Thank you.

Good evening.

Thank you all for being here this evening.

Thank you for joining us for our Nampus City Council meeting.

We do have a tradition here, and that is that we open in prayer.

And I am so thankful to have Pastor Keith Wagner here from Grace Bible Church.

Thank you for joining us and thank you for opening us in prayer.

So let's stand.

And the pledge when we're done.

Father, I thank you for the opportunity to be at this special special meeting that happens here for the good of our city.

And God, I'm so thankful for Mayor Kling.

I'm thankful for each city council person, people who have given themselves to make a difference in what I believe is the greatest city in America.

So I just pray for your peace, for your direction, for your clarity in this meeting tonight.

There are gonna be decisions made tonight that that make a difference for our city, and I just pray for your will to be done as it has been over these decades.

So God, for what you're gonna do in this time tonight, we thank you, and God, we look forward to what you're gonna continue to do to make NAMPA the great city that it is.

We love you.

We ask for your blessing on each of our council members, our city officials, and we pray this in Jesus' strong name.

Amen.

You join me in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Pastor Keith, thank you so much.

I want to say Pastor Keith also is on our Healthy Impact NAMPA leading our families, uh Healthy Families Initiative.

Thank you for that.

Thank you for your service.

Okay, roll call.

Rodriguez.

Here.

Are there any proposed amendments to the agenda that anyone is requesting or that you're aware of I'm not aware of any?

And so I would stand for a motion to approve the agenda as presented.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Okay.

And then I would uh ask for a motion to approve the consent agenda as provided.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none.

Roll call all in favor.

Excuse me.

Any opposed.

Okay.

And um Jeff Barnes, let's start with you.

Good evening, Jeff.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

So we have an exciting presentation tonight.

Um so we want to congratulate Lindsay Dunbar.

So she works for our water and irrigation department.

She um started here and oversaw administration department, pretty much did a little bit of everything.

She was promoted and took over part of our utilities.

Um she was promoted to business manager along the way.

Um she ran all the finances and now she we just kept adding things and she kept um being successful at what she did.

So John Spencer is our um engineering manager down there, and I know that um Lindsay's just like a right-hand person down there and and knows about all that.

So we wanted to honor her tonight.

Um we have the Idaho Rural Water Association apprenticeship apprenticeship program.

She just completed this.

You're gonna hear a little bit more about that.

So I'd like to um I'd like to recognize so Idaho Rural Water Association folks are right here in the blue shirts, and Shelley is the CEO of that, I believe.

So they're here, and they're um gonna come up.

It actually is Jake Slater of the apprenticeship specialist gonna come up and um give the uh accommodations to uh Lindsay.

So I invite you up there.

Good evening.

I'm Jake Slater, the apprenticeship specialist for Idaho Rural Water Association, and I have the honor to present the class two uh apprenticeship certificate to Lindsay Dunbar for completing the drinking water course.

Um she could come on up here along with her mentor, Ira Lindsay completed 288 hours of online technical classroom learning as well as 4,000 hours of on-the-job training, all while having a full-time job as the assistant superintendent.

So, Lindsay, thank you so much.

Um I have a challenge here coin for you here, and a couple of hats for both of y'all.

So Lindsay has also completed the utility management course.

It is a very intensive course, and we also have that for you as well.

Um Carrie Gilstrap's gonna be taking some photos of us, and I was hoping that we would be able to get a picture of all of us with y'all up here, if that's all right.

So cool.

Yes, everybody up.

Come on, John.

And let's center a little bit so we're gonna go this way.

There we go.

You don't want to go ahead.

I just want to say I'm proud of you.

If you want to say something, go for it.

Um, I can say uh thank you.

Thank you for everybody that supported me while I was doing this.

It was quite the during two years.

It was a lot of work, but I definitely had amazing mentors and a lot of help from John and Jeff and Ira throughout this.

It was it was a pretty awesome experience, and I would recommend anybody do it if they can.

Yeah, good for you.

That's a lot of work.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Rodney.

Thank you, Jeff.

Very special.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Uh Rodney Ashby Planning and Zoning Director for the record.

Um, we had three items that I need to report back on.

Is the first one is just a one-year extension for the final plaque for a stair.

This is a commercial development.

Um this is at uh off of Midland Boulevard near the northwest corner of Cherry and Midland, and that was approved for another uh for a one-year extension.

The next one was a conditional use permit uh for an enclosed non-enclosed storage for nursery and outdoor items uh near the southeast corner of Sunny Lane and North Elijah Drive, and that was approved by planning and zoning commission.

And then the last one was a replat, a preliminary replat of sub of the Magnolia Estates subdivision, and um essentially that was uh adjusting the number of lots slightly um and they um they included a parcel that wasn't included before, so they expanded their parcel and added a few lots.

So it wasn't significantly different than the first one.

And that one was approved by the planning and zoning commission.

That's all I have.

Council, do you have any questions for Rodney?

Thank you, Rodney.

Appreciate it.

Okay.

Well, that concludes our staff communications.

We have one new business item tonight, and that new business item is an action item, which is to consider a levy override options or levy override options to address city deferred maintenance and budget shortfalls at the Fort Idaho Center or other needs as identified.

Um I did in visiting with our legal counsel Preston, he mentioned that he does have just a quick overview.

Um go ahead.

Mayor, I'd be happy to address this.

So for council's benefit, if you want, I do have a basic slide deck, kind of going over the fundamentals, kind of core building blocks for levy overrides, kind of get you into that discussion mode.

And this would be a little more of a bullet point breakdown from the memo that's in your packet that you've had a chance to review.

If you would like that, um, I'd be happy to present it.

Otherwise, you can proceed according with you and mayor.

But that is an option I could present uh a basic slide deck, and it would be visible here for the public.

Thank you.

I wanted to just defer to the council.

Would you like to take time, take five minutes and provide that?

Yes.

I've got a yes from Natalie.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Let me get the sharing here.

I did coordinate in advance with IT, so on the same page here.

All right, it looks like it's up.

Again, these are basic building blocks, if you will.

Um, not a deep dive into the weeds, but can set the tone for this new business item.

A quick overview of what we'll cover here in a few minutes for council and the public.

Um, we'll go over the uh publishing, uh the discussion that will happen tonight, what determinations you'll be making, and the vote you'll be making, and the next steps following a vote tonight.

So, as a starting point for your discussion on this item, I think a good starting point is what are the specific budget needs.

You first start with the levy override identifying what those might be.

The reason being code, Idaho code requires you to specify the purpose.

So it can't just be an open-ended thing, it has to be for a specific purpose.

So identifying first what those specific budget needs are, and then narrowing it down to the scope and purpose of the levy is vital because that will be binding and controlling depending on what the outcome of tonight's vote is.

And the exact dollar amount, and I've met with our CFO on this many times leading up to this, and the number, the dollar amount you want to have is a starting point, and then you can back into a levy rate from there, and you will have a decision and determination whether it'll be temporary or a permanent ballot measure for a levy override, temporary being two years, and more on the permanent nature in a minute.

A few considerations uh as you dive into this discussion.

Think of the levy rate as a byproduct, and I will not pretend to be a CFO on TV.

I'll defer to Doug on this point.

Um, but think of it oftentimes a levy rate is looked at as the starting point, that is a byproduct.

Um, and Doug, I'll let you, if needs be, go into the details on how that's calculated.

For your understanding tonight, it's important to know that there's kind of three tiers here and voting thresholds, and it depends on where the levy rate or that byproduct lands.

If it lands, depending on how much money you need for city budget shortfalls, the output is equal to or greater than 0.004.

You will be into the supermajority voter threshold if this were to proceed.

Now, Idaho Code provides a lower threshold of 60 percent, and that is if you are less than 0.004 levy rate.

Now, these are permanent, and something that we learned in investigating this further, if there's a levy rate set, that is off authority for you to collect that amount.

It's not a mandate that you have to collect up to that number year after year, and that's why the scope of what you put into a levy is important.

And therefore the levy authority may be here.

I'm putting my hands up for those that are listening online.

Um, but maybe only collect halfway up.

And there also is a lower voting threshold, as you see here, of a simple majority, 50% plus one vote, and that is for a two-year levy override.

Overarching all this, there is a statutory cap of 0.009.

Prior to the property value boom, we've seen in the last few five years or so.

Um some cities and counties were hitting up on that level.

But now that property values have gone up, the levy has sunk.

And that's why a lot of us uh cities are in this situation where we can even talk about a levy override.

So just some procedural elements to consider.

Um you're gonna have a vote whether to move forward with the levy ballot measure, what type permanent temporary, that's up for you.

What amount that again is up to you?

What scope that is up to you?

After that, um legal and city clerk's office will work together in drafting those resolutions, and um we will confirm that the calculations are correct.

Working with the state tax commission, and we're there's mandatory requirements we'll make sure are in place.

And the advanced steps to this, so to speak, there'll be two resolutions which we'll work on preparing depending on the outcome of tonight, and there are a lot of required disclosures that have to be met to a T.

And we have a deadline of August 29th at 5 o'clock, which is in your packets that you're aware of, and tonight's uh discussion topic.

So, right here, this is the final slide.

Um, so I don't want to bore everybody to death, but this these are the steps um that you would follow tonight uh as one option, I think, as you march through this methodically, uh starting with what the budget areas would be, figuring out what that dollar amount is, and then whether it'd be a temporary permanent nature to meet those needs, and then we would want to make sure we back in that we're not butting up against a statutory threshold that we're exceeding, and depending on the outcome, if it proceeds, we'll be ready to draft resolutions and move forward.

So, with that, I'd stand for any questions and a little bit more discussion.

Um, but Mary, I'll turn it to you.

If we did move forward, I would anticipate a second meeting to approve the resolutions.

Would that be correct?

Mayor, yes, that is correct.

Okay, and we uh we have talked that we have a special meeting uh time slot later this week, we could do that at.

But yes, it would require a second meeting with the final polished product of those resolutions put before you to review and approve.

Or if we're not ready by Thursday, I mean this is a big F.

I just want to understand the dates.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

So I would like to hear from the council.

I will say that in the packet online before we go in the packet online, there is an executive summary, and there's also a uh a document that shows what those values would be if there were a levy override.

Doug, would you like to take just a minute and talk through what you put on this one sheet that shows that if, for example, if we had a million dollar levy override, I mean I can read it off the paper if you would like, or okay, thank you.

I have it up if I can get uh I it's on one screen get it on the others.

And no, it's off that one.

Okay, well, we're on most of the screens.

So let me bump this up a little bit.

Thank you.

And you to the extent, yeah, thank you so much for making it bigger.

Appreciate that.

One more one more show.

There we go.

Okay.

So the way the mechanics works is if we were to select a 1 million dollar override, we can calculate that per 100,000 of taxable home value.

That would be five dollars and 99 cents.

If you have taxable value of 450,000, so that's after you take off the exemption or the uh the um the deduction, uh, that would be 2696 per year if if that were improved at one million dollars.

And so essentially it's five dollars and ninety-nine cents per million dollars of borrowing for each hundred thousand dollars.

So if I go up to two million dollars, the cost is 1198, which is 599 twice, and then 5361.

We can go down to that and say if it were 10 million dollars, and these are just calculations, it would be 59 or per year for our 450,000 house, 269 dollars and 55 cents.

So that's just straight half all the way down.

Uh I I generated this and then reviewed it with Kenny King to make sure the calculations were correct, and these are uh directionally correct.

They might change a small amount depending on the levy rates, but that's what you would end up with Mayor.

Anything along those scales is an option to choose from.

Thank you.

Oh, no, I can say that just according to um uh the comment from legal about the maximum out to point zero zero four to get to point zero zero four.

I don't think we would, but that's about twenty-eight million dollars.

So thank you.

So um Councilman Bills, I think you have a comment or question, and I realize I may need to back up and say, because we didn't really talk about the why we're talking about this, but go ahead and go forward.

So I need to clarify is a one-year levy, is uh set by council how many years or how the parameters of the well if you do a two-year levy, it requires a 50 percent vote plus one.

If you do a permanent levy, it requires which would be the value that we would be in, that would be a 60 percent vote threshold, and that would be a permanent levy.

Now I think what I heard you say was we could say we're only gonna put that levy on for 10 years, or is that correct?

Mayor, yes.

You could put on a permanent levy and it could be in that lower threshold.

And if the purpose of that levy is satisfied, but uh then effectively that levy collection expires.

There's no need to collect it anymore.

That you requires that whatever scope you put on this levy, whatever purposes, if they're ongoing year after year, you would continue to collect as needed.

Um our CFO Doug Racine would send over an L2 every year with the amount we're seeking to collect.

If the item or the scope is no longer needed, then it effectively falls off and expires.

So in theory, it could be kind of it could be a 10-year horizon, perhaps, and not for in perpetuity.

It just depends on what the scope is and if those needs continue year after year.

And again, it's it's a it's an authority to collect it, not a mandate, and that would be a year-to-year determination in the budget process.

And then the costs, because we did a bond uh last year request, and that was turned down.

So the cost to run a levy.

Do we have any idea what that cost is?

Well, we did reach out, um, I think I don't see Amy at the moment, but we did reach out to Meridian to get a fuel because they're doing a levy override to see what they were doing.

And Amy, do you want to answer?

I don't think they shared a dollar amount that they were doing.

Um if you'd like I'm sorry, I'm put totally putting you on the spot.

Yeah, thank you.

Um from my recollection, so I'm sorry I didn't prepare.

Um, they were not doing a mailer, they were including an insert in their utility bill, um, but not doing a direct mailer.

They have a website um and then some earned media from different news sources.

So the answer to that question is if we were to do it, it would be depend on the council and the level of outreach that you want us to do.

To do a single mailing, do you remember off the top of your head what that is?

It's expensive.

It's it's ten thousand, I believe, just for the postage, and that's edible great.

And then we're talking about you know, printing the postcards.

Thank you.

Mayor Clay?

Yes.

Yeah, I have a question.

So either Doug or something.

Is this levy?

Is it only for residential and not for business?

Or does it include business?

This mayor, if I might.

This rate applies uh equally to both residential and commercial, the same valuation.

So for $100,000 value of valuation of commercial property, the same rate as residential.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions, comments, Mayor.

Amy, is the NAMPA school district uh are they on their cycle for a levy this fall as well?

I am not familiar with their yeah, I'm not sure.

I will say that I did receive um a message from a trustee that said they were thinking of running a levy in November, and I think I'm trying to think who else had received communication.

Clay, would you like to speak to that?

Sir, yes, the school district's planning on running.

Perfect.

Uh the school district is planning on running a levy in November.

And have I think they have reached out asking if we would consider not.

Um I didn't have that conversation.

It was just more of a question.

They do have a meeting tonight.

Um so I think more information will be coming.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes.

Jeff Kirkman did reach out to me and did request that, and he did confirm that they are trying to put it on and that their meeting is tonight.

Thank you.

So in answer to your question.

Thank you.

So this is a difficult one because actually no one wants to raise taxes.

I don't want to.

So but uh we're we are struggling, and the only reason this even came up, it's come up for two well, really one reason, and it has to do with how do we afford to deal with the deficits at the Fort Idaho Center?

It's just very straightforward.

How do we do that?

The reason why it's come up now, because I've been asked that question, why didn't this come up sooner?

The reason it didn't come up sooner was because what we have is over the last since 2021, and it's now 25, the last four years, we have a cumulative effect.

And in the last several months, um, it was brought to our attention that it was not only House Bill 389, it was also House Bill 673, and we saw the true full dollar amount.

I don't remember what month that was, but it was a few months ago we had a council special council workshop set down with County and County at the time.

Appreciated Rick Hogobaum bringing this information forward and Steve Onefrey bringing it forward and confirming that our budget shortfall where we would have been without those two bills was we are 5.8 million dollars less in our budget.

The goal with growth is that, and this is what our intent has been that growth funds growth.

It's really sad with the change in that legislation to see that growth is no longer funding growth, and with that 5.8 million dollars, we're looking at a budget as we look to the coming years that's really really tight.

So where we are as a council, I think I can speak as a whole, is we're faced with the issue of what do you do with the treasured asset property that we love.

Um you know what it's a wonderful thing that the Fort Idaho Center and that horse park is sitting here in NAPA and it's ours.

I love that.

Um, but then you say, okay, now how do we afford this because of the budget where the budget's gone, and it's not an easy fix.

It's not an easy fix, and we're looking at where we are financially as a city in the years to come.

So it's caused us to pause and say, what do we do?

So that really is the question that's before us tonight, and that's why the whole Fort Idaho Center conveyance, the potential conveyance that and higher utilization that the College of Western Idaho has an opportunity to utilize the property at a higher level than we can as a city.

That said, tonight we're talking about a financial decision.

What do we do?

How do we fund this ongoing?

So that's really what our discussion is about tonight.

I don't know where we want to go.

I do defer to the council.

Yes, Councilman Reynolds.

So study this a lot and and thought about um what the best option is here to get some funds for the Fort Idaho Center.

And um the real problem that I see is that we would have to do a two-year levy to get and and a high dollar amount because two million dollars is not gonna help us.

Um we need 10 million dollars at the minimum, and probably you know, more like 15 million to get us out of the gate, and then we would have to run another levy to catch up.

We need to have enough funding to do one project and and be able to start that project and complete it, and two or three million dollars does not get us there.

So and and that doesn't even include our operating expenses on on the venue.

So if we did um if we did a one two-year levy at 15 million dollars, you know, I look at that and probably the average household in NAMPA 300 to 350 dollars in taxes going up per year.

That's significant, and uh I just don't feel like that's the right way to go to burden our taxpayers with uh this additional load when we have the other options about uh with the Fort Idaho Center.

So I just I just throwing that out there for thought.

Thank you.

Any other thoughts, Mayor?

Yes.

We it's gonna be really hard, at least for me, to put something of this magnitude on the ballot.

When we did our transportation bond, every time we do a city survey, transportation public safety are number two concerns, and if that doesn't even pass, then what would the likelihood of something like this passing?

To me, I just don't see it working out.

But I'm with councilman Reynolds in the fact that if we just do a small amount, and we're going to all the trouble and the time to do it, and we're just kicking the can down the road.

We're not really putting ourselves in a position long term to keep this, so then it's just a matter of time till we're back to this and we're at square one again.

So I'm having a hard time with this.

I would never want to put that type of a tax increase on anyone, myself included.

I'm also a taxpayer.

I also don't want that on mine, but I could never do that for for the public, so I'm really struggling with that.

But again, we're still in the same position where how do we fund this and how do we keep it, and where do we go from here?

So those are my thoughts right now.

Yes.

Uh to follow up, uh, so from my math, uh, I see that uh minimum is if we do a three million amount, I think it's uh a minimum of five years, and uh then it could be revoted on after five years again uh in order to get back in order for the five-year period.

Not to interject, but just to guide the comment the there won't be a vote that's required in five years.

Um only if it's a temporary vote, would you come back every two years?

If it is a permanent one, it would stay in perpetuity, but it'd be up to city budget decisions whether to keep collecting that.

Does that make sense?

So it gives you the ability and authority for many years to collect, and whether you do is maybe a year-to-year determination, but there wouldn't be any revote unless it was a two-year temporary levy override.

I just wanted to clarify that.

Okay, so clarification maybe I misunderstood that we can't set the term, it's either two year or permanent.

Yeah, so the term is set like that, but in practice, the permanent one can act like a temporary in the sense that if the scope of what you're looking for is no longer needed, maybe use this example for Idaho Center, the deferred maintenance is adequately addressed to the city's needs in X number of years.

The city can say we'll scale back on what is being collected, come tax revenue time because we don't think that's a need right now.

It's again, it's just the authority to collect it, not a mandate to collect it, and that's a budget operations decision.

Okay, so based on that, my error then in the beginning, thinking something could be tailored.

So two-year levy, I I think uh we're uh we're at a minimum of five to seven million, then that we would need to be asking for.

And the reason I say it is because I think the the need is so great, and it's been identified that the need and and the uh lack of maintenance that we've been able to do on the facility is only gonna grow and it's only gonna be more acute.

And so uh if we said two million for two years, uh I feel like that's uh helpful, but it's not it it's only gonna just do a quick band-aid on a few items, it's really not gonna upgrade the facility, nor is it gonna prepare to uh get the facility further forward.

I mean, we we need to keep in mind that this is a 25 uh since the city's had it roughly plus or minus 25 years, and it's been minimal in terms of upgrades and and maintenance.

It's been just the bare minimum.

So each year that goes by, each year that we don't tackle it, only gets uh more expensive to come forward and do what needs to be done.

Uh the cost in of just inflation in the last three to five years has been tremendous in terms of fixing up buildings and repair of buildings, uh, etc.

So if if we're not talking in the five to seven million minimum, which is a very hefty levy uh from the standpoint of and and the example is 450,000.

There's plenty of real estate that's worth uh seven or eight hundred thousand in our community.

There's plenty of real estate as far as the residential side uh that's even above that.

And then if you want to talk commercial, uh so those who own office buildings and they may be worth four to eight hundred thousand, uh, they're gonna find themselves uh being asked to write an additional check for three to five hundred, possibly as much as seven to nine hundred each year for the two years.

Uh so it's going to affect the community's pocketbook, this levy.

There's no question.

For me, the issue is that a week ago we heard a great deal of comments that said uh don't transfer it, keep it, and there's been subsequent emails to I believe all of us uh continue to push that.

Uh but yet there's no solution to the uh maintenance uh problems, and there's no solution far as future forward, and so uh the typical is to kick the can down the road and try to figure it out later.

And so that's the purpose of the levy twofold.

The levy then gives the property owners, uh those who are able to vote in NAMPA a say as to yes, I'm willing to uh uh write a check and uh for the next two years to help get the Fort Idaho Center uh moving in a better direction, and so that's that's really the community's decision, and that's the benefit of doing a levy uh override is that okay, we understand that.

Now there's others who are gonna who are gonna be saying no, the city should just be figuring it out.

So then one solution is we suspend uh and we would come back even if we approve the budget tonight, and we would put a uh freeze on hiring, and we'd put a freeze on several other factors that have been included in the budget in order to transfer uh the money uh to uh the Fort Idaho Center.

There's been a lot of discussion during our budget sessions for the last four to five months, each time it comes up, is a uh no desire for taking foregone, and I believe that's on our agenda yet tonight uh as part of the budget uh moving forward, and Doug, I think you're gonna be covering that.

Sorry.

So that has been a bone of contention for a few council members that uh having possibly promised or uh viewpoint that you never go back and take foregone.

But what I haven't heard from the public, I've heard heard a lot of complaints, gotten a lot of emails like every other counselor.

I haven't heard the solution yet.

I haven't heard how are we fixing uh 15 to 20 million deficit on the facility?

What's our game plan?

And so uh currently that sits with uh us council to navigate a direction that is uh palatable to the public but's also responsible for uh maintaining the facility.

At what point do we let the roof leak?

At what point do we let other things continue to go?

And uh usually nobody wants taxes, but candidly uh when there's a real issue beyond our right now pothole and problem it type issues, then the public will say, why didn't leadership take care of this?

Why didn't leadership move and do something about these issues?

And at least that's been my experience of observation the last uh 50 years of watching what goes on in the public locally and at the state level.

So I have a tough I I don't have a problem putting on a levy and let the voters uh vote, but I think it's got to be a respectful amount that's gonna take care of uh a good portion of the initial issues.

At the same time, if the public says no, then that's a that's a direction for council as well.

Um that's kind of where I'm at on the issue.

Um but I'm not optimistic the levy's gonna pass.

Uh last year our bond issue uh would have been a great help, but it uh it also had an undefinition.

This was gonna have pretty direct definition as to what needs to be done.

So there's my long-winded thoughts.

I will say though that if you don't mind me saying so, I think that the transportation bond was very specific what it was funding.

The dollar amount was there.

I mean, just look to Amy because she had to do all that work, and it was very specific about what it was funding, but it didn't pass, and you're correct on that.

It had the five categories, but uh it was tough to boil down.

There was a couple areas that we were asking for a great bill of dollars without specifics of exactly what projects were gonna get funded.

So I felt like that left uh some ambiguity that the public was unsure about.

That's just my read after the fact, not not ahead of time.

Okay, yes.

Thank you.

Um I look at it this way is whenever we need to uh handle the problem, the solution on this side is that you folks pay it.

And that's what we're trying to stay away from.

You support the entire city, not just the Ford Idol Center, and that's the crutch of the whole deal.

That's the only solution that that I see before us right now.

Um I know that when other city uh city departments have an issue, we raise the fees to make ends meet, and uh I don't see that as the solution here, and I think that's probably one idea we should look at maybe.

Um other the list of priorities for me is not necessarily fixing the Ford Idol Center because we've got more issues at hand, public safety infrastructure, streets, all that it's more important to me.

And even though the Ford Idol Center does bring in a great number of people to NAMPA and helps our economy, and uh I'm stuck with that, folks.

I really am.

But I worry about and encroaching on our taxpayers to continue, continue, continue, and that's difficult to me.

The other thing is that uh there has been an auditorium district, and there's been some confusion as to whether we can use that or not.

I think that's up to uh the board, whether they'll give us that money not us, but uh that money to the Ford Idol Center or or CWI, and I haven't got a definitive answer yet because we don't know.

So is is the override levy the answer?

I'm I don't I don't know that it is, but um you folks will decide that.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Mayor, yes.

Follow up to uh councilman Rodriguez.

When you said raise the fees, I just what does that mean?

User fees.

So fees on the ticket sales, fees on the tickets, fees on everything else that's out there, water, alcohol, events, I guess.

Yes.

Mayor?

Yes.

Sebastian, Councilman Griffin.

Just a few of my thoughts.

Uh first off, I I uh would not be supportive of a vote for any kind of permanent levy.

Um as you all know, I'm of the position that uh even with foregone, if the money's available, I get concerned that it's just gonna continually get taken.

So if we permanently take or set an amount annually, whether we're meeting our needs or not, I don't want the option for that door to be open, not saying that anybody would have bad will or malice or anything like that.

Uh I just would prefer if we even move forward that it would be a temporary override for two years.

Uh councilman Bills mentioned solutions.

One of the ones that we have previously discussed and haven't looked deeper into at this point, I I think we should ask the Fort Ido Center immediately on ticket sales to increase a user fee of three to five dollars.

Uh, if we're having over three hundred thousand tickets sold a year, that's a quick amount of revenue to be able to generate.

I know that it might have a market impact, and that's for uh Andrew Luther and that team to decide and figure through.

But I think that's a very uh real option.

I I know in our discussions with him he said that is something that we can do if we uh continue to keep our ownership.

So I think that uh that's one stone that has been left unturned, uh unturned.

So we should be looking into that.

Um and I think those are my quick thoughts on the issue.

If I could follow up, so um, in touching basis with Andrew, we currently have a two-dollar per ticket fee, and it generates about 300,000 a year that goes to the bottom line because there are different things that come off of that, the taxes and different things.

So we currently have that.

We would have to increase, but if we increased another two dollars, it may be still another three hundred thousand to the bottom line to where you have a four dollar fee per ticket.

But we have to be careful of is that we're competing, we're competing in the market.

If our price is too high, they're not even gonna come.

So then you don't even have the event.

So, and that's the challenge that we're facing today is that when we have another amphitheater in the market, it's gonna impact our bottom line.

So we could do a fee, we could increase, put another two dollars on a ticket.

I don't know how well that sets with the promoters, and then when you have a competition in the market, they may just not come to our venue, they'll go someplace else.

So um, but let's say we do add another two dollars a ticket and we get another three hundred thousand a year.

It could be that that's just offsetting a deficit in the future.

And so what we've got to be realistic on is that and again the difference is it used to be over these last 20 years, we were not in the financial position that we're in today.

If you've been watching our budgets, Doug has been talking to us for the last several years.

Once we that House bill hit, we've been watching it and we've we've been really careful.

Doug, I believe it was last not this year, but this last year we did a five percent hold back at operations, is that correct?

We cut we cut operational costs by 4.4 percent.

Okay, and then this year we ask everybody to stay flat.

And and they did the net budget overall increased 0.9%, the total budget.

Okay.

I will say that on the transportation side, I believe our new hires that we have in the budget are mostly water and transportation.

Can you remind me?

Do you know off the top of your head, and I can't remember right off the top of my head, how many Gengov new positions other than police?

I think there were five or six other than police.

It may have been five.

I don't recall.

And what would they we'll have to look at that because that would be something that would go, but yeah, the that wasn't it wasn't many.

I I can tell you in just a moment.

I'll thank you.

I'll let you find it.

So I guess the thought is we could but those were streets, water, some of that was infrastructure, so I couldn't find a breakout between that's what we need to find Gen Gov versus not.

Just so we just to be clear, just so the public knows we cannot take enterprise funds and put them in Gengov.

We can't take the funds from water or transportation and put them into the Fort Idaho Center.

It's just not legally, we can't do that.

So the police positions we could, if we so chose to do that.

Um, but I don't think that's what our public wants.

I think they want our police to be funded.

And so looking at the actual new positions that were funding, um we switched some positions, but as far as brand new physician positions, I think we had zero in the mayor's office.

We have one attorney.

Um we added in general government, we added twelve point three seven new positions.

Where are those?

Eight of those were in police.

So only four were outside of the police, and two of those others were in legal.

So two illegal and then um two others scattered around the the general government.

So very minimal.

We had IT actually went down.

Um your office went down with the shift to legal, so I can't remember where that, but there was just four others that were across the entirety of the city added outside the police.

So I guess it gives us the perspective.

Go ahead.

So GIS was adding several.

Yes, that you know that they added two.

I think that that's that that's the good place.

You're correct.

That's in general government.

It ends up getting charged out to the various departments, but it's recorded as a general gov increase.

Okay.

So that would take us above the 12.

That that it's included in the 12.

The GIS.

So of 25, 13 or under enterprise funds.

Those departments.

Yeah.

12 or 28 actually, with the when we added the three new and the foregone.

It's 28.0 in total increase.

The three new that was added at the correct budget approval time.

Right.

So you take out that twelve, then outside of General Gov, you have sixteen more.

And most of that's in the fact, virtually all that's in public works.

And all of those in public works were intended to save money by bringing construction and and support in-house rather than than doing third-party contracts outside the city.

That four gun that was voted on was dedicated to police.

100%.

Yeah.

Yes.

Go ahead.

To which?

To Sebastian, please.

Okay.

Just uh apologize again, but belaboring the point that we're discussing uh regarding the levy.

I just I go back to Andrew and his team are the best in the industry.

I think we've heard public comments saying we management's doing a poor job, we need a better contractor.

I I have and will continue the counter that completely.

OVG has been exceptional.

Uh and they're very, very data driven.

I think on where they set their prices.

Uh I I just look to uh for example, post Malone and Jelly Rolls concert in Boise State.

The starting ticket amount was 260 dollars.

I don't know very many concerts where our starting amount are at that point, but the the desire to attend concerts throughout the summer is there.

If we're able to, and I just keep talking about potential solutions.

I'm not saying this is the silver bullet, and we all can throw our hands up and say, Oh my gosh, the problem solved, but rather than the potential of raising property taxes five hundred dollars per household per year for the next two years, maybe we should try and tap the solution of an and it could be case by case.

I'm not saying okay, it's got to be five dollars for every event moving forward.

Some people don't want to go see blues clues, so maybe we might just have to do one or two dollars on that of an increase.

But if we have Willie Nelson coming in, maybe tack on eight dollars, and that might seem extreme.

They're going to be able to see the ticket revenues, and it's not something where oh it's it's got to be fair.

They drop their ticket prices when sales need to happen.

So if they see, okay, our sales are not happening, let's cut down the user fee to six dollars a ticket rather than eight, and just going where the market is allowing them to go and potentially generating those revenues, whether we have a shortfall year, because either way, money needs to get collected if we're going to maintain this facility.

Now, is it going to crawl us out of 2020 to 25 million potential deferred maintenance?

Maybe not, but 300, 600, 900,000 annually of an increase in ticket sales, uh, I I think is significant, especially uh considering what we're trying to discuss right now of levying across um across Tampa.

The only thing I would say, and Sebastian, I really appreciate your idea.

The only concern I would have with that is that when you can go down the road to if it's a small amphitheater event, they'll have a new amphitheater go to.

If it's a large event, Boise State's getting ready for that.

So if you can go to another venue and not they they're about getting the dollars, right?

So we tack on eight dollars a ticket, they cannot tack on eight dollars a ticket, get the show, and they walk away with more money.

Um, because that competition's gonna be in the market.

Just having been in that business uh in my prior life, uh it it's a tough world when you get into the market and this bottom line, and even if we increase by let's say we get another five hundred thousand with ticket fees coming in.

Um, to be realistic, what does that do to our deferred maintenance?

Somehow we've got several million dollars that we've got to figure out how to fix the parking lot, right?

It's just it is what it is, and we can debate about how much it is and how much it's gonna cost.

We just have to figure out how to do that.

And there have been a lot of ideas, and I appreciate the creative ideas on events, but the reality is that they don't produce the kind of income that we need to offset the deficit.

It just is what it is.

So I have a clarifying question, if I could, Mayor.

And I I you know I'm asking you genuinely out of the expert perspective that you've had.

Aren't they going and I look at this as a direct fee on the consumer?

If if Willie Nelson comes in and says, hey, I want my revenues, I'm set my tickets at 180.

Wouldn't he set that amount at any venue that he's going to be out?

Now I understand the perspective.

He might want to go to the new shiny better, but isn't the ticket price going to be set 180 there?

It's set 180 at the amplitheater, just us as a uh facility tax on at the very end, an eight dollar fee per person that goes directly to our account, not necessarily Willie's.

I don't know.

That's what I'm trying to understand.

It's a really I under Yeah, it's a really good question.

Um, but and I wish Andrew were here to answer that, and I'm sorry he is not in town, but I think the answer is no, because the deals that get done between the promoters and the buildings are they're complex.

Their shared revenue deals, there's a lot that goes into those deals, and uh it's not quite that simple.

So it's it.

Yeah, sorry.

Mayor?

Yes.

Okay, yes.

Councilman Haverfield.

It's uh I'm not sure if the the public has been uh made aware of the OVG offer terms.

Uh is that something that can be shared this evening or not?

I don't have it in front of me.

Tib um we would have to that's we'd have to look at the numbers because at the time when they had gave us an initial offer, it was like no way.

And then they came back with a different idea, and that's what led us here was because no, it didn't make financial sense.

So that was my question to you.

It's been stated by yourself and a couple of the council members that it's not a good deal.

And I was just wondering from your perspective what makes it not a good deal.

It had to do with the financial risk, taking the revenue and the profit out of the amphitheater, which is the revenue one, the arena would stay with us, and that isn't the the revenue making uh piece of the venue.

And so the there was a greater risk for us meeting our bottom line when we were facing a deficit because what really was putting us over the top were those amphitheater shows because we have done really well on the amphitheater shows in the last couple of years.

They've done great, and so that's his brought it to that place of profitability.

So again, my question, what made it not a good deal?

Uh it never was negotiated.

So that's where I was I thought that we still had an opportunity to go back to OVG, talk through the offer, look at the the benefit of it, see if it did make sense.

I have never had that conversation, or at least I haven't been a privy to it to to know why it wasn't a good deal.

Uh and going forward from my perspective, again, you know, I've been trying to come up with other ideas to help uh provide a funding source.

Um this was just one of the options uh with the land lease to OVG with the 10 million dollar uh improvement to the amplitheater, which would then cement live nation here and um you know the larger venues, and then having potentially more of a of a ticket uh for DM share.

We talked to Andrew about that, and he said that's all negotiable along with the land lease value.

So that's just one component.

Obviously, we're talking about the uh auditorium district, uh the potential for them again.

It's been a maybe, not buckets and pails or whatever, but yeah, boilers and rooftops, they can help, but it still has to be uh approved, and then we would need a joint powers agreement to move forward on that.

So that was just another source, and so that's where you know you start looking at other potential uh means of of coming up with value, and I know the horse park, uh they had even talked about if we can help work with them to keep their lines from freezing during the winter months, that they could be providing venues inside of the you know the sports arena, and that would be beds uh or heads in the beds as far as for the hotels during the winter months when they maybe not would normally be there.

So again, uh I'm just moving down a path of trying to be um again when we go back 12 years and we were uh there was a different paradigm.

We never expected the amplitude or the Ford Idaho Center to be in the black.

It was just meant to be one of those venues like every other one that's gonna run in the red.

Once that paradigm changed, within eight years we had it to the point where it's ready to be in the black and has been for the last few years.

Um if if the paradigm is such that we want to be uh profitable going forward, we need to be intently doing something uh to try to do that.

So that's where again it's been my desire to be a part of an effort to do that and not put the tax burden back on the citizens.

You know, I again if there's a way to do it that's creative, let's look at that and not just throw our hands up and say, no, you're gonna have to get you're gonna have to get the taxpayer to fund it.

Um so uh when we looked at the Jacobs report, you know, again it was uh could we trust that?

Uh that's the question that was being asked.

Um but then again from my perspective, I've gotten to the point where I feel like um my efforts are just being put aside.

No, we need to go this other path.

And if that's the desire of the council, then that's the way that the council will go.

But I just uh I would have a hard time supporting uh putting it back on the the backs of the of the taxpayers when you look back when the Idaho Center was built, the revenue that came into the city after sunset, so that taxable incre uh increment value came in.

We should have been at that point putting money in the bank for ongoing operations and maintenance.

Every large project that I've ever been involved with, that's the first thing that is done, just to make sure that they're not uh they don't come up short in five years uh with maintenance and operation costs.

So uh going forward, can we do that?

Can we uh look at a creative way to get them self-sufficient, profitable, put money aside and do that.

I I I would hope so.

That would be my desire to see that happen.

Thank you for your comments, and I agree with you.

I I will say, so earlier today I had a conversation I'll just say with Nate Shellman.

He asked a question and it made a comment, and it was a really good one.

He said you're asking the citizens for a solution to a problem they didn't create.

He said governments asking for a solution, government created the problem.

And I have to say he was right.

I I mean I don't know what else to say, because you're right.

I in the ideal world, we should have set money aside when we built the venue.

It's a great property, great venue, but we didn't take into account the cost and the financial loss that we've been dealing with.

We also didn't expect the legislative changes.

Um regarding the horse park and utilizing the sports arena in the winter for horses, actually it brings in revenue in the winter because they're doing home shows, they're doing a lot of things in there in the winter time, and they're gonna continue to do that.

I think that uh OVG has done an excellent job of increasing the utilization of the facility to make money.

Their sponsorship sales, they're knocking it out of the park.

That's why we're we've turned it from a loss into a slight profit.

Um probably there's two big things that have changed.

One is our financial picture over the last couple of years because of the legislature.

The other one is the competition in the market and the risk we're in as a city.

And it's those two driving together, because I think looking at, and I appreciate your ideas.

Um, if you look at the deal with OVG, if they're gonna put eight million or ten million in, they're gonna expect a return.

But there has to be a return, and when there's competition in the market, that may not be.

So we as a city have to figure out what are we going to do to absorb the financial losses.

If they come back, and right now when we're profiting, maybe a couple hundred thousand, because I think that the financial the financial documents very confusing when it shows that they netted a million two, but then you take the parks fee out of that, and then you take the incentive fee out of that, maybe that equals about a million dollars.

Well, it equal it equals a million to a million sixty.

And so then maybe you made two hundred to four hundred.

So we're we're getting better, but it's still risky.

Very, very if I could, Mayor, two comments.

One, um, I come from an environment in 20 years of Albertson's where capital investment was the was the lifeblood.

And so you needed that to make a make the grocery store process work in in perpetuity.

But the the difference with the OBG is that's not deferred maintenance, that's investment in improvement, and it's awesome, it's great, but it doesn't solve the deferred maintenance issue.

That's still that's a totally separate funding issue.

The second point on the profitability, they have improved when I first got here in 2000 um 18.

The amount of operations funding we gave them per year was almost a million dollars.

Now we're down to this year zero, no million, no operational funding.

We still budgeted for capital, so great improvement.

But if you take out the amount of support we give them, they're still not profitable, especially if you take in the amount of money we put in for the horse park the last two years, that 1.6 million dollars, they're not profitable.

They that will help improve profitability, but right now they have if you take everything out and just let them stand completely on their own, they're not quite profitable.

Much better, yes, but not quite profitable.

Doug, can I ask you um the fund balance for the uh Ford Idaho Center?

Is it in an interest bearing account?

Yes, it is.

Okay, and so uh if a portion of that, say 500,000 was taken out of the five million and then matched with something else that uh you know, some other way of creating a revenue stream uh so that would be a million dollars, and then the uh uh NAMPA auditorium district being able to kick in one plus million, that'd be two million a year uh potentially, and we would still have a pretty good chunk of that fund balance retaining, and then uh obviously the interest accruing on top of that as it sits there for a year as well.

Then you're looking at OBG being able to um hopefully stay profitable and above profitable as they've increased the the uh the venue and uh as an attraction, and then they're cementing live nation at the Ford Idaho Center instead of Caldwell or maybe somewhere else in the valley.

Um that's an anchor in the ground for them, that's an incentive for them, they're improving the venue, it's uh possibly going to be creating a better revenue out of itself, and then if we're looking at instead of just a dollar per ticket, which is what they offered, maybe two or three, because we talked to Andrew about that.

That's again I'm just wondering why is that why is that frowned upon as an offer that might make sense along with maybe some other things, especially the auditorium district, uh coming forward.

That's why people voted for it was specifically for the Idaho Center and Civic Center.

Uh yeah, if they wanted that, we'd give that to Silver UI.

It's been in the red from the beginning.

I love the the topical discussion, it it's perfect.

But the the challenge in the most recent past when you asked about why don't we set aside money for them?

We've never had excess left over at the end of the budget to set aside by the time because it's all coming out of general government when we're trying to struggle with funding all the streets, the parks because the our property taxes go to the general government, primarily public safety.

They go to the library, they go to the parks, they go to the airport and cemetery.

When you divide up the money, there's very little left over to save.

In fact, we've never had an extra bucket of money to save to put aside funds for a rainy day.

Uh, the only way we get possibly extra funds is if let's say the um sales taxes come in a little better than budget, and they have in a couple years.

In fact, that that was how we finance the horse park was extra sales taxes that came in.

Right now, sales taxes are maybe a percent better than budget, so they're not really growing.

So it would be the council to choose a priority of what they want to fund.

Do they want to fund this or that?

And then we reallocate the funds.

Um, and I'm more than happy to entertain that discussion of of priorities, but we've never had extra to really set aside to give just to an issue like that, which is a blessing today.

Mayor, one last question, and maybe this is for Preston.

Sometimes the devil's in the details is I'm just looking at the executive summary, and then something that gave me a pause was the amount of the levy increase should be informed by the deferred maintenance and budget shortfalls at the Ford Idaho Center and other needs of the city.

What are the other needs of the city?

That was only in there as a placeholder.

Because if we discussed, and I will say I ask him to put that in there because the other thing that I'm trying to figure out is how on earth do we handle our West Valley Animal Shelter.

Right.

So if we're gonna do a levy, do you just leave it at that?

Or I don't know how to deal with that because we'd be talking about something other than just the Ford Idaho Center with this levy.

You know what's difficult?

I think I guess my thought is uh none of us want to do a levy increase.

I don't think.

I mean, I don't because I I think about um a lot of my neighbors that are on fixed incomes, there's so many people on fixed incomes in NAPA, and I you know what we don't want to do a levy over I don't want to do a levy override.

I just can't imagine that it makes it very, very difficult for our citizens.

But we do have a challenge, and we got to figure it out.

It's kind of like your personal budget.

If you can't make it work, you gotta give up.

You got to figure out what you're gonna let go of.

Well, I can say personally, when my business was uh, you know, when the revenues weren't coming in, I made decisions as a business owner not to take a salary myself for almost a year, and that affected me uh later on being able to borrow because the banks would look at me and say, How are you gonna be able to afford to pay back your loan?

But it it kept employees uh working, it kept the business.

We we were able to stay uh above the red line, but uh it took sacrifice, and sometimes that's what we have to talk about.

What sacrifices are we willing to take ourselves?

Uh again, if we're if we're really looking at the citizens of NAMPA and the taxpayers and their uh what we're asking of them, if if they're willing to raise their taxes, great.

But I again this is a hard sell for me.

I just see it, especially when we've already said in our budget that we want to take another uh percent of four gone on top of a three percent increase.

Um that's tough for me because again, it's just uh just a burden on them, especially the older folks that are aging in place.

Mayor, yes.

I I think coming back to the for me, what I found the focus and the reason that this discussion got brought up is solely because of the commands of the Fort Idaho Center.

If we're not going to convey, we need to find a way to fund.

If we are going to convey, then this conversation would never have happened, and I'm not trying to argue for or against the conveyance right now, but coming back to the point of uh I don't know when that vote comes forward.

I and frankly, after we make a decision today on this, I ask that we bring that decision forward sooner than later.

I think we've had our our hearings, we've heard the wills of their our constituents.

We've done, I believe the city has done an extremely good job of getting the message out, having the message be heard, sharing all perspectives.

It's time to make a decision whether we hit and start checking off number one.

And I think tonight it really is a uh factor in that.

I think for a few council members, whether we decide the levy or not is going to be a decision factor for some of us.

And so I think it's time that at least thinking about that.

I I know right now I'm not in the position to make a motion or support a support a motion for a levy, period.

I I temporary or permanent, I'm not going to.

Um, so I think we've we've hashed out.

I think there are still options left unturned.

Uh I think even just the report that we received from Jacobs, I can't remember if it was 15 years or 20 years.

Either way, that gives us some time to plan.

It's not 20 million dollars here and now.

We have a six hundred thousand dollar boiler room that boiler that needs to be replaced.

If we increase our fees temporarily, we can fund the boiler, and then if we continue, we can plan for the next project or issue that needs to come up, and that's part of that 15-year plan.

We have a plan in place, and all this takes planning.

What has happened is we've had lack of planning, so it's just moving from here and saying, okay, we're going to target this, we're going to target that.

Maybe we don't take any more hires next year because we're we have to focus on our infrastructure rather than growing, maybe we should focus on what we need to do now.

And I'm belaboring and I apologize.

I I frankly am ready for making a motion not to do anything or hearing if another council member has a motion to override.

I would just say, uh Sebastian, you just made a uh comment, and I was just thinking, so if we held on positions, I mean, if you think about what our citizens are wanting, we can hold on police positions.

We're trying to cut every other position.

The only positions are enterprise fund positions that you can't use anyway.

So uh the GIS positions get billed out to the other.

So we we could hire nobody, but you know what?

If you can't run the city, is that the right thing to do?

Is to let this city sacrifice because we don't have the positions.

We've already we did our uh that 5% cut last year, we stayed flat this year.

No, in in our overall gen gov, I said no new positions.

We didn't do any other than attorneys.

But if we don't do that, it I know Preston's looking at me, it's like I don't know what we do because you there's work that has to be done.

So the question is we can try to save in some places, but it isn't gonna address the issue.

Um we're already we already looked at travel, and we will can we're continuing.

If we weren't already trying to be really good stewards and thought that there was some money out there we could cut, it'd be a whole lot easier.

But when we've already been cutting, that's when it gets really hard because I don't know what to cut.

Mayor, yeah.

We didn't have my opinion, we didn't have large s built into the budget.

We didn't have overflowing expenditures.

Even when I came in, uh we were probably uh very austere.

The city by its nature tended to be very conservative in almost everything they did.

But the growth is the factor that we've been dealing with, and paying for growth is the challenge.

So if you choose you don't want to pay for growth, yes, we can sacrifice.

You could mayor or council, you could do anything for a year.

You could cut things dramatically for a year, but probably only one year, and then you'd have to go back and double down the next year to follow back to recover it.

You could cut travel and um education for to zero, you'd save some money there.

You can raise money uh from the horse park, but you cannot cut your way to prosperity.

If you follow me, you can cut, but it's short term and it has its downsides.

Thank you.

Okay, so council councilman griffin, then councilwoman.

I'm sorry, Natalie Natalie's been trying to get in here.

Go ahead, councilwoman.

You're okay.

Go ahead.

I I frankly would be seeing singing a different tune if this levy was regarding public safety and specifically police.

And I think that's where I I feel that all of our sentiment might be the same.

And I think for the cons the citizens' perspective, if we vote on a levy tonight, they ultimately have the final say come November.

And the same be it, if they really care about public safety, give them the final opportunity.

That's why I voted no foregone in July and in workshops.

Because if the citizens want a tax raise, let's allow them to.

And I know we can't put everything on the ballot.

And I'm not advocating for that.

We each were elected to represent our populations and bring forward and receive the information and then vote.

I I don't think anybody's going to support a levy for the entertainment centers.

Now I don't think they'll support it for public safety either, but at least we give them the opportunity, like David Bills had said.

So I I hope if we have another levy discussion, it's regarding police, because I don't want to cut police off at their knees.

But we don't have an endless pot of money.

We've stated that time and time again.

I think we're going to see changes this legislative cycle.

But if we don't, we have to look at what do we do.

And I've been chirping, and everybody's here, and I know you're all over it.

Mitigation fees.

Whether we're able to or not, other cities are.

What is causing our growing pains?

Growth is.

Because for every roof that is built right now in Napa, because of legislative changes, we're going in the hole.

And every building permit, every plat approval, it might be helping us in some areas, but we're still you can't look at it as okay, it's going to help our tax base, but we're still going in the hole.

That's still a loss.

We're still in the red.

Every time we build a house, we're in the red, not the black.

And I'll stop.

Yeah, staying with the Fort Idaho Center, unfortunately, that doesn't touch or address the Fort Idaho Center.

It absolutely doesn't.

In fact, if we did a stop on growth, we'd even be in a worse place than we are right now.

So that's a difficult one because so let's stay focused on the Fort Idaho Center because growth does not have impact the Fort Idaho Center.

It's yes.

Thank you.

Um going way back to that increase of fees.

We have to remember that that goes into Gengov, and I know we kind of talked about it, but those fees go back into the general gov.

So we can't necessarily say we're going to increase these fees because and then it's gonna fund XYZ.

It goes into that, and then the council here is the one that's gonna look at that budget and allocate those funds.

If there's another resource that's needed in the city, police, if those funds would have been here in this fiscal year that we just discussed, we wouldn't have had to have take foregon for police.

We would have been able to fund them.

So it's it wouldn't go necessarily to the Idaho Center.

So we have to be really careful when we're talking about that being a solution because we can't find councils to use those funds that would come in for that purpose.

Well, I just for clarity, I think what you're saying is are you talking about increasing the fees at the Fort Idaho Center?

Yes.

Okay, so on those funds right now would just be to try to get us out of a deficit, and any positive nature has gone to build that five million.

We were trying to hit a five million dollar threshold, so we if there was some ebb and flow during the year, they had a fund that they could pull from which was needed in order to it's their financial model because they have times where they have money and other times they don't, and um so the fees actually currently go to their bottom line, and that's how we've built to where we are today.

How would you like but it it you're you're correct, Mayor?

But we fund them from General Gov.

And they're tied very close together.

All the money we fund them comes from General Gov.

If they got more money in their side and we had to take less from General Gov, it means we have a little more lift in General Gov to work other places.

But my my guess is that even if you got those fees to supplement General Gov, you'd still need more from General Gov because the deferred maintenance is so high.

I can't fund it from our current structure, even if you have the extra money from fees.

You you can you can stem the tide and pick off a couple of the low-hanging fruit items of the big items you'll struggle with.

And then if if the if the Ford Idaho Center is competing for money with public safety, then it becomes a very interesting topic with the council of how to share limited funds.

The question has been asked about why we don't take the five million dollar base that we've been trying to build to and use that for capital.

Doug, would you like to answer that question?

Sure.

So it is a cash problem.

Um when COVID hit and kind of the uh concert, the arena, the events uh of the entire nation and world kind of decreased, they got down to a point of about maybe 1.3 million dollars.

That was barely enough to keep them afloat.

Um over the past four years, they've increased it to it got up to a high of five million dollars, now it's down to three point six because of operation cost and incentives.

Now it's down to 3.6 because of operation cost and incentives.

So it it goes up and comes down.

This year is not likely to be quite as profitable as last year.

So the funds may not stay at five million dollars.

But when they sell tickets, concert tickets, they have to put up money into a prepaid account that they cannot touch.

Um, and that's got a lot of money in it right now, probably five, six million dollars, but they can't touch it because concerts have a way of getting canceled, and if the concert get canceled, they have to refund that money back to the ticket purchasers.

So that money is in violent, you can't touch it until the concert takes place.

That means you're just living off of whatever value you have in the operations account, and the the cost of operating the horse park and the arena and the the uh other sports park of there is fairly cost intensive.

So five million dollars is a nice number, but we don't have it right now.

They spent part of it for operations.

Councilman Bill said it's cash flow.

It really is cash flow, and so it's complex.

It's it's easy to look at something and say it's simple, it's not simple.

There's a complexity to everything the city does, and we don't expect every citizen to understand every piece of it, and we'll do our best to try to explain it, but it's complex.

So with that, we're way past our time, and councilman Reynolds is next, and we do need to move on because we're way into our next.

So I was just gonna say that uh we can't we can't fund this on what ifs.

Um we have to have good solid solutions going forward and um and solid numbers that didn't actually make sense.

And uh I with the uh with the levy override, we wouldn't get any funding until January 27.

In the meantime, would put us another two to two and a half million dollars down in the hole.

And um we we need a chunk of money to fix big projects.

Uh the boiler is one of them, it's the smallest of them, but we have a roof, we have air handlers, we have different things, parking lot that needs to be done, that's about eight million dollar chunk.

And um if we wait until January 27 and puts us that much further in the hole, I just don't feel like that's a good option at all.

And I don't feel like this levy override is the right thing for the taxpayers.

And so with that, I'm gonna make a motion that we deny the levy override to go on the ballot in November.

I'll second that.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Local.

Chingula, yes.

Bills.

Yes, Hammerfield.

Yes, Griffin.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Councilman Reynolds, thank you for that motion.

Obviously, it's unanimous.

Everybody agrees, and I fully agree with that that we don't need to put a burden on our taxpayers.

So we need to continue to have discussions and figure it out.

So, Mayor, uh we haven't noticed it, uh then.

I think uh we've got to return uh in September and have a discussion about the transfer.

Because we from my side, I understand there's gonna be a lot of folks upset over that idea.

We don't want to fund it.

We're willing to stay in the deficit.

We don't know where the money is coming from.

So you invite customers to your door, you have a responsibility to have the restrooms working and be in good order.

Your front doors need to be in good order.

So from the standpoint of responsibility, I think we've got to come back to the issue in September as to uh the viability of transferring the Fort Iowa Center is still in AMPA, it's still right there.

But I still believe that we have to visit that discussion.

Thank you for the comments.

I you know, I I don't really agree with with that.

Let us find out a solution.

Let's move forward and have a community and go from there, and then if that all fails, then we're up against the wall.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mayor?

Okay, yes.

I I would echo what councilman Bill's just stated.

I think at least we should mark off whether we're going to go into step one and announce our uh option to convey, and I'd like to see it early in September as well.

Okay, thank you for those comments.

Okay, I think at that we're ready to move on.

So um it's been about an hour and a half.

I tell you what, before we go to public hearing, for those of you that are here for public hearing, we'll probably take a break before we start them.

But right now, this would be when we do proclamations.

We have no proclamations tonight.

Public forum time.

Do we have anyone signed up?

Madam Mayor, we do have one individual signed up.

Okay, so I'd like to give the person that signed up for public forum an opportunity to speak tonight.

And who is that?

That is Manuel Herrera.

Thank you.

As you come forward, we'll let you state your name again and your address, and thank you for being here tonight.

Good evening, Mayor Kling, Councilmembers and NAMPA residents.

My name is Manuel Herrera, address 18357 Tree Line Avenue.

I'm here to discuss the importance of the Valley Regional Transit Funding for our community.

I was born in NAMPA at the Mercy Medical Center.

For those who remember, I'm a longtime NAMPA resident and daily VTR writer.

I have worked at the Chiefs factory, like Talis for 11 strong years.

VTR provides essential transportation for workers, students, seniors, connecting NAMPA to Boise and Beyond.

Reliable transit reduces traffic congestion and supports economic growth.

As the council considers the 2026 budget, prioritizing BTR ensures reasonable access to transportation for all NAMPIs.

Libraries, public safety, and wages all matter.

But under funding BTR risk leaving our most vulnerable residents stranded.

Investing in expanded routes and better scheduling can boost ridership and support local businesses by bringing workers and customers downtown.

Residents deserve a voice in shaping VTR services to meet our growing city's demand.

For those watching online, I encourage you to share your views with the council.

I asked the council to review VTR's performance metrics ensuring accountability to taxpayers.

Thank you for your time and dedication to our community.

Manual, thank you.

Council, do you have any questions?

Yes.

Manual, which bus route do you ride?

I often use the 150 and often use the 42.

And do you normally stay in Nampa in Canyon County when you're riding?

Correct.

So the 150 is only Canon County.

And I use it.

I start sometimes the 150 is over by the target and Costco area, and there's multiple drop drop-off areas, and so I'm able to access it.

I I came in on a scooter and rode the V chart today to show my dedication.

Everyone wants to ride their bikes and have bike lanes.

And uh I know a lot of riders that use uh VTR.

Thank you.

Mary Glenn.

Question?

Manual.

I was we have been toying with the idea.

As we're already backed up against the wall with with that as well.

You as a constant writer, would it be okay if we with you if we increase the fee?

And I don't know what amount, but with the principle is increase the fee for or the taxpayers.

I don't have to put in so much.

But I'd like you at your your your so I um I'm aware that this I think the city puts in 300,000 a year.

Um but if I were to raise the fee, the user fee another 50 cent.

Usually a writer fee is one fifty one $1.50.

But if it's raised the 50 cents or 75 cents or dollar, um of course um we have to pass on the pass on the bill to the consumer, but even even at a 75 cent increase, I was there's many that will still use our services.

Okay, thank you for that.

Thank you so much for taking time.

Manual whoops excuse me, Sebastian, he's online.

Thank you, Councilman Griffin.

You're you're okay.

Uh just just for my own curiosity, manual.

When you ride daily, how many other riders are usually on that bus with you?

Um I see like two or three.

They use the um I see sometimes the CWI students, uh, maybe one at a time, but there's a when I'm on the bus, there's all it's usually full, like two or three other passengers.

So I'm glad I'm glad to see it's not empty.

Thank you.

Thank you again.

We appreciate you taking the time and the effort to get here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Jill Hallows.

Jill Hallows 603 West Crimson Move NPA.

Um, I'm one of those aging in place, so thank you for understanding.

Like right now.

This is aging me having to speak.

Um so I I think I can speak for a lot of people who are a little frustrated right now because I was led to believe when I voted for the auditorium district that it would offset some of the expenses for the Ford Idaho Center, and I think we have been misled.

So I hope that that will be addressed.

I agree with um Councilman Rodriguez that that needs to be figured out before we move forward with the levy idea or anything else.

Um another thing that I have heard people say, and I have felt a little bit of this, is that the transfer of the Ford Idaho Center to CWI, it it sort of felt like an ultimatum, like either this levy override thing has to work, or we're gonna you know take it out of your hands and transfer it over.

So just be aware that people are really sensitive to feeling that the um increase of taxes would be a punishment because we haven't agreed with you on that.

Um so yeah, the economy and the prices going up, up, up.

This is really bad timing to be proposing more taxes, especially for us old folks.

And um, I appreciate you letting me speak again, and I appreciate and understand the dilemma that you have.

I wouldn't want to be in your seats right now, but I will be very happy to participate any way I can to help all of us together figure this out.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, sure.

Yes, Jill.

No, I just want to respond because you raised a couple of issues, and I don't need to respond to you if you want to sit, that's fine.

Oh, thank you.

What I what I think is important based on council's discussion about the levy and Jill's comments, is to infer um there's no way that this city council desires any way to be punitive to the citizens of Nappa.

So I want to make sure that it's conveyed at least from my side, and I believe it's probably most councilman counselors and mayor, if not all.

The frustration is we have a facility that's aging, and there's an expectation in the marketplace.

If your doors are open, the facility is safe.

We have an expectation that the city has a responsibility to take care of the facility and has not been able to do so, therefore, how to walk forward.

But nothing is in the mindset, and for the discussion time that's gone on for months, that there's a punitive mindset.

We're gonna penalize the taxpayers.

Most of us could have said there's no desire for a levy, but it was a discussion that needed to take place, and so thank you for participating or listening, etc.

My frustration is to invite the public to a facility that is aged, and all that we're been doing for the last several years is trying to put a band-aid on a broken water line, and you can wrap the tape, you can fill it, the hole is sealed, but it's gonna show back up.

And you can wrap the tape.

But it's going to show back up.

And so I believe as a community we need to deal with it.

And several have commented, hey, we want to explore ideas.

That's great.

But so far I haven't heard anything that is actually a solution short of a transfer.

I know it's not popular.

I understand that.

But to an entity who has capability to raise funds.

Now this council may not even go forward with that.

And folks will be happy about that.

But the day that we have a slip and fall, the day that we have problems at that center, the day that the fire department says, oh, uh, you're no longer meeting the requirements for safety, and the show doesn't go on, the cry is gonna be City Council, where were you?

Why didn't you solve this issue?

How did you let it get to this point?

Because those are the questions I'm asking, and I know I'm going off the rails, but I just think it's important for us as a community to come together and start talking about solutions then rather than just no council, don't do that, don't do that, don't do that.

Thank you.

Mayor, do you have a really quick question for Jill?

Okay.

You don't mind.

Jill question.

We just all Jill, can you come back up to the mic really quick?

So unfortunately, we've just lost our meeting because this is not a discussion time.

We're sorry.

That's okay because it's not we're not this is not typically the uh because we did, we'll let you make one comment and then it's just really small.

Actually, it's really it's a big thing.

Um we I don't feel like I have been given all the information I need to come up with solutions.

We don't know what's already been thought of, or I think we need a sit-down discussion with all the players involved so that they can say what they've already thought of and tried.

So I don't know what to come up with because I don't know what you've already thought of so far.

Thank you.

So thank you.

Yes, okay.

Well, I was just gonna ask Jill because you said that you would be willing to help.

So I was just wondering a week ago when you said that you wanted that you were making public comment about not wanting to convey, and so I asked what solutions you said you didn't have enough time.

So I'm wondering if you have had time to think of any solutions between now and then.

I have thought of a whole bunch, but I they might be silly solutions because I don't know what's already been thought of.

I don't know what's possible.

For instance, what if we did ice hockey and ice skating in there?

Well, that probably wouldn't work because you have all the equipment to make ice.

I mean, I don't know about that kind of stuff, but if we were in a room full of experts who knew the answers to the type of questions we might come up with, it'd be really helpful.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so what never mind, let's just move forward.

Madam Mayor, thank you.

Okay, so let's our next speaker is Patricia Evans.

And we're not gonna have any questions.

Okay, no questions or comments back because we've kind of gotten out of our what we're to be doing tonight, and we've got public hearings coming.

My name is Patty Evans.

I live at 3616 East Rolling Green Place, Nampa, Idaho.

I've heard some really good suggestions from the council members this evening, but I've also heard a lot of people say, well, no, that won't work, and then we move on to the next thing.

We just all found out about this at the end of June.

And when I came to the meeting last week, I was coming to say no.

I didn't know I was supposed to show up with solutions.

I had some solutions, but I didn't get to finish what I had.

So I wanted to say about the Jacobson report, I believe that it is it it is overinflated, it is a pie in the sky list of things that need to happen over there to make it pristine and perfect.

We don't need that right now.

We need it to get to where it is functioning and safe.

So I think that that probably isn't a 25 million dollar uh estimate.

I think it's should be closer to eight to ten million in maintenance, not the 25 million.

I also believe that the parking lot should be at the very bottom of the list.

I mean, I've been in venues in major cities where you parked in uh Caliche or dirt parking lots or fields, and nobody blinked an eye.

They handed over their 20 bucks and parked their car and walked in and enjoyed the concert or the rodeo or whatever event was going on.

I do believe that we have a lot of people saying, Well, this and this group says that and this and that.

I think that what we need as a city is to have a consultant who specializes in this to come into this facility and say that and and and kind of do an audit.

Look at what we're spending our money on.

Look at are we running the air conditioning and the heating when nobody's in the building?

Are we running the air conditioning and the heating too high or too low?

Can we back it up a few degrees?

Everybody in here should remember.

Well, most everybody in here should remember the 70s when we had to do that as an all to save money.

Um we did it in schools and things like that.

But I think that we can save this.

I really really do.

Um, I like the idea of facility um uh facility fees on tickets, as long as it's going towards specifically the maintenance.

Um, the uh we need to amend the auditorium district.

Capital uh improvements, don't build it unless you can maintain it.

And I see a lot of that going on around here on the uh roundabouts.

They're beautiful.

I love how quickly we get through them and the artwork, that's a luxury thing.

We did not need the artwork, although I love the Wright Bee Flyer because that's one of the parks I worked in was the Dayton Aviation National Historical Park.

I have a special place for the Wright brothers, but there's weeds all grown up into the landscaping gravel.

So we need to be able to maintain what we have before we build new.

I encourage the council to think about that in their future budgets.

Madam Mayor time.

I still have a few more things uh because I don't think that we are going to.

I knew we wouldn't get the tax levy when we walked in here tonight.

Nobody wants to pay more taxes.

None of this money is gonna come from one spot.

You're gonna have to piece it together.

You're gonna have to prioritize the most important things in order to fix it.

This facility could be it, it is the crown jewel, although a decaying crown of NAMPA.

And I think that we truly could fix it.

Don't give it away because it's got a few broken things that cost a little bit of money compared to the worth of the facility.

I encourage you to not come here next month, not to vote to convey it.

Okay, don't have that vote yet.

I think we need to do a much deeper dig in the public eye in order to save it for NAMPA.

It needs to be saved, not given away.

You don't give away your house, a 400 or 500,000 house because you need a new boiler or AC or a roof.

You don't give that away.

You have all that money.

These people invested all that money, and you want to give it away.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you for the extra time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Madam Mayor.

Our next speaker is Kelly Chapman.

What am I saying?

116 Marvin.

Well, it's in Calmbo, but anyway.

I'm one of the writers of the VRT on demand, and if you got rid of it, I'd be like really devastated.

I usually I you know I'm talking about the VRT, the 150 and the 42.

Although I think the 42 would still run, but it just wouldn't go through NAMP.

I don't know how that would work, but anyway, was that my time limit?

Okay, anyway.

Um also if you got a commuter train, you could get a pus stop at the Fort Idaho Center, which would also save the parking issue, because then people would be riding the train to the event instead of parking there.

So then you wouldn't have to fix the parking lot.

I thought I'd throw that one in there.

Um there's a lot of fun places to go in Napa.

I mean, we got the Walmart, we've got the Napa Rec Center, which I think they've got what are they calling that one now?

Howard Rick or I don't know what they're calling it now, but they're calling it something else.

But that was another fun spot.

There's just there's a lot of people that write it besides me, and I to lose it would just make me really sad.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you, Kelly.

Unless there's something else I need to say.

No, thank you for your comments.

Council, do you have any questions?

Kelly, do you normally just ride here locally in Canyon County or do you ever go into Meridian or Boise on the city?

I got a boise all the time.

Thank you.

I mean, I think I go there at least three times a week.

I mean, on a busy week.

Thank you.

Anything else?

No, but thank you so much for taking it.

Just save everything.

Well, thank you for I'm thinking the churches should do pre-free repairs on the NAMP or whatever.

What's that place called the Fort Iowa Center?

Maybe we could get the churches to do some free repairs there.

Other than that, I don't know.

Kelly, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

That's it.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Is that it?

Okay.

So that is it for our public forum time this evening.

We are ready to step into public hearings.

Council, how about if we do one more real quickly, which is Shars?

So we're gonna do yours and then we're gonna take a break.

This public hearing is 8-1 on the agenda.

It's an action item, and it's a public hearing to consider establishing a new fee for providing passport photo services, Madam Mayor.

Shar Tim, City Clerk.

I uh are you okay with me being a good one?

Yes, okay, thank you.

Um I feel a little uncomfortable because I'm asking for a new fee.

So um, but this is actually regarding uh passport photos, and um I'm just going to do a very high-level summary because everything was in the packet, but this is uh just for uh the audience to kind of understand why we are here and why the city clerk is asking to establish a new fee or uh providing passport photo services.

Do you have a presentation for the PowerPoint?

I do not.

I do have one slide that is more of a comparison.

Okay, and that's why I wanted to be very brief.

Thank you.

So um the city clerk's office is actually a high volume passport acceptance facility, and we execute over 4,000 new passport applications every year.

And we also provide courtesy reviews for over 600 renewal passport applications.

The staff of the city clerk's office is a passport acceptance agent, and we are responsible for ensuring all materials are needed to process a passport application.

One of the most critical things is regarding the photos.

We are responsible to ensure that the photo is an accurate likeness and it has been taken within six months.

We are required to examine it for the applicant's identity and to ensure that the photo meets strict requirements.

What has been happening is many times we have to reject the passport photos that are being taken at other places as they don't meet those requirements, and those people have to go and ask for a retake.

This process is causing frustration and delays, especially when there's school age children.

In recent months, there has been an increase in the public requesting passport photos be done at City Hall to provide that convenience and allow assurance that the photos meet the requirements.

The established fee for the passport photos would offset the cost for the equipment and the supplies that would be an on ongoing basis.

My objective is to provide a convenience and to provide efficiency for applicants wishing to go to one place for both their passport photo and the submission of their passport application.

It is in not my intent at all to compete with nearby businesses.

I did a comparison photo.

I do want to um not sharing.

It will be okay.

There we go.

Um I do want to um acknowledge that there was one small mistake and the um staff medal that I submitted.

Um I had thought there was only two passport acceptance facilities in Treasure Valley that provide passport photos, but when we were um grabbing this information and doing research, we did a 50 mile radius and found seven.

Um are in Boise.

Um the closest one is the City of Star.

They all charge $15 except for the City of Star, which charges $25.

They started that um passport photo service uh about two and a half years ago and has always been at $25.

I do want to show that the local retail businesses that offer passport photos, Staples at 1799, Walmart at $16.99, and Walgreens at $16.99.

When um I was considering what price that we should do for the fee, I decided to go with $25 because one City of Star was at $25.

But also, excuse me, I had um a conversation with the CUNA Library District when they started this um service, they decided to go exactly what Walgreens was doing, which was $15 at the time.

Since then, Walgreens increased their price.

CUNA Library District chose not to, and so now they are in competition with Walgreens, and that is something I really wanted to avoid.

But I would defer to council if you wanted a different fee.

Thank you.

Is that that I have what are you currently charging?

Uh we are not providing that service yet.

That's why there's a new fee.

All right, thank you.

Sure.

I one of the principles that we have had within the city is that we do not compete with local business.

And so it isn't that's the reasoning for having a fee.

It's strictly a convenience fee.

If someone didn't have their passport photo, wanted to have it done here, that we would do that for them, but we don't want to compete by with the private sector it for their revenue on these.

So that's why the fee is set at 25.

The reason this is uh in a public hearing this evening is because it is a new fee.

We're required to do a public hearing if there's a new fee being proposed.

It is a new service, so it isn't that it's we're increasing a fee, it's a brand new service that we've never provided, and so that hints new fee.

So with that, um this is a public hearing.

Um this is a public hearing, so councilman Griffin, can we come back and do public hearing and then come back with questions?

Or does council have questions real quickly?

I think the question that I have is something that very well could be brought up by a citizen in their okay uh testimony, and it might avoid having three minutes go out the door unless I take that long as well.

Thank you.

Uh Shar, regarding the uh necessary FT, the status, the amount of passports coming through.

Well, the $25 mark be able to support self-sustaining clerks in the clerk's office.

Does it need to be more?

Does it need to be less?

Does it hit it right on the mark?

Can you speak to actual employment and uh needs within the office to not pull away from other tasks but still be uh diligent in getting this done?

Well, I'm thinking that would you also speak to the fact that you're already processing passports, so thank you.

Right.

Um, Madam Mayor, uh Councilmember Griffin.

So uh we have already been doing passports, and again, we are considered a high volume uh passport facility, and that is actually coming from the US uh State Department when they did their audit with us last year.

So we regularly um process four to five thousand passports every year.

We are only allowed to charge $35 per passport, and that's a brand new one.

We are not allowed to charge anything for renewal passports, so we do a courtesy review.

Um just with that alone.

I typically, not I, I'm sorry, we will typically um have a revenue of about uh close to 200,000 every single year.

Um so this is just another um basically a convenience.

We are responding to what the public is requesting, and that is the passport photos.

Uh I am not going to be uh seeking any more staff.

I have enough staff, and um we actually have been increasing our passport appointments to make it a little bit easier for people to come in.

We also allow walk-ins, which most facilities will not do.

Um so again, this is just another convenience.

Thank you.

Okay.

So go ahead.

This is a public hearing.

And Madam Mayor, there is no one signed up for this item.

Is there anyone here that had intended to testify regarding our passport photo fees?

If you would like to come forward and it's the same name, address again in three minutes.

Well, we just have to do it.

Sorry.

For the record.

My name is Patty Evans.

I live at 3616 East Rolling Green Place, and I needed a passport uh last month.

And I went to one of the retailers that was listed up above and waited around with some other people, and it was kind of like silly.

I had to shop around in the store for them to process the photo.

When I came, I didn't know I needed an appointment, and I needed this quickly uh because I needed it to get back.

And um I kind of dropped the F bomb on the clerks because they couldn't do it because I didn't have an appointment and I was too late in the day.

But they were very efficient, they went over my paperwork and told me what I should go and look for at home, which I was able to find, remember.

And I came back the next day during my appointment time, and they were very good and efficient.

And I think that if they had the photo processing available to them, they would be like the place to go.

And I think that would be a very good thing.

Thank you.

And sorry about the F bomb.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else that hadn't attended to testify this evening?

Oh no.

Thank you for sharing your name and address.

And so there I can just uh affirm kind of her feedback that there are many people who come and have to uh then go get their photo.

I I do support the pricing, it's not intended to be price gouging.

I I I you're not undercutting the private sector.

So if if a citizen wants to go to one of those locations and pay less and then make the additional trip here, but it's really a convenience fee, and you're not mandating that you must use the city.

So I think it will uh generate revenue.

Um but more importantly, as you say it's intended to provide an option for convenience to the citizen.

So I wish we could offer it at Canyon County.

We're we're looking at potential options, but it's really a space capacity, so it sounds like you have a space that you can dedicate to making sure that these photos can be taken.

Uh that's a wonderful opportunity that you have to serve a citizen.

So it's just a space on the wall.

Literally.

But um, yeah, I think the ampha will continue to serve well.

And thank you for doing we do direct people here because Caton County in most places, as she said, is only appointment only.

So I know a citizen was in a bind.

Sometimes we have citizens in a buy and we say, go to Napa.

There's no telling when they'll get to see you, but you are one of the few places, and that is very much appreciated throughout the county because there are citizens who uh sometimes underestimate what the turnaround time is on a passport and and we're booked out two to three weeks in advance.

I don't know what your bookings out are so, but sometimes people are in a bind and they come here, and that's an incredible service to the citizen.

So thank you.

Actually, is there anyone else that had intended to testify?

Thank you.

All in favor?

Any post okay.

Any closing remarks uh staff?

Do you have any I do not, but I do see um council member Griffin uh posed a question on the chat is when is the effective date for photos to be available?

Um after we are done with the public hearing, um and if the resolution passes, it would be effective immediately upon passing.

Okay, thank you.

So what is the will of council?

Mayor I'll uh authorized mayor to sign resolution establishing the fee for passport photos and stop respecting date.

It's been moved and seconded to uh uh sign authorize the mayor to sign the resolution.

Is there any further discussion?

Yes, Reynolds, yes, Hammerfield, yes, Griffin.

Yes, Engola, yes, Rodriguez.

Yes, all in favor, motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So we are going to take a break, and so for those that want to go, you can.

For those others, we'll try to be fast because I know we have some public hearings before us.

So we will take a few minute break.

Okay, City Thank you.

City Council, we're gonna get started.

Hello.

Huh?

No, I I have coffee.

I just think we're gonna get started.

Okay, guys.

I I think we're ready to get started.

Okay, so we're missing two council members.

I think we lost them somewhere.

Okay.

Let's go ahead and get started.

Um so we are ready to start with action item eight two.

This is um actually eight two and eight three.

And then eight three is our fiscal year twenty twenty-six budget hearing.

It is my understanding that we can put them together for the public hearing and there will be separate action items for each one, but we are gonna combine them into one hearing.

And so Doug was a little bit disappointed because so many people left.

Yeah, that's good, Sharp.

Go through the foregone and then see if there's any questions from council, then go through the budget, see if there's any questions, and then we're gonna open up for public hearing.

People can speak on either one.

And then we'll close.

If you choose not to fund one thing or fund something, you're choosing uh to fund or not fund something else.

And it uh I hope we can get more public presentation or support in more public involvement as we go forward.

That's I would love to sit down and answer questions anybody has on this.

Anyway, let's go back to this budget hearing uh for the foregone.

For this year, included in the budget is 468,023 for a 1% foregone increase.

That value, and I'll go through that in more detail of the total tax impact in the budget, but that uh allows us to hire three additional police officers with just a little bit left over, like about 20,000, 30,000 left over.

Um that brings the total of police officers uh in the budget for next year up to six with uh two um uh office staff uh dispatchers, um, and that is a separate resolution.

I will come back to the impact on the taxes in just a moment in the total, so you can combine the foregone with the um new construction and the impacts from last year's foregone.

Let me go down really quickly.

I want to start here on this is page I believe six or seven.

Uh I'll go through this.

This is on actually page three.

This is page three of my executive summary.

So the budget for fiscal year 26 is 310 million 79,409 dollars.

That is a 2.7 million dollar or 0.9% increase over the prior year.

The increase uh are driven by the following changes.

Labor benefits, and that includes new FTEs, increased health care costs, percy costs, uh, all the labor benefits increased $7.1 million dollars.

Operational costs increased only $2.6 million, debt service $2.1 million.

That's related to the wastewater treatment plant.

Capital decreased by $4.3 million, and transfers and allocations decreased by $4.8 to get to that $2.7.

So I wanted to start that, and then I want to go read through very quickly a couple of things.

The budget summary leads to a also includes a capital budget of 118.1 million dollars.

That's decreased 4.3 million for prior year.

A lot of that is due to a decrease in how much we used on the impact fees.

And I want to state for the council that impact fees are budgeted as used, not as received.

So as we collect impact fees, they go into the budget, we collect them, we put them into the bank account.

When we use them, we budget for them.

So this year, all the impact fees keep collecting, we actually have a decrease in how they're going to be spent in this one year.

And most of that, most of the capital decreases because of the impact fees.

We've talked about this, $2.78 million dollars of new FTEs.

12 of those are in General Gov, and eight of those positions in General Governor for the police.

And those making more getting three percent.

It includes increased percy cost of 0.3 million, increased health care cost of 1.4 million, and the health care is going to be the big issue going forward.

How do we fund that?

We're next year.

I think we have to make some changes in how we do this, and it will be uh probably uh cost increases across the board.

Um that is unless everybody gets suddenly healthy and we have lower claims next year.

Um total operations, 2.7 million dollars increased.

A lot of that increase is related to the wastewater treatment plant.

New supplies, new electric electric cost, um repair and maintenance cost, uh, that's helping drive much of that increase up.

About 1.1 million of the 2.7 is related just to the wastewater treatment plant.

Now I wanted to spend a moment down here and talk about the impact of the taxes collected in this year.

The new construction was 872,000 and annexation was 20,000.

Last year, those numbers totaled 1.804 million dollars.

The difference this year is that new construction was heavily weighted inside the urban renewal district.

The actual amount of new construction going on in the city increased over the prior year, but almost all that increase went to the urban renewal.

If this trend takes place next year, it's going to be a very challenging budget.

Now, for clarity, the foregone taken in 25 was of two flavors.

1% for operations that stayed with the city, and 3% for capital.

That 3% capital in 25 backs out in 26, and so the amount levied goes down to the citizens by that value.

So the tax increase, including the foregone, that will in fact it doesn't really impact the levies.

If you look the total 3% taken was $1,336,000, and the total foregone reduction, the recapture from last year is $1,322,000.

And that's the increase or net thereof.

So this year the residents really don't get an increase in the taxes because we're backing down the foregone from last year.

So it levels out.

The increase in the budget is $1.49 million.

That's barely a hundred thousand more than the three percent taken.

So a very very net neutral budget for uh the public.

Shared sales taxes, uh the first time in a long time it went up slightly, 569,000, but it's important to note that the collections are ahead of prior year at the state level, but they're col the state is collecting less than they budgeted.

So I'm very cautious on this line.

So we budgeted at 97.5 percent in 26 of what we will expect to receive this current year in case it does go down.

We won't have a painful landing there.

Uh other increases uh tonight will have water.

This budget includes 4.9% increase in water, a three percent, 3.5% in sanitation, and a 4.9% increase in the irrigation.

Now you may come back in a put another public hearing in here, an increased amount for the presentation, but what's in the budget are those 4.9 percent.

So very briefly, I want to go down and just recap this one more time so you know the breakout of the budgets.

The um property tax.

I want to look at the second section, which is the total source of the funds, 46.7 million dollars of total property taxes collected, 24 million of intergovernmental, that's shared sales tax, that's road and bridge tax, highway taxes, service revenue 108 million, primarily fees for water waste irrigation, license permits and fees of 8.5, grants and donations is 25 million dollars, the other financing of 6.8, that's 99% interest income, and that will start to go down next year.

And then finally, transfers and allocations and fund balance of $75 million to get to the $310 million budget.

If we look at that very quickly by the funding source on the whether budgeted by type, the general government total budget is $70 million, enterprise funds are $133 million, enterprise being water, wastewater irrigation, streets, so forth.

Special well, pardon me, special revenue funds $78 million, capital and impact $24, and internal service of $4.3 million.

And the final number I wanted to share very quickly, the budget by category.

Personnel services, uh, we are at a personnel intensive occupation here, $83.3 million of personnel costs, operations $77.5 million, capital $118, and debt service of $8.6 million, and then transfers allocations of $22.6.

That forms up the $22.1 million dollar budget, and I stand for any questions or for additional clarification as requested by council.

Mayor.

Yes, Councilman Griffin.

Uh I I don't know if you have this calculation, Doug, and really I just am looking at the levy override numbers, and I know I cannot because I know uh we have to factor in growth as an offset.

What do you believe the uh total amount of property tax increase or net zero we'll be seeing this year after this approval of this budget?

Well, for the public, the the net increase is practically zero because we're we're backing off the 1.3 million of capital from last year.

So the increase this year to the public is literally given that the new construction is nearly 900,000, and that is not an increase, that's tax on new properties, and the foregone is one six is 468, and that compares to the three percent of 1.3.

The increase to the citizens is about 150,000, which is literally pennies over the year, pennies.

Not even won't even get up to a dollar.

That's the increase they will see this year from the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council, do you have any other questions?

So, Doug, um, just for clarity, was that your full presentation for both foregone and budget?

Yeah, the foregone is in their 46802.

That's the total.

Council, do you have any questions before we go into public hearing?

Okay, councilman Rodriguez.

Oh, sorry.

I I I do, Mayor.

Um would you please tell me again from the 468023?

What is going to where it's about 130,000, 135,000 for each additional officer in year one?

So you've got 260, 390, 390 to 400,000 dollars.

We have about 60,000 left.

Council approved a couple of other small changes in wages and benefits for um the um mayor was an in the mayor was an increase we added back in, mayor will pay.

Um there was a couple of other small increases we added in and that, but it's 90 percent too directly to the police.

Okay, yes.

And if you factor in one time cost, it's over 400,000.

And so what would be the total amount per 100,000 to each resident?

Well, as I indicated, if you look at the 1% as an isolated item, that's about $2.81 cents.

However, in this year, because of the reversal of last year's foregone, it will be literally pennies on the dollar.

Maybe maybe as much as 80 cents is their their increase from the city's budget.

So while you do have an increase in the foregone, because the foregone from last year is coming off, the net budget increases very little compared to the three percent.

Okay, thank you.

General Mayor, uh Councilman Bills and then Councilman Griffin.

So uh just a quick generalized question to not take foregone would mean we're not funding the three police positions and some miscellaneous.

Let me answer that this way.

Keep in mind we still have unresolved budgetary issues related to the West Valley Humane Society related to the Canyon Canyon prosecutorial services and our own legal in-house.

Um if we didn't have the one percent foregone, we would be cannibalizing budgets when we eventually resolve those because I think there will be even if we stand up facilities ourselves, there'll be one-time cost we're going to have to absorb.

Um, and we've got a couple of buckets of money to use for one-time costs, but if I didn't have the foregone uh and we tried to deal with the other issues on our own, we would be probably cannibalizing other budgets to get there to resolve these eventually.

Because even though the budget doesn't include the entirety of what the West Valley is asking for, I don't think we've we've gotten to the point where we've resolved the negotiations, and it's going to be a challenge going forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Griffin.

Uh I just uh looking for comp um confirmation.

I remember last year, one of the points of strain for me was that if we did not take foregone, we would see a property tax decrease because of the ending and the paying off of our bond early.

If we didn't take foregone this year, would it have been the case potentially that we would have seen actually a decrease factoring in that I know last year it it uh ended or was paid off early because we took foregone it delayed the effects of paying off that loan early?

Could we have seen that this year if we voted no?

Well we did in 25 when we took the three percent was we delayed the timing when when the public would receive that reduction in payroll tax rates.

They received that in 26 budget by the 1.3 million dollar decrease.

The 468,000 or foregone added this year.

Um I have a hard time saying it's I can't address the tax savings without addressing the internal consequences of not having it.

We are we are struggling to meet the financial needs of the city.

We're not underwater.

We're the stocks and the sky is not falling, but I'm looking forward every year, and every year we get so much closer to that cliff.

And my job is to stay away from that cliff to keep us away from that, or at least provide you as counselors with the correct information to guide us away from that cliff.

If we don't take the foregone this year, we don't take the foregone next year and the year after, we're going to get to that cliff much more quickly.

It's just the way it's going.

Growth is happening.

The the urban, the highway 16 project, the Purham drain, growth is coming.

Whether you as council decide to try to shut it down, I don't know that it's possible given the the demand and the uh challenges we have.

That's for council to address, but it we do not do our best to control the budget and meet the needs at the same time.

The how do you put this?

I'm kind of in a little bit of a lot of heartburn going on because of the conversations today.

Because I hear the public saying we don't want to increase taxes, and I get that.

I heard the public saying they've got a great love for the Ford Idol Center.

From my perspective, I cannot, those are two mutually exclusive items.

I cannot make them both work together.

If we keep the Ford Highhouse Center and have to pay for the deferred maintenance at whatever level it is, that's money I don't have for police and I don't have for other areas.

It's just a matter of that fact.

You can find some ways to to make the maybe a little less impactful, maybe there's a few things we can do better.

There's always going to be a good idea to help.

But those good ideas probably account for maybe five to ten percent of the challenges we're dealing with.

So if you want to say no to foregone and you want to say no good forever, let's just let's start planning now for the eventual budgetary impacts that are going to be coming.

If next year I don't have urban renewal, because that goes in there, we're only in $900,000.

We're not gonna have a very good budget season, and there might be some degree of you may be forced into saying, I know we'd like to hire new people, we literally can't.

And that's that's where we're headed.

And I'm not trying to lay panic down because we can make our way through it.

I can make any budget work for a year.

You tell me what you want to do, I can make it work.

Year two is a problem, but I can do anything for one year.

But what I'm hoping to do by giving you all the information and the long-term view is to see the cliff a long time before we get there so we can make decisions now that help us steer clear.

That's the whole plan.

I do want to say to Doug.

Doug, you've done an absolutely excellent job of trying to give us a preview of what we have coming with our budget.

You've been extremely conservative in trying to ensure that we have operational dollars to give us facing the day that we know is coming.

And so um that this is probably the hardest thing for the public to understand is that we have the internal discussions around where do we see from a budget forecasting and revenue forecasting, where do we see us going?

Yeah.

What we've been talking about internally is we're seeing us go into a difficult place.

We had a couple great buildings come online.

They were an urban renewal district.

We've got another one coming along online, urban renewal district.

Those funds won't come into our budget until 2032.

I thought it was 2031, but it's actually 2032.

So it's a little bit problematic because one, our levy has gone so low that the property tax revenue is not coming in the same, and then we have them going into the urban renewal district.

So you combine that with House Bill uh 389 and 673, all of that together is the perfect storm, which leads us to where we are today going oh good grief.

It is a reminder because and Councilman Griffin, you're absolutely correct in your assessment that we had a debt, a loan that we paid off, then we did foregone plus um, we did uh three percent plus one, which was a million six off of a two million dollar to where we were it allowed the taxes not to go up with that this year, because that three percent just rolls off.

It was one-time use, and some have suggested we don't ever do that again because we need it for ongoing operational, adding that one percent.

When we have five point eight million that's not in our budget that would be, but because of those bills.

So that's 5.8 million.

And as we all know, what the legislature did is it caused us to put the burden off of new growth onto our existing citizens.

Exactly what's going on.

Absolutely what we should not be doing.

Unintended consequences.

They wanted to save the homeowners, they actually did the reverse of pushing it back onto the homeowner.

Onto the homeowners because the new construction is not paying for it.

Very unfortunate.

That said, the good news is for this year, if we do a three percent plus one percent foregone, there is virtually no, according to my understanding and deck what you're saying, no property tax increase, very minimal, very, very minimal.

Because it's mostly less than a dollar.

Most of it's new construction.

And that's not a tax increase, that's new construction dollars on new new taxes on your dimension construction.

So hopefully that's all clear.

Are there other questions?

Just one more clarification, Mayor.

So you have left over from the 468 and three officers about 405,000.

60,000 would go to I just want to clarify 60,000 would be divided up to West Valley Humane Society.

Well, 25,000 went to the mayor's increase salary increase for the next mayor is up 25,000.

So there's probably 25,000 right there.

Plus, we did the salary increases for the council.

Yes.

And so I don't know what the total is there.

We did 9,000 for the percentage of people above 2.75 to 3%.

That was $9,000.

Yeah, those on there just a three or four small items that used up that remaining 60,000.

Oh, I see.

So we've already taken care of.

Oh, we've used yeah, we've got no there's there's nothing left.

And and this is this will be the challenge um as we go forward so the council understands this.

We built in to the uh and the police association knows this.

We built into the police budget the same wage increase that the city got.

So we're in negotiations negotiations now, we'll see where that goes.

Anything they ask more is going to have to come from somewhere.

I don't have a magic bucket of money.

Uh the my preference, and well, I'm not gonna go into that now.

We'll we'll come back to that later.

But there are there will be challenges if we the council decide to approve more than I have budgeted for them bucket.

Thank you, Doug.

Any other questions?

Mayor?

Yes.

Uh in regard to uh West Valley Humane Society.

Uh and I know we had talked about this, the recent letter that they had sent.

Where does that put us budgetarily with them not renewing with Caldwell and potentially not extending with us?

Where does that put us budgetarily?

Well, we approved in our preliminary workshop a budget of 483,000.

And we we have met uh as municipalities in the county to discuss where we are.

Uh right now we're staying with where we are.

They wanted 720,000.

We've I think council made that decision.

I fully support it.

We the fact that we increased our budget by 400,000 in one year is massive.

And um we're still working on how we're gonna move forward in collaboration and meetings with them.

So we're having ongoing discussions.

But we're not increasing our budget beyond where we are.

And has a future question.

Yes.

Or have there been any discussions of what their plans are regarding that with their non-renewal letter coming through from the human humane society and their plans, and are we discussing partnership agreements with them?

Where are we at there?

Well, we again it's the same answer.

We have met with them.

We have ongoing discussions taking place, but we've already met with them, and only Caldwell can speak to Caldwell, but we have had a meeting with them, and we will have a future meeting with them in the coming weeks.

So we're we're in the process of discussing what our move forward is, but it isn't it's yet to be determined.

Thank you.

Uh-huh.

Any other questions?

Okay.

If there are no further questions, we'll move into the public hearing.

So we have one person signed up to speak, and that is Elaine Clegg.

Thank you.

Well, gosh, it's great to be here tonight.

Thank you all.

Um I'm Elaine Clegg.

My work address is 700 Northeast 2nd Street and Meridian, and I'm here not just on behalf of Valley Regional Transit, but all of your constituents who write our services.

I want to express my deep appreciation for your spirit of partnership and all of the work that you've been willing to do with us over the last year together to find a path forward.

It really means a lot to us.

You know me well enough to know that I'll probably improv even though I have these prepared remarks.

So we'll see here.

Last month you voted to maintain full funding for VRT.

Uh that vote to me was more than a budget decision.

It was a clear recognition of the essential role that transit plays with your constituents and your community and your recognition of that.

And that means so much to these people's lives.

It seems to me that it also reflects a community conversation that's grown bigger and stronger and more united over this past year.

Online surveys, the dedicated transit day, uh one-on-one conversations with many of you, and at bus stops with many of your constituents.

And the message we heard was clear.

From all of you, this is a hard year.

We want to work this out, but just know our budget's hard.

We recognize that.

From your constituents, we heard things like without on demand, I'd go broke.

Transit gives me my independence back.

If ERT is eliminated, I may not be able to exist.

And from one health care provider, we heard if service is eliminated, it will be doomsday for us.

You heard that.

Thank you.

Many of your community partners all also chimed in.

St.

Luke's, St.

Alphonsus, Terry Riley, College of Western Idaho, WITCO, Senior Center, Boise Rescue Mission, and each of them saying it the same thing.

Transportation isn't a luxury, it's a critical infrastructure.

And you listen, thank you.

We understand your vote last month to put us in the budget was not easy.

I heard even more about that tonight.

One of the reasons I love coming to these meetings is having served on that side of the of the DIS for so long, it brings back lots of memories about how hard it is to be this public servant that you all are, about how critical the decisions are that you make every day.

And reminds me how much I appreciate it and appreciate you for continuing to serve.

So we know that everything is stretched in, and uh that means even more that you were able to go ahead and and move us into your budget.

We also have a limited budget.

We know you know that.

Um we try really hard to run good intercounty and on-demand services.

We know it's not enough.

Uh Councilmember Griffin, I think it was you who said there's not a bus stop close enough to my house that I can get there easily, so it's really hard to use.

That's true.

We'd love to have a day when council member Griffin can walk out his door and get on a bus and look forward to working with you to get there.

The sustained investment is really hard.

We talked about that last month, but it's also really critical to being able to move forward instead of one step forward, three steps back.

And so again, thank you so much.

It means that that stable, secure funding that we've all been looking for is a step closer instead of a step farther away.

So thanks for listening.

Thanks for preserving the service.

Uh thank you for helping build a more resilient, better connected transit future, not just for NAPA, but for this whole region, because NAPA is such an integral part of the middle of this region.

It let your readers breathe a sigh of relief last month when you made your vote, but it did more than that.

I've heard since how many of them are hopeful for that better future where we can build better transit.

And so we look forward to doing that with you this next year.

And thank you again, urge you to pass this budget as it is.

Thanks a bunch.

Thank you so much.

Council, do you have any questions?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, we do not have anyone else signed up for this.

Is there anyone else the CV that had intended to testify on our budget?

Seeing no one.

I would stand for a motion to close public hearing.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Thank you.

Council, do you have any further questions or need for discussion?

Any questions for Doug?

Okay.

So we are going to do this in two motions.

Uh the first motion will be regarding the foregone property tax.

And Doug, do you have an actual motion?

I'm sorry.

It's the resolution.

Thank you.

Okay.

Madam Mayor, I move that we pass the uh foregone FY26 foregone property tax.

And um have you signed the resolution?

Second.

So the motion, I can read it for you.

The motion is to authorize the mayor to sign a resolution declaring intent to recover the city's foregone property tax balance in the amount of 468,023 for fiscal year FY26 for general maintenance and operations.

Actually, it isn't for general maintenance and operations.

Uh operations.

I would say it's for operations, yeah.

So we're going to get rid of that word general maintenance.

It's for operations.

Okay.

So that is the action item.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Mayor Clay, can you uh define?

I was gonna ask that because it does say for the purpose of uh fund general maintenance and operations.

You're saying you're gonna strike the general maintenance aspect of it.

Yes, because operations being only for police up umgoing.

Correct.

It's all operations.

It's for the it as Doug explained earlier, the police positions.

In addition to that, we did wage increases for council, for mayor, and then there was an adjustment on the three percent at the which was another, I think nine thousand dollars.

Right.

Right.

So it's all operations budget is what that's for, and we are striking general maintenance further discussion.

I kind of do, but don't I just I'm I'm just gonna say that uh um the the I don't know that that we can put a dollar amount on the safety of our community.

And uh and I think we need to I need to understand that there's uh for example 153 police officers in uniform.

Short of that, there's a uh 30 or so that are uh in specialized units.

I don't know, these between eight and nine per shift out of 130,000.

And if you realize you take from West NAMPA to east NAMPA, it takes you oh about what 30 minutes.

I was never that's unheard of.

But when you have uh in dire need of of uh of patrol for our community, that's uh wow.

I think that kind of paints an ugly picture.

Yes, that's what I see, Mayor.

Okay, thank you.

Any further discussion?

See none roll call Rodriguez.

Yes, Bills, yes, Harryfield.

I voted no on foregone when we were going through the budget process.

Um I voted no for the increases as far as for salaries for city council.

I've never voted for uh foregone or city council increases in 12 years.

Um struggle with this a little bit because I do believe that uh we need to fund the police properly, but uh if we weren't tying in the uh the budget or the increases for city council, I'd vote yes, but I'm gonna vote no.

I'll make a similar comment.

I'm grateful that police is getting funded that we found room in our budget, whether it be through foregone or not.

I voted no on council salary increases, and for that reason I'll be voting no on foregone for that case as well.

Yes, Reynolds, yes, or in favor, two opposed motion carries.

So the action item for 83 is going to be the first reading of ordinance adopting the fiscal year 2026.

This is if there is a motion to approve it, then we will read the the ordinance.

But we first need a motion if we approve the budget.

Madam Mayor.

Yes.

Does this pass under suspension of rules or actually let's just start with a motion to approve the budget and then we'll move over to the ordinance?

I make a motion that we pass the FY26 budget as presented.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Okay.

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Uh yes.

Griffin.

No.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Five in favor, one opposed.

Motion carries.

So now we will have the first reading of ordinance adopting the fiscal year FY2026 budget.

And it is requested to pass under suspension of rules.

And ordinance appropriating funds for our 12-month period from the first day of October 2025 to an inclusive of the 30th day of September 2026 to be defrayed the expenses and liabilities of the city of Napa for said fiscal year, specifying the object and purposes for which said appropriations is made, authorizing a levy of a sufficient tax upon the taxable property, providing for a repeal of conflicting ordinances, directing the city clerk to file certified copies of this ordinance with the county commissioners and Idaho Secretary State and providing an effective date, referencing sources and uses of funds and appropriating monies, specifying a process for expenditure of funds and establishing an effective date.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Ingula.

Yes.

Everfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Griffin?

No.

Sorry, I couldn't hit the button.

No.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Five in favor, one opposed.

Motion carries.

That concludes our public hearings for 82 and 8.3.

Thank you, Doug.

Appreciate it.

We are going to move to 84.

84.

The open public hearing has been asked that we continue it to date certain of September 15.

And I believe we need a motion.

Is that correct?

Okay.

I would ask for a motion to do so.

Make a motion to uh postpone item 84 to date certain September 15th.

And with an open public hearing, correct?

With an open public hearing.

Okay.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Um discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Ingula.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

85 is an action item.

This is annexation and zoning of a total of six acres for approximately 1.98098 acres into community business, 4.65 acres into RS4 single family residential, and 0.25 acres into light industrial and a potential development agreement for a development referred to as Brentwood Village at 7799 Eustach Road.

This is for Brent Orton.

He was representing Warren Rajell.

Did I get it right?

I did it right.

Okay.

They coached me, and I was trying not to still mess it up.

So uh the original concept is annexation and zoning to provide for a future subdivision that includes 0.25 acres of uh light industrial zone property to a house and existing cell tower to house an existing cell tower and then 1.9 acres 09 acres of BC zoning along the frontage of Eust Road and then 4.65 acres of RS4 zoning to create 24 single family lots and maintain access easement for the cell tower.

So thank you for being here tonight and go ahead and introduce yourselves.

Good evening.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, City Council.

Thank you so much for hearing us tonight.

With your permission, Mayor, we'd like to tag team the applicant presentation.

That's great.

And so Brent, go ahead and give name and address and for both of you.

I'm Brent Orton with Orton Engineering 1733 Sunny Dale Place in Caldwell.

Thank you.

And I'm uh Warren Rajell at 7799 Eust Road.

It's actually your name.

I try not to mess it up, Ward.

It's nice to meet you.

Silent H.

Yes.

Okay.

Um so I'll just I'll be brief.

Uh just two minutes here.

Um so my wife, my wife and I have resided at this property for the last five and a half years, and we've seen the growth coming.

We knew that change was here.

Um, or change was coming, and it was inevitable.

So we for the last three years have been thinking about um, you know, what do we do with our property?

So we for the last three years have been thinking about um, you know, what do we do with our property because it's uh not a lot of people looking for uh six-acre farm home sandwiched in between two large developments because to the west of us is uh Jackson's that's coming in, um, and then to the east of us is uh Cory Barton subdivision that has already been approved at Trussell Creek.

So we have the uh the challenge to decide what we do with our property, and uh this is what we have come up with over years of uh thought, and um there's I think hopefully tonight I can breathe the breath of fresh air into this meeting and show you some of the things that we've been working on that I I think will be tasteful for the community and just good overall uh plan.

So, you know, when you think about could we oh I have the paper here.

So it's the existing property, like I said, is six acres.

It's uh canyon county agriculture, um, and it's currently an open pasture that we use uh for cattle, and there's a cell tower that's on the property that we don't benefit from.

Uh the previous owners had um cashed out on that deal, and so now we just have to honor the easement on that property.

Um so as we thought about um what could go here as a transition between the commercial property and the residential.

Um there some of the things that come to my mind as a good transition would be you know, apartments, um multifamily, uh that type of thing.

But I uh come from a landscape architecture background.

I like to do things that are um aesthetically pleasing, and I think I I've been watching some developments in the area, and this is one over it's called Riverstone and Eagle.

Um, right as you go up north on 16 and you cross over the Boise River, you look down to your right, and you'll see some man-made lakes, and in that um subdivision are these what I call quads, and there's four single-family homes that share a common driveway that the um the garages kind of go into a center uh courtyard fourth point.

And right here, there's about a hundred of these properties here, and they sold very quickly.

They're all sold over there, these are brand new.

Um, and this is kind of a bird's eye view.

But they're very um tasteful as far as like they're very nice homes, and uh they average anywhere from 438 to six and a quarter.

Um so you can see kind of the the front of this one and the inside is nice homes as far as uh square footage, they're around 2,000 square foot.

Um so what I'm gonna do is turn the time over to Brent.

Um, and by the way, we used to live in a subdivision called Brentwood back in Kansas City.

So it's not we're not naming it after our engineer.

This is something that we um it's kind of uh nostalgic for us.

Um so I'll turn it over to Brent, and you can walk him through all the um project.

And thank you so much for sharing that because I was in my head.

I was asking the question where did the name come from?

There's nothing more embarrassing than having a project named after you.

Umir and council, thank you so much for for the opportunity to present.

Um also want to just compliment many of you know I worked for Caldwell for 18 well 19 years, and um always kind of keeping an eye on how's the customer service in each community and your staff's doing a great job.

It's been wonderful to work with.

We really appreciate them, and um, so well done.

The um just to quickly cover, I think staff will do a staff report.

Yes, Christine.

And they'll cover several of the things.

I'm gonna go quickly just to hit high points.

Um, and I'll leave this to the staff to illustrate to the council, but we'll just over it quickly.

Um you're aware of what the request is, and um this is a quick look at what we're proposing is how this quad concept fits on this property.

Um, at this point, we are not proposing a preliminary plat, but we want to we want to just see what we intend to do, and we're happy to be committed to that in our development agreement.

We just wanted to have a plan before we went forward with that.

Um we're backed up to the Purdom Dream.

Um we're appropriate with the comprehensive plan.

Um, these are the surrounding uses.

I think they'll also be covered in the staff report.

Um just some of the benefits.

Um I really like the transition.

Warren's landscape architecture background really becomes apparent in this.

We're just engineers, we're not that artistic.

Um, but I love his concept for transitioning between ordinary, you know, conventional single family residential and commercial with the product that will have nice homes, single family residences, and also be probably uh close and good users because of your decision making with the Jacksons.

So that I think will couple nicely.

This also, these lots are smaller, obviously, and that helps a little bit with the value density question of new growth.

When you have a higher value density, is really where that's why industrial and commercial are the big winners for for us as cities is because of course there's a higher value density, and this will accomplish that in some measure.

And if you need a few extra minutes, I'll give you a few extra minutes.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Mayor.

I appreciate that.

Um this is what the uh floor plans look like.

We while we were inspired by Riverstone, we did not steal their designs.

Um the Rajals have commissioned design of this is their own modeling and creation, and and uh um Warren with his uh expertise in this area, he's audited all these plans and modified things to so this is um just some renderings of the type of homes that proposed there.

Um here is one thing where we need potentially some help with the staff.

Um when the Jacksons project was approved.

Um their development agreement includes this provision to require cross-access to the property of the east, which is this project.

Um the we understand why this is occurred, and I just want to speak to a couple things.

Um there is enough space on that U stick frontage for both properties to have access.

Um, however, under the standards.

Um we also appreciate though that your your team, your staff team is looking out for what are things going to be like at the intersection of Eustick and Franklin in the future, and wanting to steer clear of problems that occur could occur, and and therefore had asked for the Jackson's access to be placed further away.

That does compound to the impact that we can no longer have an access that meets that standard if theirs is set that far away from the intersection.

Um what we would ask for at this point um the is that um we have a strong preference to be able to have an access there at the um at this location where the um where our road is shown where the uh we also have an easement obligation there with the fiber backbone that feeds the cell tower runs through that easement.

Um also of course concerned that people be able to see where the access is and that they're driving into the the development.

So there's some concern on our part for if that cross access ended up being you know selected by Jacksons in an undesirable location.

And I know the staff will work to help us with that, um, but that that could really cause a problem and kind of places our destiny concerning that access in the hands of a neighbor, and certainly not a criticism for Jackson's, it could be any neighbor, right?

Um so um what we would ask is that um the council would authorize a condition of approval that would let us have an access point where we prefer it here if there is a problem either getting that um cross access thing sorted out or if they propose it in a difficult to use and very undesirable location, we would ask for the council's um consideration for a condition to to make something that would would really work.

Um we'd love to have it right on that driveway.

If that could work, that'd be amazing.

Um if that can't work, then to be able to have it uh probably right up front so people can see when they come into that driveway that the weight into the development is it's right up at the front, basically parallel to use stick or something like that.

And I do believe that's what the staff um anticipated intended when with uh helping to construct the conditions of approval for for that case.

Um but we're in need of your help on that.

And one other little quick thing, and that is um, I don't think this becomes a problem, but there is a condition of approval that was proposed that I think might have been uh unintended.

Uh we would generate about 250 trips per day or 25 peak hour trips, which falls under the threshold for traffic studies by quite a bit.

It's a quarter of that threshold.

We're not bringing forth the preliminary plat now, so that that would usually accompany a preliminary plat anyway, but um we would just ask for consideration to not have that just to have that held against the project if by some means it came forward with uh in a way that met the thresholds for for the traffic study under the um engineering policy menu.

So, with that, thank you so much for the extra time, Madam Mayor, and I'd be happy to answer any questions the council may have.

I have a quick question if council doesn't mind, and that is I'm not sure that I understand the access point.

So the original home, that property has a driveway.

It has a driveway, and then it also has access to the cell phone.

Oh, go ahead and come up.

You have to be in go ahead and stand up and I'm sorry, you have to use the mic.

There's already two access points to the property.

One is a driveway to the residents, and then just to the west of there is uh easement access for the cell tower, and that's where the fiber backbone that he was talking about is underneath that road, that easement.

And so that that uh access point is right on the property um basically our west property line.

That would be that would match up to Jackson's property line.

So what our ask is that we would be able to maintain that access point.

Um access point or the easement access point, so the home access point would stay in place until it converts to a business, right?

Okay, and which one is that?

Can is there?

Oh, I see.

So you're pointing to it right now.

Yeah, so that's the assistant driveway.

That's your existing driveway.

So that would stay in place.

And then as this gets developed out, I see that there's another access point that you're looking at.

And that is currently an access point today for the easement.

And you're wanting to maintain that access point.

That's what you're asking for.

Is that correct?

I just wanted to make sure I understood it because I wasn't fully.

So you want to you want to maintain this access point that we see at the very bottom where her cursor is right now.

Okay.

Yeah, that's the ask.

Thank you.

Just uh put the language into the development agreement.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Well, mayor follow up to the same question.

So when the improvements go in for the drive access for the subdivision, with the commercial property, then have access off of that same drive and eliminate your current drive access.

Uh yes, uh the thought is either we could share that um for the subdivision as well as the commercial, or maintain that and have the Jackson's access further down because there's 800 feet between my property line and the corner of Ustick and Franklin.

So I I'm not well versed on how far that entry access point needs to be away from each other.

But I know that the business that's right next to me that's been indexed into the city had one access point when it was county, and now it has two.

So I just um I'm not clear on uh where the limitations are on access points.

But the goal would be to maintain that access point on the west boundary and share it with commercial, if maybe and the west boundary is the bottom of this, is that correct?

That is west.

That's correct.

And east is Jackson's, which is the top of this.

Uh no, no.

West Jackson's is west.

So it's further down from here.

So when staff does their report, we'll we'll you guys can help us understand.

Okay.

There's a map here that shows uh guess what I'm trying to see is that at some point your current driveway to the residents is going to once it converts to a business, that would go away.

That goes away.

Because that's going to help this whole access issue.

Second question is are you dedicating right away for USTEC in front of your property?

Yes.

Because I believe um what is it, 50 feet center right away?

So that's currently two lanes and it will be four lanes.

So yeah, we would have to dedicate right away.

Is that the question?

Yeah.

Wanting to make sure that that issues have been taken care of.

Yes, I believe that's a condition of another station is to dedicate that right now.

That is correct.

Are there other questions?

Okay, yes.

Um would you be able to speak to the uh fire engine turnaround?

Um how that's configured.

I don't I I don't see it as far as the T turn or there's obviously not a cold sack.

It exceeds 150 feet.

So uh how are you uh solving that right there?

And Ron Johnson is here.

Ron, would you like to answer speak to that?

Mayor Councilmember Haverfield if if I'm understanding correctly, they're tying to Ustick Road and they don't need to turn around because then they're going out to the neighboring subdivision down here at this other key if that's right.

So I didn't know I didn't either till just now.

So there is a subdivision that's developed for the road system that uh we'll you'll be able to pick uh into that's where I was it was unclear as far as our maps aren't showing that Madam Mayor umspan have a bill.

I'm sorry about that.

I failed to mention that.

And that we're proposing a private road because of the space constraints, but that is a public street that we connect into there, and it's also the future that's a future location that will host uh sewer main between subdivisions there.

Mayor, I was gonna say too um I've been in an architect, so I've been involved with uh quad projects like this before with internal uh garage doors, uh so it's really nice because you're not seeing garage doors fronting the street.

You can see porches and different things, and uh so I like the concept.

The fact that you're not uh connecting the buildings is townhouses too.

Um so how far off the property lines will the buildings be.

They're we're basically pushing right up against your the city setbacks for this zone.

So we're 15 feet to the front of the building.

Um which if the garage is route front, that would be 20 feet, but because it's because in terms of living space it's 15 feet.

Um and I believe we're the same at the back, 15 feet at the back.

So had you considered a townhouse approach with zero lot lines.

We did consider it um uh we we thought that this product would be more desirable to the city.

So this is well if you go over to Bishop Kelly uh off Allenbaugh.

Um we that's where our development was 55 and older, and it's all quad uh approach, but it's zero lot lines with internal garages like that turned out really nice.

Okay.

Are there any other questions?

Mayor, yeah.

Rent, how do they decide who gets to shovel the sidewalk or the driveway?

I'm just joking.

It's not a joke.

It will be warned.

Okay.

I don't know that we have any other questions, but as you know, you will be back after the public hearing, so we'll have you come back and we'll move to the staff report.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

My name is Christy Watkins.

I'm the principal planner for the city of Nampa.

Um, as stated, the project before you this evening is for annexation and zoning to BC RS4 and IL at 7799 Eust Road.

This is considered to be um kind of an in-filled project.

Um it's not necessarily an enclaved piece of property, but the size and the shape and the fact that there's um already a cell tower and an irrigation ditch, and it's so long and thin, um, really does kind of put it into that category of an infill project.

Um the property is located in uh the area of impact, and it is adjacent to the city limits where it orders property that is zoned RS6, R7, BC, and IL.

City emergency services are available to this property, and utilities will be extended to and through.

The property is located in an area designated as community mixed use on the future land use map in the comprehensive plan, but intends to stretch the residential mixed use designation from the south.

The proposed zoning is are all permitted within that designation of residential mixed use.

The um schedule of uses 1032 do allow for single-family detached residential dwellings in the RS zone, and uses that may come in the BC zone will be evaluated on a building permit basis, and the IL zone um is intended to maintain that cell tower.

So engineering had um some requirements for this project.

Um it says that a TIS will be required for this project.

I believe that that means that Daniel will um evaluate that once he sees the plat, since there was not a plat with this uh proposal, then um he will have that be a requirement with the preliminary plat, and you can discuss that with him.

I will have him come up here and talk to you about the access, about the right-of-way dedication, and about that uh traffic impact study.

So these are the zones that are being requested 1.098 acres to BC, 4.65 acres to RS4, and 0.252 acres to IL.

Um potentially 24 lots uh for residential, one lot for commercial, and then of course the cell tower for industrial.

The correspondence that was received was from the building department, their standard comments about following building code, um, engineering listed traffic impacts and frontage improvement requirements and their conditions of approval.

The police recommends a commitment to fund 0.08 additional officers and 0.04 additional support staff, and fire district had comments on the water supply and fire access.

There are four findings that you will need to find for annexation.

One, all private landowners have consented to this annexation, two, the property is contiguous to the city limits where it abuts RS6, RS7, BC, and IL zone properties.

The NAMPA comprehensive plan includes this area of annexation in their impact area.

And when applicable um for annexation of roadways, all portions of the highway line partially or wholly to be annexed to the contiguous parcel, um, have an express agreement with the highway maintenance district, or will be taken over by the city for me and for zoning to determine the zoning and whether or not it's appropriate.

There's three findings that you will need to find.

The proposed map amendment is in harmony with the comprehensive plan map.

The proposed map amendment does provide uses or set of uses that would be at least reasonably compatible with existing and adjoining property uses or future uses in this case.

The proposed zoning map amendment is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary because it will bring utilities to and through down Eustach Road, and it will bring needed services to the city.

These are the recommended conditions of approval.

Um I think we probably need to discuss number seven with Daniel.

And these are the potential options.

I'll stand for any questions.

Can we go back and talk about that?

The meeting the 15% open space requirement and what they're planning on doing.

How much ground there actually is in those little green spots?

So, Mayor, um, because we do not have a preliminary plat, these are all just high-level numbers.

Um, and so I don't know that they have really evaluated what they're going to do with it necessarily, but they have designed it into the project.

Okay, so they do meet the 15% open space requirement.

There's a couple green spaces, so um the furthest one at the bottom.

Is that considered open space?

Yes.

And is that part of a roadway?

No, so the road turns ahead of it.

Yeah, so the asphalt is gray.

And the open space area is green.

The open space is next to the cell tower.

There is some next to the cell tower, um, and then there's some also just to the north of that area that turns correct.

There's on each end there's open space, and then there's some down by the cell tower.

Yeah, so there's some at the north side, and there's some at the south side so that they can access both.

When when you guys come back after the public hearing, I might have you come back and speak to actually how big that it's so hard to tell perspective, and if it's actually usable space that you could do something in it.

Okay, thank you.

Council, do you have questions for Christie?

So, Christy, yes, Mayor.

Thanks.

Uh I just want to confirm that residentials showing the uh improvements of a roadway, but then that roadway doesn't appear to be showing improved on out to use.

Can you repeat that?

Can we go back a slide?

Daniel stole my slides from me.

I mean, when the subdivision goes in the roads can be complete to UC, correct.

I will turn that over to Daniel.

Okay.

So the that is just a function of the uh zoning colors, so the BC area that overlaps that roadway.

So the roadway as they've proposed it would continue out to Eustick.

Um condition with Jackson's is that they provide cross access to its parcel with the intent.

Any other questions on this?

No, I just I'm just seeing dashed lines, no gray, so I'm just trying to see that the access is gonna be in place at the time the rest of the platform.

The access would be in place up to Eustach, whether at this location or um at the other.

Let me go back and share um.

So this is the concept plan for the Jacksons uh property there on the uh left hands of the screen is where the actual Jackson store would sit, and then they have plans for some other commercial in the remainder of the property.

Um so as part of their annexation conditions, we required that they provide cross access to the this property that is under uh consideration tonight, uh, with the idea being that they either work with this neighbor and move that access that they have shown to the property line there, or that they provide a dry aisle along the front edge of that property to the east to get into this property.

Um Brent has had some conversations with Jacksons and those are ongoing, and and we've offered uh for the city to sit down with both parties to discuss that access management and how that might look.

Okay, my concern is is that um subdivision is going to connect to another subdivision.

There's gonna be folks who want to come and some are gonna want to get to Usteaks, but we'll go to Jackson's or the other commercial, and it seems like it's gonna bend itself to have an access to Ustick and this open access to the residential as well as Jackson.

Let me coming up the residential traveling north.

They're gonna get close to U stick, but they're gonna look towards jumping into the drive aisle or the drive access going east-west from Jackson's to get to Jackson.

And and to be honest, from a um access management standpoint, if if somebody were to do that, that keeps them off of Eustack or Franklin, and so from a um connectivity standpoint, that's not necessarily a bad thing for the city.

It keeps you know, vehicle trips off of the roadway.

Um, one of the other conditions that um is in place on the Jacksons is that they have walkable connections to the neighborhoods that come in adjacent to them, so that there, you know, people just you know, kids going over there or whatever, that there is good pedestrian access and bicycle access through there to the convenience store and that um, but then as well the uh the cross access for a vehicular standpoint, um that's not necessarily a detriment to the city.

That's actually something that's desirable from an access management and connectivity standpoint.

See it can be good if it's moving from the residential to the commercial.

My concern is commercial traffic is gonna use the residential as a means because that I'm just putting it out there so as dialogue goes on, engineering goes on, just to keep in mind people's uh having dealt with it in years past uh the connectivity to commercials is attractive for the residential to get there.

It's the commercial using the commercial to then cut through a subdivision to avoid it in the intersection and and so that's that's why I'm raising it.

Right, and so the for the Jackson site um we've the um some of the conditions on the Franklin access will limit their access there to help discourage any of that kind of cut through traffic there.

Um that's something we we haven't received building permits or anything for final reviews, these are just concept, um, but those are all things we will evaluate as we we do those reviews.

Thank you.

Daniel, will you be requiring the sidewalk that that cross access?

So the frontage when they do their frontage, they will be required to do sidewalk both Jackson's and this development if approved will do sidewalks on Eustach.

Um the exact internal pedestrian routing on this commercial property and how that connects, that will that review will happen with um likely with design review as it comes in for the that area, um, they will look at that pedestrian access between the between the properties.

Um they will look at that pedestrian access between the between the properties.

Okay.

That's just part of the review process, correct?

You guys will address that.

Correct.

Okay.

Okay.

Are there other questions for Daniel?

Okay.

Is correct if that that condition is really just there that if they go over that threshold, which it's unlikely that they will do, that they will be required to do a traffic impact study if they are under that, which is likely we will not require that when the player might when the preliminary flat comes.

But the concept plan that was there on the screen shows that there was potentially going to be commercial buildings on this property where now it's proposed to be residential.

So parking lot coming up to those.

So the the what I just took off the screen, that was all on the property that Jackson's owns.

So that this property would actually be to the east of that.

Okay, so those building, those three buildings shown is actually on Jackson's property.

Is on Jackson's property, this would have this would be to the east of that.

Okay, thank you.

Can I have a one more question?

Did we put in the development agreement with Jackson's to provide fencing?

I don't recall the.

And what's the setback with uh Jackson's because they're going to be setting up not Jackson's in the corner, but that next piece that actually abuts this to the east, this property to the west, and I mean the Jackson's property to the west.

What is the setback or landscaping requirement for Jacksons that they're not sitting right on the back door of this property?

Mayor, um so Jackson's, of course, will be out closer to the corner.

Correct.

Yeah, so we do have written into code a residential when you're abutting a residential zoned property, you have to have a 10-foot setback and or a eight, six to eight foot fence.

Only a 10-foot setback for yeah, for the dry aisle.

I don't didn't see a drive aisle behind those buildings though.

Yeah, but that's not the final plan for where those buildings are going to be located.

That's just a common 10-foot setback required on those buildings.

That's unfortunate because that's less than there is in a residential and it's commercial.

Yeah, or are we might want to look at that because to have a 10-foot setback on commercial next to residential seems way too light?

And just typically they want to do deliveries in the back of their buildings, and so that'll they're usually will have a 10-foot setback plus a 24-26-foot drive aisle for deliveries before they get to the building.

Okay.

So there's still a lot of distance.

Usually they'll put back doors and loading areas behind the building.

Keep in mind that can be a street and then resident building.

A street and then okay, because there will also be trash cans and trash deliveries, that sort of thing.

So that's just all something to consider.

As long as there is a street there that separates, then that works.

Okay, you just don't want a building trash can sitting right up next to residential.

But there would have to be a road, so thank you.

Okay.

I don't have any other questions.

Does anybody else have any other questions?

Thank you.

Okay, so I think at this point, we'll have you come back after public hearing, which could be just in one minute.

Madam Mayor, there is no one that did advance sign up for this item.

Is there anyone here that had intended to testify?

Hi, would you like to come forward and share your name and address?

My name is Dave Horton.

I look at uh seven.

Coming on your road 3706 South Twin Springs Way here in Napa.

I've lived in Napa for 14 years.

Uh I work with Brent, I am his brother.

And uh I wanted to um on this property, we've had an experience with the city of Napa, and uh actually we've had a lot of experience with a lot of municipalities, and I just would like to give you another an understanding from my perspective what it's like to work with the city of Napa, and it's a five-star experience.

Uh Christie Watkins is taking care of us every step of the way from the time we had our first meeting with her.

She's given us very detailed uh code and backed up comments on all the issues that we've had.

Uh it's just been fantastic to work with uh Rodney Ashby.

Even when the news is not good, he responds quickly.

And even though it's not what I wanted to hear, he's like, this is what the code is, this is what we need to do, and and he's very professional.

Uh so thank you for that, Rodney.

And uh and uh Daniel Badger up until tonight.

I've only communicated with him in uh in email and got to meet him this evening and shake his hand, which was great.

Uh I just want to tell you that uh other municipalities who shall relay nameless for the benefit of them.

Uh they don't hold a candle to you to NAMPA, and it you know, as a Napa resident really brings me pleasure to work with such fantastic uh people at Teams Processes and Code.

Thank you very much.

Uh I did want to say regarding the property, uh I wanted to acknowledge you, Mayor, for pronouncing the name correctly.

I pronounced it incorrectly for a long time, and I've known Nancy since before she married Warren.

So kudos to you's only because Christy coached she was on it.

See, even more praise to Christy.

Amazing, Christy.

Um Brentwood, the the name.

Um, I actually when they sent that email saying yes, we won't like to call it Brentwood.

I I wasn't sure they were joking.

I actually sent an email back saying, are you I can't tell if you're joking or not on this.

Nope, not joking.

Okay.

And uh yeah, the the last thing I wanted to note was that um it this is uh you know really been uh a fantastic experience of of getting this to you and just a reminder that all of the preliminary you have an opportunity to go over all of the issues and requirements from engineering with the engineer with the uh preliminary flat process when that does occur.

Uh thank you very much.

Thank you for the kind words towards our staff.

They totally earned it.

Well, I appreciate that.

And you know what?

I know that to be true, and it doesn't surprise me at all because I know they really strive to do exactly what you shared.

But thank you for coming forward and sharing that.

Because with all the negatives, isn't it nice to get a positive?

Yeah, good job, guys.

Thank you.

Okay, so hang on one.

Okay, well, it's your turn.

I'm sorry.

I'm trying to get my notes straight here.

So Brent, come on up.

Sorry about that.

Nancy there for getting that.

Um, Mayor, we do were able to look up some of those um to answer some questions.

And um, so the open common lot area is 1.03 acres, which amounts to 17.28% of the total area, and then the common lot for the private roadway is 1.13 acres.

Um I just to qualify that may also include the right-of-way dedication along the estate frontage, um, but that comes to 18.96 percent.

So, and then um to answer the question about what might go in that uh open area.

Um, there's we have a city regional pathway that runs along the drain, and so we'll have a connection there, and we could some of our notions are that we could do some features that would be enjoyable for people to use as they pass by on the on the drain pathway there.

Um, and then um beyond that we're still working on it.

Um and then, madam mayor, um and councilman bills.

I think your point is is well taken about you know commercial traffic, maybe or cut through traffic, maybe wanting to get to commercial through this.

Um, that can't be avoided entirely.

Um, there is a requirement in Nampa Code that we'll need to comply with to have two traffic calming devices along this stretch of roadway, given its length.

And our notion is to put crosswalks there actually, um, so that people could cross over and walk right into the um Jackson's commercial.

One last thing, I do believe if our um review of the Jackson's project conditions of approval is correct.

I think that the council did actually increase the buffer there, and so it's 20 feet if we understand correctly.

And so that's so it's gonna work out great.

We feel like because to your point, um councilman bills will have our roadway, and then we'll have that buffer.

And then we are happy with the open nature of it so that these you know these citizens, um, these residents can walk straight on over through these traffic calming devices with crosswalks and walk straight over into uh and patronize the businesses in the Jackson's development.

Thank you.

I'll just add that uh so that Brett is correct.

There is a 20-foot landscape buffer um to the east of their of the Jackson's property as well as to the south.

And um that little stretch of green down at the bottom of your screen by the cell tower, uh, the thought was it's to design some type of like a stretching station because that is there is a pathway right there along that drainage uh gulch.

And then to the to the west of the property on the back side, I guess it would be the south side of the Jackson's commercial property.

Um probably town homes for residential.

But um I've spoken to the uh owner of that property and um talked to him about the stretching station and that they could even make that a little bit bigger when they decide to develop.

So it has function is the is the goal there.

Okay.

That is follow your design concept.

Okay.

Thank you.

Council, do you have any questions?

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Did you have any closing comments?

Are you good?

No, thank you so much.

Okay, thank you.

I would stand for motion of close public hearing.

Moved.

All in favor?

I'm mayor.

Pardon me.

I just wanted to make sure you were aware that we did confirm that on the Jackson property they have a 20-foot landscape buffer on that side.

Thank you.

Okay, what is the role of council?

Mayor, yes.

I uh move to make a motion to approve the annexation zoning for a total of the six acres with approximately 1.098 acres into BC, 4.650 acres into RS4, and 0.252 acres into IL for the development, referred to as a Brentwood Village as stated on the screen.

So yeah.

It's been moved and seconded.

Yes.

Can we have them add removal of condition number seven?

And removal of condition number seven.

Okay.

So it's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none roll.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yeah.

Yes.

Ref.

Uh just for a quick comment to maintain consistency.

I still feel that.

Well, and I want to give the shout out to the Brentwood team.

In my opinion, this is a great design for this location.

Um it's a fantastic layout.

The timing is not good for the city.

Uh, I don't believe that we have proper mechanisms and funding it, so I'll be voting no.

Bills.

Yes.

Yes.

Five in favor, one opposed.

Motion carries.

As we finish, I just want to say I love what you did.

Great concept.

I think it's going to be nice, and those are difficult to design, right?

When you've got a long narrow property, I think you guys did a great job.

Thank you.

Where is Brentwood in Kansas City?

It's in Liberty.

Okay.

There you go.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good job, guys.

So we have one more public hearing this evening.

This is 8.6.

Is it it is an action item?

It is a development agreement modification to revise certain conditions of approval in instrument 20076 for the home base multi-tenant buildings in gateway business in a gateway GB1 Gateway Business Zoning District.

This is 3.43 acres.

Um addressed as 4865 East Franklin Road for Victor Farrell, VRS architects representing Tony O'Neill, Echo Companies.

The original concept is to revise certain conditions in the existing development agreement to allow for more flexibility in the parking layout by removing standards outlined in the conditions of approval items 5G and 5H and removing requirements for plantings near the building in item 10A.

Is our applicant here this evening?

Thank you.

Come on forward, give us your name and address, and thank you for sharing with us your concept.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Victor Farrell.

I'm project manager with BRS Architects.

Address is uh 1010 South Awante Place, suite 100, Boise, Idaho, 83709, and is shared in the uh original or shared in the introduction to the project.

Um I'm joined here today by Mr.

Tony O'Neill, um property owner and also a general contractor for this uh development.

Um I'll be brief in my remarks.

We were here uh June 2nd.

Uh at that time you approved a variance uh at this uh location.

Um and I'll leave the I'll leave it to Rodney to uh show the the pretty pictures and and site plan.

Um we're here today to request the approval of the development agreement modification for the property located at 4865 East Franklin Road, future home of two new multi-tenant flex buildings.

The development has previously approved to the design review process in December of 2024.

Uh subsequently we submitted a variance application to reduce the required front setback along East Franklin Road from 35 to 20.

This request was due to the winding of Franklin Road, which significantly reduced available area for landscaping and parking and building footprint.

That variance was approved June 2nd, 2025.

As I mentioned last time, I was here.

During that review, it came to our attention that the original development agreement from November 2007 included language that restricted the proposed site layout.

And as part of that variant's approval, the um we were granted that condition approval allowing the project to receive to be met one of two conditions.

We pursue condition two, which is how we are here today, where we are changing, we've requested to change the development agreement.

Um so that our site plan is uh complies with that as shared.

They requested development agreement modification, um, revise certain outdated conditions to align with the current approved site plan, uh specifically removing uh condition 5G and 5H, which limit parking layout options and amend condition 10A to eliminate unnecessary planning requirements directly adjacent to the buildings.

Uh that development agreement was approved by planning and zoning on July 13th.

Um with these updates, the site plan can uh fully compliance with the City on Amped Code of Ordinances.

Um, and I believe that's how we got here today.

Um again, just trying to be brief in my summary and overview of uh how you got here.

Um we appreciate your time and attention to uh to this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council, do you have any questions at this time?

Okay, we'll have you back at the end, just like we just did.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor and Council Rodney Ashby, planning and zoning director.

Um, he's done a really good job of just describing what's happened.

Um I I think it's probably safe to say that um during the variance request, it was given direction to them to come back with the development agreement.

So this should be very familiar to you.

Really no surprises that I have to share.

So I'll just go through this pretty quickly.

Um, if you have specific questions or want me to pause or slow down on any of these slides, let me know.

The planning and zoning recommended, the commission recommended approval.

Um it matches the comp plan and the zoning in place.

Um there's the site, an aerial view of the site.

Here's the history.

There was a development agreement in place.

Uh they came in um 2012, amended the ordinance to adjust land uses, and then is uh 2020 excuse me, June 2nd, 2025.

We had the request for the variance, which was permitted, and then um you gave them direction to come back with uh development agreement modification.

Um development agreements.

You've seen these before, they're generally just agreements between the city and the applicant or the property owner, and uh you can adjust those, and the code outlines some safeguards for if they don't comply, um, then what happens?

What is the process for um addressing the deficiencies in the agreement?

Um the agreement also outlines some of those safeguards.

Next is uh the code that gives you the authority to modify the agreement.

And here are the three essential things.

Parking is adjusted.

It used to be 80 per in the development agreement.

It says 80 percent of the the parking needs to be um on the sides.

Um more than I think it was 35 percent.

I think I've got the language here.

35 percent of parking spaces uh allowed in the front of the building, and then a minimum of 20% to the back.

They also outlined numbers of spaces.

Um they outlined the need for landscaping right in front of the building, above the building.

Um, there's quite a bit of landscaping required as part of parking and the setbacks.

Um, and then uh already, so that uh that is what their request is to eliminate that requirement, and then there's a pedestrian amenity that was required through the parking lot that uh doesn't appear to be necessary, and so those are all the conditions.

Here's the site plan.

Um you can see that there's quite a bit of landscaping being proposed out in front, still, and uh in caps on the parking right in front of the buildings.

So that is pretty much it.

I went pretty fast.

Happy to answer any questions.

Um, but that is it.

And then here are the couple of motions for your consideration.

Thank you, Rodview.

Council, do you have any questions?

Rodney.

Thank you.

Seeing none, this is a public hearing.

Madam Mayor, no one did advance sign up for this item.

Thank you.

Is there anyone here that had intended to testify this evening?

Seeing none, um, this would be an opportunity for applicant.

Do you have any closing remarks or anything you'd like to share?

Nope.

Council, do you have any questions for the applicant?

Seeing none, I would stand for a motion to close public hearing.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

What is the role of council?

I'd make a motion to approve the development agreement modification as presented by staff for DAMO 652025.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Ingula.

Bills.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you for your work.

Appreciate your development.

And I'm sorry you had to wait till the very ending for a very short meeting, but good news.

Yes.

Thank you so much.

Okay, we're ready to move to unfinished business.

I believe we have two unfinished uh items, reading of ordinances.

9 1 is the first reading of ordinance for vacation of approximately 37 feet by 10 feet utility easement located on the southwest corner of 6 North Gorra Way and the southeast corner of 610 Lone Star Road in an RS6 single family residential zoning district on a point 338 parcel at 6 North War Way.

This is um for Gary Insbick and uh as well as Jamie Juries for the vacation easement and it is requested to pass under suspension of rules.

In order to the city of Napa Canyon County, Idaho, vacating a portion of an easement located on the property generally described as the southwest corner of six North Worah Way, parcel number R083994000 on the southeast corner of 610 Lone Star Road, Napa, Idaho, parcel number R0823993900, located in the southwest fourth of section 21 Township 3 North Range 2 West Boising Meridian, said vacation being a 444 square foot portion of a utility easement on both subject properties, more particularly described below in Napa Canyon County, Idaho, and directing city engineer to alter the use in area amendment and other applicable maps accordingly, providing for an effective date, providing for several ability, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, and parts thereof in conflict here with Madam Mayor.

I move this pass and suspension of rules.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

In Gula.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor.

Motion carries.

92 is an action item.

It's the first reading of ordinance for a zoning map amendment to RD two family residential from RD two family residential to RS6 single family residential zoning district for a.26 parcel at 1423 South Elder Street for Miss Herrera.

And it is requested to pass under suspension of rules.

And once of the city of Napa, Idaho, determining that certain lands commonly known as 1423 South Elder Street, parcel number R11798, located in the northeast one-fourth of section 34 Township 3 North, Range 2 West, Boising Meridian, totally 0.26 acres more or less.

Is currently zoned RD two family residential in the limits of the city of Napa, Canyon County State of Idaho.

And that said land should be rezoned RS6 single family residential zoning district on.26 acres more or less.

Declaring said lands by proper legal description as described below to be a part of the city of Napa.

Determine that said rezoning is in the best interest of the public and consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Directing the city engineer and the planning and zoning director to add said property to the official zoning maps in the city of Napa.

Under designate said property as RS6 single family residential on the official zoning map and other area maps of the city.

Providing for conditions of approval, providing for recordation, providing for several ability, provide an effective date, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof in conflict here with.

Second.

Excuse me, it's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Ingula.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor.

Motion carries.

The last item on our agenda is an executive session, and I would um stand for a motion to adjourn into executive session.

Pursuant to Idaho Code 742061 C to acquire an interest in rural property not owned by a public agency.

Second.

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Hills.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Goula.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.