have an opportunity to provide a three-minute closing remark and also President Jones.

That because he's not said much tonight.

And would you prefer to go first?

Or do I put you?

I would love for you to go first because you've been pretty quiet this evening, and then we are going to uh give the council members that would like to provide a a three-minute closing comment, the opportunity to provide a closing comment.

So thank you, President Jones.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh these are uh just off the cuff remarks, these are not pre-prepared, but um and they're not intending to be summary oriented or attempting to capture what I know is a lot of feedback to you, the City Council.

I would just say from College of Western Idaho, um, I think we're a very focused, we're very proud of a very young history.

We're the largest community college in the state.

Ninety-eight percent of our students are from Idaho, 82 percent are from Canyon and Ada County.

And you've heard me earlier mention the number of residents uh from NAMPA over our history and this past year.

We've had 10 consecutive semesters of growth.

We're pride ourselves on being a fraction of the cost.

We are a commuter school that is excited to um be best in class at being a community college, and that means low cost, high return education.

No degree other than our RN nursing degree costs more than 10,000 dollars, and I'm not including our governor's launch program, which is a subsidy for student high school graduates that knocks it down even more.

But other than nursing, no degree costs more than 10,000 dollars, and almost everything we do pays 50 to 100,000 dollars in the marketplace.

That is what I call public education, public higher education that works, and I'm proud of it.

Um I believe many of you in this room, I'm a very glasses half-full person on this topic.

Um I know there have been some explicit remarks about pride and voting no for the creation of CWI earlier tonight, but I'd like to believe this is a room that does support and believe that we are powering the Treasure Valley for your uh either community members if not family members.

Um we would want we view ourselves as a steward in this in this uh endeavor.

In the event it were to come to CWI, I know I would be bringing my full um uh efforts, and I believe our board and our foundation and um all parts of us would step into this with um energy and vigor and try to bring the most uh uh benefit to possible to this community in addition to preserving the things that you have come to know and love.

Um at the same time, we fully recognize this is a decision you, the city are working with, and it's a process.

This is part of that process.

We honor whatever happens.

We always intend to be based home-based here in NAMPA and serving whether it's a hundred-acre campus or a 200-acre campus.

So I uh would echo things, again, different opinions in the room, but at the end of the day, we will uh bring our full effort and skill to bear in the event we do end up a steward of this property, and at the same time we fully respect um in the event the city chooses to keep it or sell it.

I know there's different opinions in this room.

So thank you for allowing us to participate as a subject matter expert and potential partner in this.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

I think we'll just go down the row this way, Sebastian.

I'm sorry, it makes you go first.

I could have had you go last.

You guys could have arm-wrestled.

I usually go last, most nights anyways, and I wrote my notes.

So uh listening tonight, I think one one thing that I specifically want to reiterate and make very, very, very clear is that no decision has been made, at least from my perspective of any of us, but absolutely not from this seat.

This tonight was a very important process for me uh to be able to sit here for the ports that I was sitting here and the other parts that I was online.

And this is a listening session, and I'm real glad that we're not making any decisions tonight because I think there's a lot that we can take away and really ponder and think about moving forward.

Uh my perspective and the lens that I view this whole process through is what is ultimately going to benefit NAMPA, their taxpayers and the citizens that live here most.

The city owning the facility or CWI.

And in my mind, there's never been a third option to that.

This selling of the facility has never been something that I would consider.

Um I think either of us should be maintaining and hosting the facility, no one else, because it is a NAMPA facility that represents our values in our community.

So then I go into the lens of what is this facility look like in 5, 10, 15, 20 years.

I hope I'm around for 50 years.

Likely I'll be the only one that's going to be around in 50 years to see what happens.

But I really do think about that because I've got two little ones that are going to be growing up in NAMPA and going through these programs.

I was a graduate of CWI.

I'm very proud to say that.

I left school with zero debt and the ability to be able to provide for my family leaving there.

The programs and the opportunities that I'd hope they could provide if owning the facility, I think ultimately would benefit the community.

However, will this be a growing pain?

Because nobody likes change.

I think there are a couple of us that are on a toss-up, but I think I'm probably the staunchest that does not like change and does not want to see growth happen in NAMPA.

I frequently voted no on that.

So is this going to be a growing pain and ultimately a betterment for our community?

Or is it going to be a lifelong disability that if we give it over, we're going to lose all the benefits of what we currently have.

And I don't have a crystal ball, and I think everybody can shout no, or they can shout yes.

But that's something that I toss and turn and think about.

What I do think about every day that I've been on council is the financial state of the city.

I was one of the few that voted no on our budget.

Why?

Because I felt that we were doing a disservice by raising taxes.

But do you know what wasn't included in our budget?

Money to the Ford Idaho Center.

We can barely afford to hire our cops.

And I am of the opinion that I wanted the cap the hiring of our cops to not see an increase on taxpayers.

And everybody can have a different opinion of that.

That is what the role of government is.

That's something that we can raise our taxes for because it's good and important.

I had a different opinion on that.

So there's so many levers that we talk about these levers.

There's a lot of levers that this is one meeting that y'all had to sit through till 10, 11 o'clock at night.

We do this every other week.

And there's a lot of discussions that we have, and budget settings, one of them.

And I brought up in budget setting, if the city retains this facility, how are we going to pay for a current need, our boiler room or the roof?

Because we're not even paying for cops.

My comments are very heavily sounding like it's leaning in the CWI camp, and I understand that.

And we need to weigh that as well.

So those are my thoughts.

I think no matter what, at the end of the day, we're all going to wake up tomorrow, or at least I hope I do.

The Fort Idaho Center is going to be there.

The rodeo is going to continue.

The horse park will be protected.

We're going to have soccer fields for little kids, whether CWI owns it or whether NAMPA owns it.

So we can put away the pitchforks, at least in the sense that we're going to have a rodeo, because I think all of us are here to protect that, whether it goes here, there, or up in the air.

Who knows where we're going to go?

That's it.

Thank you.

Um and thank you all for showing up tonight.

This was great.

Um I have nothing against CWI at all.

In fact, I have two employees that have had taken classes from CWI.

Uh, and uh they come in uh ready and uh ready to start their job.

So that's a good statement.

I believe in vocational technical education always have because it gets those students right into the workforce.

That's important.

My question is um, or what's being posed before us is uh can we convey the property?

Sure.

Should we convey the property?

That's the big decision.

Um that we have a low bar, limited risk.

Um offense, Preston, but uh having the uh former lieutenant governor uh sitting here and passed the Idaho attorney general, he has caused me to have pause in the process uh and looking at what he proposed to us.

Uh the main point that he pointed out was the courts will enforce requirements of uh that Idaho code section and examine actions and ordinances declaring municipal property underutilized.

I have not been given enough information yet to feel that I can say it's being underutilized as a facility.

I just don't see that.

I don't understand the metrics behind that type of a decision.

So that's where I I still have pause, and I appreciate having more clarity being provided to us.

Uh we've talked about public-private partnerships.