Victor.

Okay.

Here we go, guys.

Shall we get started?

Okay.

Thank you guys.

Obviously, this is a special council workshop tonight.

And it is just that.

It's just a workshop.

And so this evening there's no public testimony, no public hearing, just a discussion with the council that's done in public.

So you know, uh, it is a workshop, and we don't always do the same as a council meeting.

However, I think I would like to go ahead and stand and pray and do the pledge, and then we'll dig into our agenda.

So let's do that.

Lord, I thank you that you hear our prayers.

And as we step into this meeting tonight, we need your wisdom.

We need your wisdom.

We need you, Lord, to show us the direction to go.

And Lord, you know our heart to be a good steward of this asset with the city.

And so we ask for your wisdom and your presence this evening.

Guide us and uh in the decisions and in the discussions, and we ask that in Jesus' name.

Amen.

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 liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Jingula.

Here, Bills.

Here.

Reynolds.

Here.

Hammerfield.

Here.

Griffin.

Here.

All present.

Thank you.

So tonight for this, this is a workshop.

It is just a discussion.

In front of you, just to help us go through the evening, we put some discussion points down.

And it's not all encompassing, but it'll guide us a little bit.

But we can go whatever direction and we can adjust it.

The thought was maybe we just start with Fort Idaho Center Financials, and then Andrew Luther's on, Doug is on, that they can answer any questions.

Then we'll just talk about some different options.

What we're trying to address, my thought tonight is to address some of the questions that have come up from the public.

So in front of for the council members, I just put some extra documents just so that you had them at your disposal this evening.

And anyway, so the thought, my thought was, and this is really a question.

And I do apologize.

Doug is online, Andrew's online.

And they're available to answer any questions.

Council, would you like to discuss anything on the financial element?

Do we need to start and go over any financials on the Fort Idaho Center?

We've got the document that is online that is the uh FIC Capital Investments.

This document, um, it's been available to the public.

I just went ahead and put it in front of you just so you had it if you needed to.

Um I don't know if you have any questions on that.

The next document that I gave you.

Mayor, I have a question.

Is it for Doug online?

You certainly can, yes.

That's why he's there.

Yeah, a couple of questions for Doug.

Um so the first question I have, Doug, are you there?

Yes, I'm here.

Okay.

Have you been given the opportunity to review uh a recent CWI audit of financial statements like the one that's available on the CWI website?

Of CWI financials?

Yeah.

No, I have not reviewed their financials.

Okay, so you haven't reviewed anything as far as in light of uh CWI's potential to take on this asset.

Is that correct?

No, I've uh focused solely on the Fort Idaho Center and our financials.

Okay.

Well, in light that there's a rescission agreement or uh responsibility that the city takes the the Ford Idaho Center back if CWI isn't able to if something happens in the future.

Uh the city needs to be aware of what the uh what the potential is for that entity that's taking on, at least that's my personal opinion.

So I'm my question to you is should we have any concern about CWI's ability to take on this asset in light of the and I'm just gonna say at the Id Bailey Independent Auditors Report found on the CWI website.

Well, you can't speak to that because you haven't reviewed it.

Uh but I have a copy of it, and I I can share it with council here if we need to, but there are some concerns that have been waged or and stated in the past, and going forward, just uh again understanding their ability to take on the asset and be able to maintain it to the level that they're stating that it needs to be maintained to.

Um and then my then my final question, maybe you can answer.

Uh, should we have any concern about the three percent general fund reduction for CWI ordered by Governor Little for fiscal year 26 in order to consolidate services and for cost reductions?

If they're gonna be uh looking at reductions in their subsidy from the state, is that an issue that we should be looking at?

I guess that's just more of a general question to you.

Well, I I think you you raise questions that I think are as valid as as any questions we can address whether the state will change their funding with a three percent reduction or not.

I cannot speak to.

I don't even know if the that the state can actually speak to it.

No, I know they're proposing a number of things, but they have not been my concern because they're not my finances, but from a finance perspective, you definitely want to be aware of what we find what the purchaser or the acquire, what their financial capacity is, and both now and next year and the future.

It's something well worth considering on either side of the coin, both for us and for them.

What's the impact to us if we keep them?

What's the impact of them if we pass them off to them?

And that's uh again exactly where I'm coming from.

The mayor uh when I talked to the mayor, we it's not a gotcha type thing, it's just the reality of risk.

Uh and so what we're here for is risk assessment.

Uh so that's what I'm looking at from a standpoint of uh as we start this conversation going forward.

If that's the premise we're working off of is a risk assessment, uh I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page.

But I but I would like um I am curious, I'll have to look back at the I Bailey statement.

If they give if they were given a clean audit opinion, which I assume they were, which is what we get, that would mean that for all material aspects, the CWI financials are fairly presented, meaning you can roll rely on them.

Um if they have had any issues in the past, um recent past or distant past, um, I can't speak to right now, but I will look and see if they are financial related, operational related, or what they might speak to.

But um I wouldn't throw anything up if they have a problem in the finances until we determine what that might be, if any.

Well, there were um there are errors found in their report.

So uh that's and again, this is just right off the CWI website.

Yeah, certain errors resulting in an understatement of amounts previously reported for capital and right of right of use assets as of June 30th of 2023 were discovered by the management of the college during that year.

So if they've corrected those, if that was something that was just an anomaly or not, again, that's all I'm looking at is this is the same thing we look at for the Napa Development Corporation for the City of Napa and I Ida Bailey prepares the reports for us.

It's a it's a very valid question.

Um I would um we've had we had the same issue on our financials about three or four years ago when there was a small uh finding about how we valued our capital assets for the city.

I would be more concerned if they overvalued them uh than if they undervalued them, but it's something we yeah, take a look at and verify exactly what it is.

And just further, it states that there it did raise substantial doubts about the college's ability to continue as a going concern for 12 months beyond the financial statement date, including any currently known information that may arrive raise substantial doubt shortly thereafter.

So again, I mean, all I'm doing is I'm looking at what was prepared by Id Bailey for CWI uh and is this was off of the CWI website.

So this isn't something that let me let me dig into that one.

If they in fact issued what's called a going concern comment, that needs research.

Those are uh those are important comments.

It's it's it's a thing in the uh a phrase in the accounting terminology going concern.

If they actually issued that as a going concern comment, we want to look into that.

Okay, thank you.

So um Randy, thank you.

When we um and we did this with our um when we moved into the wastewater treatment facility, we put out the RF, I think we started with an RFI and then we moved from that.

We did that kind of due diligence.

The financial due diligence.

And so um I think I think it's it's a very natural question based on what we typically do on a big project.

So with that, I think that's very worthwhile to uh have Doug do some initial review and then maybe come back with council members and have a discussion about that, and then um also address and ask the question about the concerns on the three percent holdback.

And again, that's based upon the fact that there is uh a portion of the conveyance agreement that speaks to it coming back to the city for ownership if if in the future things work don't work out.

So uh we're looking at uh a report that's prepared for deferred maintenance and you know the costs associated with that, and I have other questions for council when we get to that point, but again, uh our ability to take on the cost, their ability to take on the cost is as equal a concern to me.

Um so I want to make sure that we are uh factoring in that level of risk, not only for ourselves but for them as well.

Thank you.

I think that well taken points well taken, Doug.

I uh have written those down and obviously they're up record, but uh as a to-do at the conclusion of the meeting.

Yes, if I could follow up with Randy.

I have also looked at that report, you know, it was concerned as well, but but you said it just right, Randy.

So the thing about Mayor is if there's ever if there has been ever since we've started this process that the CWI says that they will they have the funds to fund it.

They also said they're going to fundraise for it, and uh they haven't said anything about receiving funds from the state yet, uh, but I don't know that based on their ability to, even though they keep saying they have, but I'd like to know if we have been involved and know the numbers between Oakview Group and CWI as far as their investment from on behalf of Oakview group or what what uh they have decided or what they've figured out what they would do to make it better or financially stable.

So I I'm not sure, mayor.

I don't know where that is if and I think that might be a point that we may look at to determine the availability and financial status of Oakview group to invest or CWI to invest with them if there's been any kind of agreement.

I it's a good question.

Um I can't speak to what agreements they're working on.

Right.

And I don't know if that's I don't know how to even speak to that from a public record standpoint, and if that because they may be having discussions regarding contractual agreements, but that hasn't been something that we are part of.

Well, and and I know that Mayor, yes, yes, I'm I'm well aware of that, but I'm just thinking that we need to be on top of that because that's our that's our property and our investment.

We probably need to take be on top of that just in case, Mayor.

I I'm just throwing it out there to you.

Thank you, and we've written that one down too.

So we've captured it, yeah.

And I'll just say that uh uh Governor Little ordered a three percent budget holdback for most Idaho state agencies, including College of Western Idaho, so BSU, all of the state institutions are seeing the same cut budget uh cut holdbacks, and I'm not sure what that actual dollar amount is, but I'm sure it affects their bottom line of what they can accomplish uh going forward.

So knowing that they're gonna be going in with less money to work with, just like we're talking about uh from our standpoint, it's it's just a valid concern.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions right now for Doug?

Possibly.

Um I'm not sure.

I'm just looking at these documents that we were provided.

I don't know if it's from Doug or Andrew, but I'm looking at the the three-year or the breakdown of the fiscal year 22, 23, 24.

I'm looking on those, and there's uh it says I'm just looking at the line items and it says indirect expense.

I'm not sure what that is.

Can someone clarify what that means?

Well, we're not quite to that okay area of the agenda yet.

So um I think we're gonna come back to if you don't mind pausing on that one, and then we'll explain what that is in just a second.

So um and we can go there.

So Andrew, we'll just shift there.

So um let me start with go ahead.

Before we jump into there, can we get a clarification on this spreadsheet that was handed out?

Doug, the document that they're looking at is the document that you put together that is on our website that has the fiscal years and the total capital expenses, the investments, etc.

So it shows three years of financials on it, or is it the one that this shows this is the um this is oh five through 25.

Okay, sorry.

That document that shows go ahead.

Go ahead.

So clarification, uh total capital expenses, and then horseparkslash other, and then the third column is total capital at cost.

Uh so that would be columns one and two added together to appears.

Yes.

So the now keep in mind there that that isn't the total amount the money that we have spent on it.

It's a total of money that was both transferred to us from the urban at the time and from what we spent.

So you look back in 05, you see a 25 million dollar value.

We did not spend that money that was spent by the urban renewal and then transferred to the safety.

But the other values going down after 05 are values that we have spent.

Right.

So 05 urban renewal had it and transferred the facility to the city of Nampa.

And and then okay, so then uh we we go on down the pathway, and if I'm at this is all capital costs.

This isn't it's not till you get over to roughly column five city operating funding.

Correct.

Okay, which then shows in that 1415 era in there where it was a million and a half.

My recollection when we were actually approving the budget back in 13, 14.

Uh I guess it's been 14, it was like a 1-8.

But this is showing 1-6 deficit on the operating side.

So uh the contribution has been uh not counting the initial transfer over of urban renewal property or value.

Um capital money uh the last 20 years has been nine million, and operationally the city has subsidized the Idol Center 14 million.

Right.

Sorry, I had I had a little breakup there.

Is it a question?

Well, I'm I so I'm trying to get confirmation that I'm understanding the numbers correctly.

And so the total city funding is 22 million that the city has been subsidizing the last 20 years.

Correct, correct.

You are correct.

It's both the combination, it should be a value for the capital and the value of the operations in this, and then a combined impact of what we could in the uh center in terms of operational and capital public.

Okay.

Well, so uh if if uh so from an operational point of view, uh it shows an FY24, the city subsidized the IDO center by a million six.

So just a year ago, uh the city kicked in a million six just in the operating site.

Um so I think on that column, the operational impact wasn't a million six, then it was the total was a million six.

But that probably includes the amount of money we spent over on the horse box.

So you look there back in that second column, and you see in 24, there's like a million some odd that we spent on the horse park.

Okay, so who who paid for the horse park?

The city of Nampa or the Horse Park Association City of Nampa paid for 1.5 million dollars like a horse park over two years, and then we transferred the asset to the horsepart.

But that was a typically what we do is we send the money, we let the horse park or the uh Fort I know Center do the capital investing and then we reimburse them.

In this case, and this is the only case I'm aware of.

We actually spent the money and managed the project for the development of the horse park in cooperation with uh Andrew's guys.

Then we will push the investment to their books as a capital.

Okay, so what's the do you know uh the revenue that comes in off of the RV park?

Um I don't know that off the top of my head, Andrew could probably speak to that a little more clearly than I could.

But I believe in 22 the horse park revenues were some almost 800,000, and then in 23, 24, 22, they were about 600,000 and 23, they were about 800,000, and then in 24 they dropped down to about 600,000.

Uh I thought that kind of curious that it would drop down with maybe it was because we are developing the new RV park in there, but actually dropped down a little bit in 24.

So possibly Andrew, Andrew's online, and um Andrew, you may not have the number in front of you, but would you like to weigh in on Councilman Bill's question?

That do you by any chance know off the top of your head the revenue coming in from the RV park on the RV park directly?

No, but that's something I could certainly pull the information on and follow up.

We charge $60 a night for each one of those RVs.

So it's a pretty simple for me to find out.

I could probably get that to you tomorrow.

Well, it'd be helpful because from the standpoint of reviewing an asset and whether to transfer and what's the production of the asset that if we invested uh a million nine into the horse park since 2020, it's sure be nice to know are we making the 100,000 or are we making 10,000?

And what kind of return that is?

And to me, those are questions that we should be looking at.

Um regardless of the transfer, uh, we should be looking at that from the standpoint of this whole scenario shows that uh the city's put in 22 million in one area in one column.

Capital costs total 35 million.

Uh so we're subsidizing on the operation side, we're subsidizing on the capital, and we don't have the funds to take care of more capital.

And uh so it seems like from uh you know, future forward, regardless of transfer, uh some way there's gotta be an owning up to we've got a got a facility that is operationally in the red and defunct from a uh capital improvement.

So Doug, I just need your comments or what are you seeing from the financial picture?

Well, the um overall finances from 22 to 24 have improved every year.

Of course, it was in the 25 year budget for the first time.

We did not include any operational support.

We included a little over 800,000 with the capital support, but no operational support.

So each year for the past three to four years, their operation, their bottom line has got better.

I can't speak to right now the differentiation between the amphitheater and the horse park in the arena in terms of revenues.

I've got those, but I don't have them at the top of my feeder deck right now.

But overall, they're getting better every year.

I think we're so good.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

So Doug, can you just uh one more time?

I heard it, I just want it restated for the last three years.

We when we net out our operational our maintenance, are we in the red or are we in the black?

And can you give me numbers for 22, 23, 24?

Because you said the last three years, are we counting 25?

We just finished fiscal year 25.

Are we factoring that in as well?

Okay, I do I was offline for just a second.

You're talking to me, Sebastian, or Andrew?

You or both either.

I just for the last three years, what what is our net?

Are we at a net loss or a net profit and how much per year?

For the last three years, if you factor, if you take out the support we've given them in terms of capital, in terms of operation, for the last four years, they've lost money each year, but the reduction, the amount of money they've lost has decreased each year.

If you take out our entire support, and uh the 1.6 million put million we put into the horse park is included in that support.

Um, so we spent the 1.6 million dollars of capital funded by the cities.

When you take all those out, they've lost money each year, but each year they get a little bit better.

But I believe I don't recall off the top of my head.

If you look at that sheet that that uh David Bills was referring to in the very far right column, you look at the very last four numbers, and you'll see probably 20 uh 200,000, 90,000.

Uh in the last four or five years, you'll see those have uh been the smallest amount of losses that we've incurred.

If you add the last three numbers, it's a million three over the last three years.

Now there the income, the revenue has been better.

That it's when you take out our investment that it brings that number down to a million three investment in the last three years.

That does include the RV park.

So we can't say that we've been profitable the last three years.

We've been at losses when you consider the investment, even on an investment year, you can't consider that as a profitable year because you're reinvesting, correct?

Correct.

We've we've never we've never been profitable.

We've lost money every year.

Yeah, but the operations have gotten better, but we've never been profitable.

If you if you take out the amount of money we've given them, they've never been following.

Thank you.

So I know Andrew um may not be able to be on for a long time.

So I think I'd like to quickly switch over to the document that Natalie was referencing.

So in your packet, you have three pages.

One says FY22, the other's FY23, the last is FY24.

Councilman Haverfield asked the question about the uh when we had an offer from OVG to come in and to invest in the amphitheater.

And I think we had talked about the first time it came in and we said there was no way.

They came back with another offer.

What Andrew has done is provided a document that shows which you see on each one of these, you see FY22, and then you see the year HP slash arena, meaning the horse park arena, the proposed contract.

So applying that contract, those terms to the budget, but it shows in FY22.

Um, we actually would have made about 65,000 in FY23.

We would have made 184,000 and FY24, we would have lost 132,000.

The difference would have been a potential net revenue of 198,000 under the new terms, and those are just quick overview numbers.

Um I think net, and so that's the difference between the left column and the right column.

It's and this was done by Andrew and his team.

Yes, sure, Mayor.

So, yeah, those three sheets were put together to be a somewhat of a scenario of what the last three fiscal years would be under the proposed amphitheater investment deal.

So, as Mayor said the left column is as is current agreement, and the right column would be a hypothetical if the last three fiscal years were under the proposed agreement, and as a refresher, the proposed agreement was a capital investment into the amphitheater joint by OVG en Live Nation with upside and downside taken by OVG and Live Nation, and then retooling the horse park in the arena under a different management terms to make it a little more, I guess properly split it out so that the horse parking arena has a great shot of you know continuing on that same financial performance as it has been the last several years.

And keeping in mind this has nothing to do with capital investment at all.

This is operating on and one disclaimer also you know, there's a lot of more conversation that would need to be had about these.

These are numbers that are they're they're good, they're good working numbers, but you know, we've only just started discussing this really and in real time.

Okay, so Natalie, did you councilwoman Jangula?

I should say, did you have a question?

That's okay.

Yeah, Andrew, what is that?

What is that line item that says indirect expenses?

What does that mean?

Indirect expenses are all expenses outside of full-time salary, part-time salaries, and benefits.

So things like utilities, supplies, repairs, postage, printing, all those costs.

Thank you.

And I will say that these numbers, and Andrew, I hope it's okay that I say it this way.

These are very high level estimates.

This is not tracked exactly.

Andrew and I spoke about this a little earlier today because the expenses you've got the salary expense and the indirect expenses.

The revenues are separated by Arena Horse Park Amphitheater, but the expenses are not separated to that level of detail.

And so we all recognize that.

Uh potentially.

Yes, I agree with you, Mayor.

There was a it was a first draft of what we think is reasonable with more expected conversations and questions to come as we flush through the model more.

So council, do you have any questions for Andrew on this?

Okay.

Um Andrew uh the proposed um the proposal that we were talking about, the one that from a year ago, the one that we're looking at today, uh included.

I don't have it in front of me, I'm sorry, I was looking for it.

Um had an investment on your on OVG's part of uh 10 million dollars is the recent one for uh the amplitheater improvements.

Would there not be expected um revenue increases by virtue of an expanded amplitheater from an opportunity standpoint and potential revenue generator that the city would be able to participate in because we are talking about uh a per diem off of the ticket sales that would come back to the city along with the land uh land lease?

Um so are those factored into this proposed contract or not.

Yes, they are they are reflected in the right column towards the bottom.

I think it's called uh amphitheater rent line and uh amphitheater ticketing line.

I'm sorry, they're not right in front of me right now.

Well, I'm looking at the current contract versus the proposed contract, and there's nothing listed for amplitheater.

Oh, amplitheater rent.

Okay, so the amplitude expense uh under the current um is that an expense or is the 1.1 million, or is that a revenue?

Um, I'm not I'm not sure where you're referring.

Are you looking at fiscal under current for under current contract?

It would be revenue.

Okay, revenue, and then so we would not have the revenue under the proposed contract.

But we're is that all ticket sales revenue?

Yeah, that's correct.

So why would not I thought we uh had in the offer that we would be getting uh a dollar or whatever it might be off of each ticket?

Wouldn't that be revenue?

That is in there.

So ticket rebate with the oh, is that the reason?

The ticket rebate at the bottom, 160,000.

Okay, so you expect only 160,000 uh ticket people to buy tickets for a year out of the amphitheater.

Under the proposed agreement, OVG and Live Nation take all the revenue and also the downside, but then also take all the salaries and indirect expenses for on the amphitheater off of the city's books as well.

And again, I thought when we we talked, we we talked about it being uh a point of negotiation.

That's uh it's still kind of up to the negotiation as far as how we would move forward with the rebate and the and the rent, the land lease.

Is that correct?

Yes, everything was preliminary.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any other questions for Andrew?

I did mention to Andrew too that he will be available if we need to get back to him and have him answer any questions.

He's happy to step back on.

He's not gonna stay online, but he will uh I'll call him if we need him to come back.

So any other questions on this piece at this time.

I might go ahead.

Just for clarify just for clarification, the proposed contract is what Councilman Haverfield was referring to, was one that was being discussed last year and still potentially on the table, or even a modified, but it's a it's more of a what if and it's a totally is projection, right?

And where we've been is what's the left call and that's the current agreement.

Yes.

So the money that has been staying in uh in the city's hands or OVG that rises and falls is cash flow is cash to operate with right.

And we are not seeing any increase in that amount of money over the last three years.

Increase in other words, starting to have excess cash flow that we can use towards any capital improvements.

Yeah.

Well, the answer to that question is a little more complex because the fund balance that they have on the cash they have on there has been increasing the past four or five years.

When during the COVID years and 2021 or 2022, maybe 2021 they were down to about 1.5 million.

Now they're at 3.6 million.

A few months ago they were as high as five million dollars.

But what's happening is we're still continuing to fund them, but their operations are getting better.

So look their their net results, their operational improvements are bringing more money back in helps cover a part of what we give them.

So we just left that accumulate into the cash as fixation that you include over the last couple of years because he's traveling, so he's breaking up a little bit.

Doug, you're breaking up, we're gonna cut to another question I have for uh existing council.

So two three years ago there was a signal is ready now.

Uh we can hear you now for you there.

Doug, we're gonna just put you on pause for a minute, and while councilman Bills is gonna visit with the council for a minute.

Go ahead.

So this is gonna come across possibly critical.

I'm not trying to be critical, I'm trying to look at things objectively.

Two years ago, three years ago, uh council made a decision to put in horse park RV spaces and to put in that capital investment at the same time of not maintaining the existing facility, and it seems the return is unknown, but possibly pretty minimal.

What was the thinking and the reason to put in the R V park and to spend that capital improvement money in that direction versus taking care of the existing facility?

I think can I just real quickly, and Andrew, I don't know if you remember this.

At the time it seemed like the ROI was about eight years.

Would that is that about right?

Because I think it was five years.

That's correct.

So is that Andrew, what was that?

You you are correct, Mayor, about eight years.

About eight years, okay.

So at the time we made the decision that an eight-year ROI was acceptable.

So that was kind of in council might correct in my assessment of that.

No, because that we just did that about two years ago, two or three years ago.

I thought he was talking, oh yeah, eight years.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, the eight-year ROI on the horse park when we approved to go ahead and invest in that.

We decided to do that because it was a good investment for our horse horse events rather than uh not have them here.

We wanted to bring them here, and the money, the revenue that it was gained through rental, would go would pay back the city.

And instead, the money was not given back to the city, it was given it was it was absorbed by the Port Auto Center.

So it's 1.5.

We started, I think at 2.3 and ended up at 1.5.

But that investment, we don't know the numbers yet, but I know it's been remarkable that they've been grading that the that those RV parks out, but that number is goes back into the Fort Auto Center.

So it's a good investment for us, and it's been well received by the by the community.

The question on the other critical needs at this point, it was a return on the investment to make sure that we were not losing um participants or events.

So your question, David, was it based upon the financial side decision or on the uh use side by the Idaho Horse Foundation folks?

I'm I'm looking at it from the financial point of view.

Okay.

So uh and that's where I was just gonna say a great deal of investment went into the RV part to further the horse horsepark operation uh with a potential of an eight-year return on investment before it breaks even, and we have a facility that's depreciating and needs maintained, but we go forward in helping the horse park operation, and now we find ourselves not being able to increase revenue or be unable to continue to put more money into the Idaho Center, the question thereof.

I'm just trying to understand the thinking of this two years ago to the decision that is sitting before us or the discussion anyways, maybe no decision.

Um we're still behind the eight ball on maintenance, but we chose to go into the banking business and fund something that we hope is gonna break even in eight years.

Well, I don't know.

So I'm just trying to understand what was the I'd like Andrew to speak to that.

Andrew, can you speak to it?

Why um at the time?

I don't know if you're still there to where you can answer that question.

Yes, Mayor, I'm still here.

Um really there's a lot of conversation from Horse Park Foundation, the rodeo and the various stakeholders in the park and um pretty good points on why the further expansion was needed to ensure the longevity of the current events at the facility.

Some of them were pushing to outgrow the facility and or having options to go elsewhere.

So this was a way to you know ensure the longevity of the large equine events at the facility.

I understand your point, councilman, it makes makes complete sense, but in the context of the time, I think it certainly made sense as an investment also to ensure that the economic impact would still remain.

I think one of the things uh that was discussed at the time was not just looking at the ROI on the actual RV space, but the ROI on the events that were coming because we were at risk at the time of losing some of these big horse shows because they were outgrowing our facility.

And by investing having the uh the RV spaces, it would help them attract future events and expand the uh you know the use of the facility by having the RV parks on site.

They use them, Andrew.

You can speak to this.

I think they use them fully plus a bunch of temps, is that correct?

Yes, they've been a great success.

Great addition to the amenities here at the park.

Yeah.

So that is not just yeah, ROI.

Yes, Sebastian.

Uh I wasn't on council when this had happened, but I went to tour the horse park facilities, and Sherry was the one taking me around in the golf cart, and she said one of the reasons that it had happened, this is obviously second and third hand information.

Looking past the direct return on investment in eight years, they were able the number one retain people's spaces in NAMPA rather than having them housed in meridian or Caldwell, and ultimately the economic benefit of keeping those spaces with those people was significant.

And the economic benefit side outside of our own budget.

Thank you.

So while that I appreciate your question, I guess my suggestion would be I'd like to not spend a whole lot of time on why we did what we did.

We know that we invested that dollar amount in there, it is part of it.

But as we look to the future um in our decision, um I think that's where I'd my suggestion is that we kind of focus forward a little bit, because we can't undo I I'm not trying to flog or so forth.

What I'm trying to understand is the thinking two years ago, uh, because all these numbers were available other than the last two years, were available two years ago.

So uh I'm just trying to understand what was the future forward to us now being in the position at this time asking uh what do we do with the Ford Idaho Center?

The reason I was just looking for background to understand the plane field that has changed that has brought this forward really has to do with the 5.8 million that is not in our budget today.

Two years ago, we didn't even anticipate what we learned earlier this year when Canyon County and Rec Hogelbone came and spoke to us.

That information it was unfolding and we knew it was unfolding, the impact of House Bill 389 and 673, but it wasn't until this year that we saw and really fully understood the significant impact of where we are.

So two years ago when we were discussing this, that wasn't in front of us like it is today.

That's the difference today is that we don't have the we don't have the revenue.

I was just gonna say the same thing.

Why we're even having this conversation is based upon those type of decisions, otherwise we wouldn't be sitting here tonight.

I don't think.

I agree.

Or we would it'd be a topic of conversation going forward, but not to the point where it's been taken today.

So I agree with that.

But at the same time, part of the discussion uh in terms of it's not just operations, also the capital site, right?

Yep.

That we're slipping behind each year.

Well, I was gonna ask a question of council, um, might as well ask it now, yes or no.

If there were no no projected deferred maintenance costs, and that's just hypothetical.

Would we be having this discussion tonight?

If yes, then it's not about deferred maintenance.

So, what would be the reason?

You've stated that we shouldn't be in the entertainment business as a city.

Uh it's been stated that we don't care what the value is, that's what the sit the citizens are hearing out there.

So uh going forward.

We need to, I think what the mayor is cutting to the chase is uh what are we willing to do here?

Are we willing to take this on and continue to try to improve on a situation or to turn it over to someone else expecting them to be able to take care of it?

So again, I'm just cutting to the chase.

If it's about deferred maintenance only, then let's talk about deferred maintenance.

If it's not just about deferred maintenance and it's about entertainment zone or whatever, those type of things, then let's take a step back from the deferred maintenance side, focus on those as being the reasons for this discussion tonight because that's where I'm I'm hearing mixed messages from this council.

Councilman Griffin?

I'll be the first to respond.

When this got brought up, the deferred maintenance was not the issue for me.

And I know, Mayor, when we had sat down, whether it be September, October, August, I can't remember now.

I and I state at this point, and I'll continue to state it.

I don't think cities should ever be in the entertainment venue.

I I don't I I've I've always held that opinion.

I held that opinion when I campaigned.

So now deferred maintenance is a factor, yes, but for me, it ultimately comes down to what are we what's our goals and plans with the Fort Idaho Center?

Are we going to grow and be competitive in the market, or are we going to maintain what we currently have?

And uh this this conversation's got chalked up 50 different ways, but to answer your question straight to the point.

No, it wasn't about the deferred maintenance for me, and then deferred maintenance came out to be 28 million dollars.

Uh, and that just happened to be another another uh point of contention for everybody else.

So just answer your question directly.

Thank you for that.

Any other comments from council members?

Madam Mayor.

Yes.

Um I was the same uh thought uh with the deferred maintenance, it is an issue, but um we just have been feeding this thing too long, and we have no business being in this venue, uh, although we do like having our rodeo and we do like having our uh horse park and the things that it brings to our city, but we have no business is the city feeding this thing, in my opinion.

Then should we give up the civic center?

The civic center because it's been in the red from day one, still is but it hasn't been in the red at the same level.

It's been in the red by a couple hundred thousand, maybe three hundred and fifty thousand, three hundred and eighty thousand.

Um the community benefit that it is the community, it's where we do our small theater events, it's where we have our dance things.

It is truly there for the benefit of our community, and a lot of civic centers like this are truly there for the benefit of the community, and that's what our civic center is and why it was built.

I wouldn't recommend we get rid of it at all.

I think that the challenge that we've got with the Ford Idaho Center is that when it was built, it was built for a rodeo initially, which is awesome, and we love our rodeo.

We know that the height of the building was not built to handle the rigging for a big show.

We recognize that.

But I don't think at the time the city really understood the financial commitment on a property like that.

It was in an urban renewal district, the funding was coming from that urban renewal district.

Then when the you sunset that, then the increased tax increment that was funding it is no longer there.

It's handed to the city, and the city's covering that deficit out of the tax with the taxpayers, and that's um the greatest challenge that we've faced, and the deficit is far exceeds what a civic center does.

And most of the utilization of the Fort Idaho Center, the big concerts, are it's the entire Treasure Valley.

It's not just NAMPA.

A lot of the Civic Center is our community members that are coming in and join and participating in that.

I think that we've talked about this.

Venues are not built to most of them do not cash flow in the black.

But we aren't prepared for it.

And like we said earlier, this discussion wouldn't even be happening, probably.

We hadn't addressed deferred maintenance, and it wasn't on the radar until CWI did their facility assessment because they needed to have an idea of what they were taking on.

But really, it had to do with back when we had this discussion, and it began, the question came up: what is the role of the city as it relates to a facility like this?

Is the role of the city to be in the entertainment business and with our tight budget?

Is it the role of the city to fund that, or is the role of our city to be funding public safety?

So because that's what comes out of Gengov.

So I mean, that's really where it came from.

Could we real quickly while Andrew's on?

Um there were some questions.

I asked him, and so in your packet, there's a sheet there, and I asked Andrew to please provide a response to some questions that came up because that's part of tonight is responding to questions that we've been hearing.

So one question that came up was can the Ford Idaho Center increase ticket prices to generate more revenue?

And so his answer was he said no.

The Ford Idaho Center does not set ticket prices.

And so that's the exact answer because they don't set the ticket prices, the show does.

And they don't retain ticket revenue for any event.

The ticket prices are set by the artists, the promoters, show producers, and their various management teams.

The Ford Idaho Center acts as a bank retaining the ticket sales, and this is what Doug has mentioned to us in that uh in the retention of dollars that are sitting there, and then they distribute the ticket sales back to the event utilizing the venue.

Then the next comment he is what is a facility fee, because that really is what has been asked.

Can we increase or put a facility fee on the ticket price?

So a facility fee is a fee charged by the venue on top of a ticket price that is retained by the venue.

Currently, the facility fee at the Ford Idaho Center is $2 per ticket and netted against its tax credit card fees and splits with promoters that are used to attract events.

The facility fee can be increased, however, there are risks with that.

Competition may not have similar facility fees, and artists can become price sensitive as the facility fee may not be obvious to the consumer.

Lastly, the facility fee currently goes to the net operating income of the venue across the entire fiscal year.

In other words, the city of Nampa does not receive the facility fee, and like any of the net revenue can decide how to spend the funds.

The remainder is contributed to the Fort Idaho Center fund balance along with other net operating income.

And then the next question: how is the facility utilized now?

Utilization has many definitions in the context of a facility.

The direct utilization of the facility was 262 event days.

This was uh is an event on 72% of the available days.

There are many days that have multiple events occurring, which would push that number well past 400 event days, and then they've got the attendance by event type.

Um then there was another question why not add more sporting events?

Any event will be reviewed, considered, and added if there's an opportunity to create revenue.

Many events are considered annually and booked, and some are not.

There must be a financial return to the venue to book any event.

There is some discussion about, and we'll talk about ice.

Well, yeah, that's coming in another question.

But I think there was a lot of discussion about well, have you tried this and have you tried that?

And it just uh I will say uh both the Civic Center and the Fort Idaho Center have really worked even to create their own events, they look at events, but if there is not a viable bottom line, then it's not worth doing the event because you've got to make money on them.

And just because there's an idea for an event doesn't mean that it makes any money.

Um then uh next um why are there not more equine events inside the Ford Idaho Center Arena?

And his comment to that is cost is the biggest factor to bring dirt in and out and clean the facility would cost an event producer a minimum of approximately $50,000.

It is very expensive to bring dirt into that arena.

And then the cleaning of the arena from the dust and everything that's created, I think the average person doesn't realize that.

The footing for the horses, there's all different types of dirt, which we have out there based on the footing that is needed, but it is very expensive, it is not inexpensive.

Um, and that 50,000 is before charges for rent staffing, etc.

And then there was another discussion, a comment about adding winter sports, hockey and ice skating.

And uh the answer to that, and these are again this is Andrew put this together, which I appreciate.

The Fort Idaho Center is not equipped with an ice plant, ice floor or dasher system to do this, a temporary setup would be required, and it's very expensive to rent.

Setting up a temp system would take a week plus and would preclude any other event from using the facility.

So that is a you know, that could be a future consideration, but you got to figure out what pencils.

So, Andrew, um, if you're still there, would you like to make any other comments?

I just obviously, as you know, I just read the document you produced.

Um, do you have any other comments?

No, Mayor, uh, try to answer everything as clearly as I could.

Obviously, there's a lot of nuance involved with it, but from what I heard from the community was well, why isn't the facility booked more or do more of XYZ event?

And I would just say that we work hard every day to ensure that the highest and best use does occur.

Um booking events does come at an opportunity cost, it's a risk reward, you know, we're book something one day and maybe something bigger pops up the next.

So it's not a perfect science, but we certainly try to apply our best capabilities to it and ensure the events that are booking the facility are bringing the maximum amount of revenue to it.

Mayor?

Yes.

And I apologize for crying baby in the background in advance.

Uh Andrew, first off, I hope you have felt and continue to feel that at least from my seat, and I believe all the other council seats that we think you do an exceptional job.

And I really believe that.

And I think we've all said that time and time again.

So I I applaud you and your team.

Following up on the second response, the facility fee, I think that's great information.

And I I know there's a lot of nuance.

I'm just trying to flesh it out in this setting.

If we changed our facility fee from $2 to $6 or $7, or made it uh a sliding scale depending on the event, where's the threshold that says you know, this isn't going to work for us?

So that's part A, and then I have part B if I could, Mayor, but I'll let him respond to that.

Sure.

Then thanks for the words, Councilman.

I understand you guys all have a job to do.

So totally understand.

Um regarding the facility fee, you asked me that before.

I would say it's a little bit of market research on this, and about four dollars is really the high end for a market like ours.

Some of the bigger markets go a little higher.

I think that'd be push the envelope a little far, but four dollars is about as high as you can get.

But with that would have to come a conversation with every promoter as to where the facility fee is going, um, and making sure the users of the facility are aware of the mechanics and what is happening to the facility fee because that will affect you know the the dollars coming out of the marketplace that also feed the events.

And then part B, Mayor.

Yes, and then following uh Councilman Griffin, Councilman Rodriguez has a question.

Go ahead with the follow-up.

Uh and just to fully understand the latter portion of your response on question two that Mayor had read off, it goes into the operating budget.

Does the council not have access to be able to apportion the operating dollars to potential maintenance or capital projects under our current agreement?

You guys set the bottom line budget for the year, and then it's in the OVG purview to do with it what we have to do to try to hit that budgetary number.

Now it's my opinion, um, could be wrong so someone correct me, but whatever council wants to do with the fund balance is is council's choice.

I'm thinking that we could, if we wanted to, we could dedicate if we added another two dollars on, say that two dollars absolutely goes to deferred maintenance.

I mean, you could do that, but um with the fact that there's already $2 on there.

Um I'm just thinking that I believe uh Andrew, you said you have about 350,000 tickets a year.

However, not all of those could absorb that two dollar fee because if it's a ten dollar ticket, adding an extra two dollars makes it a twelve dollar ticket.

So there would have to be some discussion because maybe on some of those ticket prices, it wouldn't be.

And then Andrew Andrew, please correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the day and age of the deals with the promoters is very different.

And Andrew reminded me that the facility fee concept, because I've mentioned it is kind of old school.

Um so that's like probably back from my day when I did this.

Um it the deals that are struck when these events come in are very complex deals.

They're not as straightforward as we're just gonna take two dollars a ticket.

We we may be able to go there.

Um and Andrew, could you speak to that and the ability to go there because of this the way the deals are captured, and then after that I'll have I'll defer to Councilman Rodriguez?

Yes, it's it's quite complex, as you say, Mayor.

And a lot of these councils that we're working with, you know, the groups want to come in and they want to look at all the revenue streams that are there from all the different angles because they have all sorts of different agendas, you know, they might review us from a sustainability lens or our ability to work with nonprofits or what we're charging the consumer.

There's a lot of sensitivity to how we run our business, even from a venue level, because these groups have options as where they want to go, and being very deliberate with how we set prices, set fees, uh how the promoters set the ticket pricing.

It's a it's a it's a puzzle of how this all happens, it's very complex.

I would say it's something that we cannot be the uh sideline quarterback on because none of us understand this business like they do.

They are the experts, that's why they do what they do.

It is complex, it is not easy, and uh I respect the work that gets done.

But Councilman Rodriguez.

Thank you, Mayor.

Andrew, one of the things that that we have to take care of is the investment of the Fort Idaho Center and its projects.

And we've been funding those projects, and I thought for a while there that that Opi Group was going to help in directing that investment.

For example, the amphitheater, uh the horse park.

So now I'm gonna ask you this.

Is um are you aware of any investment proposals by Oakview Group Corporation with CWI, and how that was gonna how their ideas or direction would be funded?

Well, we're also discussing the amphitheater project with them, but that's the only other discussion.

Is that the only thing?

Yes, sir.

Oh, I see.

Um what is the numbers that they're proposing so far?

Carbon copy of the numbers and information you guys have in front of you today.

You're talking about 10 million.

Yes.

Oh, okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Are there other questions along this path with Andrew?

That anyone has okay.

So the other things, I know there's some other things.

I had just written down that um, and Andrew, um we won't make you stay on, but I'll call you if we need you.

Okay, that sounds great.

Thank you so much.

All right, thanks for your flexibility today.

Uh-huh.

Thank you.

So a couple of things that we have heard, and and really tonight, the thought was we've had a lot of questions from citizens, and so I wanted to address the Fort Idaho Center specific ones.

We had the question about the deals, so we wanted to give the financial model to the council.

Then we've been asked questions like, why don't you consider leasing it?

Why don't you consider selling it?

Why haven't you done a uh market assessment uh on it?

And then we've discussed a potential conveyance and terms, and then another discussion that we'll have is under utilization.

I would like to ask council, um, there may be some things that you wanted to achieve tonight.

So would you like us to go down those or how would you do you have ideas about how you would like to proceed?

Okay, uh Mike.

Thank you.

Um question for Preston.

Um there have been several allegations made against the mayor and city council alleging an abuse of authority.

It's just been out there, transparency, that type of stuff.

Or an abuse of discretion.

Can you define for us what abuse of discretion means and how it might be legally construed in the potential conveyance of the Idaho Center?

I appreciate the the question.

Um I'll try to address it in general terms.

Um it's a fine line addressing this, um, of giving an overview versus specific legal advice.

Um we'd want to do that in an executive session, but I'll try to address it from a general overview.

Okay.

Overview.

I didn't know if that was something you could discuss for us since it's a risk assessment.

I think generally I can talk in those terms.

Um you might recall from two weeks ago on August 11th, we had I gave a presentation, just an overview about what the courts have said about this.

And the courts have made it clear in the Supreme Court decisions addressing this law about a city's authority.

Um they use terms vast discretion, broad authority, sweeping authority.

And so what that means is the court is saying when it comes to matters of this nature, it is letting you make a discretionary choice.

It's not a balls or strikes, it's more of a vote of how what direction, what vision you'd like the city to go in.

Okay.

Councilman Haverfield, could you remind me?

You said abuse of authority or abuse of discretion is more the legal term that I've heard.

Um again, I mean it's probably something we should go over in executive session since there are issues that uh are related to that.

Um that I've heard too, with the likelihood of a lawsuit challenging the legality of the conveyance if it moves forward.

Would such a lawsuit delay or put off any final judgment until well into next year?

There was a stay or whatever.

Yeah, mayor counsel.

That's a tough one to answer.

Every litigation has its own shape and form.

Um you don't know what claims have been filed yet, so it's really hard to categorize or pin down what that might look like.

Um you'd have to see what it is to kind of give you an estimate on that.

I know it's not a specific answer, but it just kind of goes towards the timing of making the decision of this nature.

We know that it's going to possibly be delayed.

It's always a risk, right?

You can never control the actions of others, but we can act within the sideboards of what Idaho law and the courts have interpreted that law to be.

And that's where we're steering you wherever you want to go with your vast discretion, how you want to exercise that.

Can I ask a quick quick question?

Go back to the first one, the abuse of authority or discretion.

And I'm trying to, I'm just trying to understand that.

Where has there been abuse of authority?

It's it's an allegation.

I know it's an allegation, but I mean anybody can pull some stupid allegation out, and that's what I feel like it is.

Transparency, um, I'm trying to, I just it totally is puzzling to me because we are I mean, that's why we're having this meeting here.

That's why everything is out on our website, which typically you would never put contracts out on a website.

You don't usually negotiate by committee.

So I'm trying to, it's totally baffling to me why someone accused would accuse abuse of authority or discretion.

Um I understand that some people are, but it's very political.

But whatever.

Well, not I can state since uh again, this just came up when I was looking into it.

Uh gives uh abuse of discretion is probably more legal in in nature, but it's uh an impact more on fairness, uh perception of fairness, um something that's giving one uh entity a favor over another bias or showing favoritism, making statements that might sway uh there are just there are things that can be uh construed as an abuse of discretion.

That's why I wanted to bring it forward so that Preston could address it for us uh because there is a potential for a lawsuit that would happen.

Um again, the city citizens need to know the risk that we're taking uh so that as we move forward uh they're aware of it.

So I had another question for you, Preston.

Then what would be the potential legal cost to defend the conveyance decision by the city?

Would I CRIMP be covering this, or would it be the taxpayers that would be covering the cost of uh defense mayor and counsel again?

Another uh challenging question to answer.

Um, that determination is made by ICRM, usually on a case-by-case basis.

Um generally speaking, um, when it comes to discretion decisions such as land use, um, ICRIMP has historically not covered those.

But again, it's the nature of the lawsuit that drives their coverage, and we just don't know what lawsuit or challenge could be out there, if any, but that'd be a case-by-case determination.

Okay.

Um final question then.

And mayor, back to your uh question about an abuse of authority.

Again, it's just all perception, the court of public opinion versus the court of law type of thing.

So all I'm trying to do is vet out the risk that we're taking on as a counsel in this decision.

Um so my final question, and with the likelihood of a lawsuit, would the individual council members and mayor be subject to legal action citing abuse of authority, such as the granting of favor to CWI over otherworthy institutions who would pay and who would pay the legal costs associated with that lawsuit.

Would we individually, or would there be um insurance coverage, or would this citizens of NAM?

Yeah, again, mayor counsel it.

That's a tough, challenging one to answer.

Um, maybe one better suited for um executive session, but generally speaking, uh it's a case-by-case basis.

Yep.

Have to give that answer.

I just had to attorney.

The typical one is maybe, right?

Or depends, that's it, it depends.

It depends, that's it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

So um the next section, then maybe is just talking about um lease option.

And I can't really speak to this one, but it's been asked, and I don't know who would like to answer this question.

Why are we not willing to lease it?

Why is that not an option?

And then discussing the option to sell it.

Um I would say if we sold it and put it up for sale.

I'm kind of skipping one, but that would probably get rid of any uh abusive discretionary thing that we've done wrong.

Um actually we could just sell it and be done.

Gets and that would be really, but that would be so sad.

But I think for some of our citizens, there it's not this is not about the Fort Idaho Center and the precious asset we have here, it's about a principle.

And so um, for those citizens that we talk to that really uh like the idea of conveying it because they want to hang on to the asset, it is precious to them because they've been here and they think it's very, very important, but not everybody feels that way.

So I think I'd like to take a minute and talk about a lease option or selling.

Mayor, I have a question for you then.

Well, more toward Preston, actually.

Um we've been hearing all along because we can't sell it because of the deed restrictions.

And uh we can.

Well, okay, hold on.

We can sell it.

Okay, and we can put deed restrictions on it.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

That's what I was trying to get to.

Yes.

But has been stated that we can't because of the deed restrictions.

And I always thought, no, that not even coming into play here.

So that number one is out the is out.

We probably shouldn't be repeating that to the community any longer.

Because we can't uh we can't sell because of the of the deed restrictions.

No, we we can sell it with deed restrictions.

And so if someone's misunderstanding it, then it's a misunderstanding.

Well, that's because is that correct?

We can sell it.

Yeah, I think it might be helpful for teeing up this discussion, kind of laying the framework about what it is you can do for a sale versus a lease, vice versa.

That way you kind of know okay, what are your sideboards in each option, and then you evaluate it if that works for you.

Okay.

Yeah, so there's a little different standard.

Overarching all this again is that uh the court's rulings that it's your discretion.

Um, you get to determine in your best judgment in the best interest of the city.

It's a little different if you sell versus if you lease versus if you convey what's been discussed predominantly is a conveyance, right?

It's a legal term for you know transferring property, and we would do it to another governmental entity.

CWI is one of those that would qualify.

And for each one of those lanes, there's a slightly different standard for each of them.

So for a sale, um, Idaho law is clear on this that it goes to the highest bidder.

And so where deed restrictions sometimes come into the conversation is hey, you know, we could put it out there for an X number of dollars, but that means anybody in the world that can come with a cash offer or a contract by sale could come make an offer, and the gloss says shall convey.

And the gloss says shall convey.

And that's where deed restrictions come in and say, Well, we would like to tailor it in such a way where we narrow the field of people who may be interested.

Every time you put a deed restriction, and generally speaking, it will decrease the value of that property for many people.

Saying, Well, if I can't do this on it, maybe it's not worth it to me.

And the pool shrinks the more you put in there.

Um again, it is to the highest bidder.

Case law interpreting cases where somebody doesn't come in with a high bid, you would set that number, whatever that number is.

I'll just throw it out.

Well, that just is whatever's in your head, whatever that number is.

If nobody reaches that number, then the playbook opens up for the city.

And then uh the language says that um if no bids are received, the city council shall have the authority to sell such property as it deems in the best interest of the city.

Again, the statute is pretty riffed with a lot of references, best interest of the city, you get to decide that.

So selling has its own set of rules.

Leasing has a slightly different standard.

Um you'll recall that for selling and conveyancers underutilization piece or not used for public purposes.

Uh for a lease, the standard is slightly different.

It's for you, it's for the council to determine hey, this property is not needed for city purposes, and that you can reach terms that are quote, may be just and equitable.

That is pretty broad, because you get to determine what's just and equitable, and you get to determine if it's for city purposes or not.

And is that state statute?

Okay, yeah, this is Title 50, chapter 14.

That governs how any city conveys property in the state or sells it or leases it.

Yeah.

Thank you for that clarification.

We've been hearing we can't because of D restrictions, and I know that we could.

So the lease agreement has gives us pretty much good leeway.

All the options give you that that leeway, that's discretion, yeah.

Right.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks, Mayor.

So for benefit of uh past experience in the commercial real estate side, industrial side.

Sure.

Uh can't hear you.

There you go.

So uh the typical transaction that has restrictions restricting uh the lessee or the buyer, uh devalues what the purchase price or sales price will be.

I think uh Preston alluded to that.

Um the typical commercial lease uh has responsibilities of landlord.

Uh there's some triple net leases that take place uh in the commercial and industrial area, but they're still even in a triple net lease, and triple net means that the tenant is picking up basically all the expenses for the operation of the property, but they still have a payment to the landlord.

Um but there's still responsibilities on the landlord to maintain uh the facility, or if the tenant is actually picking that up, that puts the landlord at risk.

Other words, the tenant doesn't fix the the roof leaks, they don't care about roof leaks because they're not storing product that doesn't matter if it gets wet.

So they violate the lease.

There's all those different issues that go into the issue uh on these other types of conveyances from my perspective, uh, the experience site.

Um you can have a lease where the tenant is responsible for the improvements of the facility, but if they don't make the facility, then as a landlord, you've got to enforce the terms of the lease.

And if they're not financially capable of uh doing what is needed under the lease, it falls back to the landlord.

So leasing, yes, it's an option, but I don't think it's the viable option.

I think uh it's a false sense of getting something done that is really at risk with whoever's gonna lease it.

Selling with constraints, uh a little story that was uh shared within my early days of education in the real estate side of life and uh business side was you sell the property, but the seller retains the right to put a peg above the front door, and so the conveyance takes place, but the the seller owns the peg and the right to use the peg above the front door, and so after the sell, the owner puts up a dead chicken on the peg and hangs it in front of the front door, and when the chicken has rotted enough, he hangs another chicken.

Eventually the buyer leaves because they can't stand going in and out of the house with the dead chicken above the front door.

What's the point of the story?

When you give up issues or depend upon, so uh you retain uh something or you allow somebody else to uh it impacts your operation.

And you can enter into an agreement thinking this is a good method of disposal of the property, but the reality is uh the city ends up still being on the hook for something, and so I just uh you know I've looked at those options.

I'm very familiar with them.

Uh but I uh I question whether that's a viable option for the city is um a lease agreement um or trying to convey but yet retain certain certain things.

So I just bringing those up.

You know, so those have been mentioned.

I'm just raising, I've seen and uh experience things when you have those restrictions.

You think they're you're protecting yourself, it still requires performance on that other party's side.

So a full conveyance, then you're releasing it, um, and then but the other part is no different than uh hoping the other operators are gonna perform as well as uh we desire I just wanted to comment and I uh I was looking at a text because Amy texted me that and sharded too that Sebastian had to step off, and he left some parting comments.

So I wanted to just share those parting comments so that everybody could see them.

Um it was one uh if we can develop our own enterprise zone, I'd be interested in that discussion.

Two, Sebastian said I'm not interested in selling it, and three, I might be leaning that we pause the discussion of conveying.

Let's move forward in discussion with OVG in regard to our amphitheater investment contract.

Let's really look at reframing our facility fee structure.

So uh those were the comments that he left as he had to step out.

Mayor, yes.

Some questions for Preston Preston.

If we were to sell, do we set a sell price or do we just put it out there and it just goes to highest bidder?

That's a good question.

Um typically you're gonna set the price.

Code does allow you to not put a price, and you just say, if you got a dollar, bring come forward and then up the bidding goes, or you put out typically you're gonna put a high uh you know, a minimum price threshold.

Yeah.

And that will be an important number because if nobody comes in above it, right?

Nobody can meet it, then it opens the playbook for the next step and how the city would uh convey the property.

So, how would we choose to set that price then if we were to go that route?

Yeah, good question.

So you'll do that at a public hearing, um, you know, be duly noticed.

Um I think the best way to do it probably be at the one if it went forward that way where we declare our intent to proceed with the sale formally on the record.

I know there's been tons of discussion about it, but we haven't quite pulled the trigger on like a formal we're taking the step forward.

That would be the time you'd set it on the record, and there'd be a vote on that value, and that would be the number that the any bidder would go up against.

So, how do we as counsel decide what that number would be?

What are we looking at as far as yeah?

You're you're asking all the right questions.

You yeah, if your CFO here, you're asking about um uh different property valuations statute allows, does not require, but allows uh to obtain an appraisal.

So would it be better for us to put it up for sale, not put a dollar on it and let the bidder do an appraisal rather than the city do an appraisal?

Because that takes that would cost us money, I would assume to do one, and I don't know what the cost would be, but is that something we can put on them?

It's a good question.

And I'm the attorney, so I'm not gonna wait into policy decision if it's better or not, because it really is.

It goes back to is that what you think would be best in the best interest of the city?

Do you think it's wise to bring on uh get your own appraisal, know what that number is or put it up to others?

You can dictate how that can be.

Yeah, so it would be an option that we could say we're not putting a price on it.

Yeah, the if somebody wants to buy it, they can get an appraisal on it and shoot us a number and we'll go from there.

Yeah, if they want to if for their own purposes, there's other options.

Oh, go ahead.

No, you're okay.

Um, if we were to do that route, then we could in the cell.

We could put all the deed restrictions and we could do, I mean, what we've heard from the public is we value this in our community, we love all of the the events and and and everything.

So I mean, we could go through and go through it with Andrew and say what kinds of things are being booked here, and we could put deed restrictions on graduations and the gun shows and the craft shows, all the things that happen there.

We can make sure we keep all that that would all be restricted.

Of course, it would lower the value, but it would keep the what it is in the community that people are saying that they want to keep.

We could do that.

Could yes, it would be subject to a majority vote.

What would be in those deed restrictions?

So that would be a conversation for the whole council.

Yeah.

Thanks, President.

So legal, yes, operating wise, whether uh financially wise is the conflict of discussion there.

Frank Lane.

Uh uh, you know, and something's been in my crop for a long time.

So I'm just gonna say, um, I know we've been talking about the funds that we need to do to fix the Port Auto Center.

Is there any kind of grants or monies available to the state that we could use to help?

Um I I don't know what it's out there, but uh I don't know what what do you think?

What's there's nothing that I'm aware of, and I say that because even if CWI had it and the state was asked to contribute, as they do to every other property that they do that the state owns, right?

Um that became very controversial.

Even asking that the state cover anything.

To my knowledge, there are not grants out there from the state, and with the three percent holdbacks on education, I don't see there being anything that way that there is for something like this.

Well, and and and and I see that the the that uh CWI gets gets funded through several different agencies, so I wonder if we could tap into that or we have the ability to to get funds that way.

I I'm just concerned that we're maybe we're not searching everything, or it or or we or we're not able to.

I'm not aware of any other agencies that we could tap into this facility.

I'm not aware of any.

Okay.

Thank you.

So comment it would seem the legislature spoke pretty loud uh four years ago as to uh their desire to continue to see cities have a hundred percent funding.

Um that's part of the challenge that NAPA has faced over the last three years in budgeting, becoming very clear what that really means.

Uh this this current uh uh time and facing uh 2026.

So uh I don't think the state is gonna be in the business of helping fund us considering the legislation that's been passed three years ago.

Um so just FYI.

I don't know.

I don't think that's viable in that direction.

It's really is there other public funding of some sort that's out there, and that seems to be uh in question whether and the likelihood so far hasn't seemed like that's been given to us.

So mayor?

Yes.

So I've heard uh values from 110 million to 100 all the way to 300 million.

So if we want to put a bunch of deed restrictions on it and list it for 150 million, I would vote for that.

I don't think we're gonna get 150 million, but I would vote for that.

And um, we would lose our soccer fields that we would have access to.

We would lose any other control over that property that we could put in a conveyance agreement.

We would lose uh potential or law enforcement uh facility there, and the other things that have been listed out, we would lose potential of, but uh that's just the price you pay if you want to get rid of it, and um, but I wouldn't be in favor of listing it for a node, you know, just to go to the highest bidder.

I mean, we could have an unknown group come in here from East Coast and buy that thing, and it would be no skin off their nose to spend 10, 20, 30 million dollars and let it sit there and do nothing and just maintain the rodeo and not maintain the facility, it'd just be a rotting hole, and they they could do it just as despite us because of the community that we are.

It'd just be a rotting hole, and they could do it just as despite us because of the community that we are.

There are groups out there like that, and that makes me very nervous.

So I don't think that's what we need for our community.

Mayor, can I ask you?

You have experience at Quest Arena?

So that's a privately owned um arena uh tied to the hotel.

How did that uh how does that work as far as from a standpoint of I guess they have they own it, they get the ticket revenue, um, so they pay all expenses.

So how has that worked out over the years?

Is that was that built with C C D C money or or not?

No, it was a private investment.

Okay.

I don't know if they had any incentives that came through.

It was privately owned, is privately owned, and we lost money on the arena side.

Every year we lost money.

The money maker was the hotel, and then the steelheads.

So the arena itself, um, it was very challenging managing an asset that did not self-fund.

It it just didn't.

And so it's a it's a reality.

Um that came online at the same time as and that as uh the Ford Idaho Center, the Idaho Center did, very similar time frames.

Both of them were very challenged financially, uh, because at the time, which was almost 30 years ago, we overbuilt the market.

Now today the market can sustain a lot because we're a much larger market today.

But if you add the uh amphitheater out in Caldwell and you add Boise State doing concerts on their field that would compete against us right now, which both neither of those are in play today, but it's very likely they're gonna be in play, it's gonna take our profitability down and our likelihood of profitability down.

And I think that that's something because just knowing what the market does and how it works, um it's a it's very challenging.

That's the concerns that I have.

Is that when we add which it's gonna happen in our market that there's competition in the market, trying to meet that bottom line is gonna be very difficult.

And uh so if we don't have the money as a city to do so, then that's concerning.

The other thing is the utilization can be a much greater utilization if it's owned by a college and the incorporation of what they can do is far beyond what we can do with it.

So Mayor Preston.

If we were to put this up for sale, what is the time frame look like?

How long would we know, or how long does it need to be on the market?

Actually, it doesn't specify how long.

All it says is that it needs to be held at a public auction.

And then keep in mind we'd have to go through those kind of two-step dance, right?

Statute says one, you need to declare your intent, notice a public hearing, wait at least 14 days, have the public hearing, and then a formal vote to proceed to convey, sell it however you want, and then from there you would go hold a public auction, see if a bid comes in.

And the bid, you know, by statute has to be cash, or it can be a contract for purchase, but it can't exceed 10 years.

So you'd put in there this is a cash-only bid, and they got to come pony up at the table, and if nobody does, opens the playbook, and then you can convey it, sell it how pretty much the court says how you wish.

Um hopefully that gives you some direction there, but there's no real time frame.

Okay.

So we could know, and I mean, after it's noticed, and then we do the public hearing on it, we put it up for market.

We could have it on the market for two weeks.

Three weeks, what would be uh Yeah, there's no limitation, you know, I just kind of go in standard industry practice, you know, a few weeks and kind of see the interest there.

Uh and there's other options too.

I know that some discussions have been had.

Um maybe you want to see who's out there and would be interested in advance.

You could put it up for a request for information or a quest for proposal, kind of get a flavor of what people could bring to the table, and based off that, then maybe make it an informed decision.

That's there's a bunch of options here though.

Thank you.

Yeah.

There would be a just a comment there.

Um a great deal of effort needing to be put in the market side of putting that proposal on the marketplace.

And it's not a listing that would be our offer for sale.

So you want to be out in the publications around the country and possibly the world.

Because the size of the facility, what it's about.

The appeal of purchase isn't here locally.

The appeal of purchase is a larger firm, corporation group, however, it's done.

And so you're trying to get publication out into the major cities to let that work be out there.

Unless you're selling it for one dollar.

But even one dollar means whoever's buying it's got to have the wherewithal to take on the liabilities and the operation.

Keep in mind that again, when you got deed restrictions or user uh restrictions when you have that uh on there, it devalues the property.

So uh just it's just for information from the real estate side.

Well, and I guess my thoughts behind it are we keep hearing from the public, this is my asset, don't give it away.

Um, that we could sell it, so maybe we we try and just put it out there and see what happens because that's what the public keeps telling us that they want, so we give it a try, put it out there for two weeks and see if somebody buys it with all the deed restrictions.

Again, we want to keep it community-centric to what it is that the public is saying that they want to keep, but we throw it out and see if somebody buys I'm sorry, just real quick.

I will say not all the public is saying that, and that's what's so important to hear.

We have a group of people that are saying that.

We also have a group of people that are saying convey it, don't sell it because they don't, so we need to not lose sight of that because we can say we're gonna shift over here, and you're gonna have one group of people applauding us, and the other group of people are gonna be so angry that we would actually consider selling this asset and losing what we've got rather than protecting it through the conveyance.

So either way, it's it is what it is.

Go ahead.

So, Mayor, I was just gonna uh say we really haven't talked about public-private partnerships, uh, the potential for looking at the wisest and best use of a hundred acres of property.

Uh obviously it's all consolidated in one parcel at this point, but if we were to look at a hundred acres from a business standpoint, um if you had a hundred acres to work with across the city, say, and it was in separate parcels, if you were to look at it, how much could be used for one thing versus another thing?

Uh we know that the amplitheater has tremendous interest in it because it's already there, it has an indoor arena next to it, so it has a value in itself that's inherent as far as from a leasable standpoint, whether it's OVG or someone else.

We know that OVG is one of the best uh to be able to work with because they're tied to live nation.

Live nation is one of two, I think is what I've heard uh nationally uh that are the ones that are bringing in the most popular acts.

So uh having that tie, having um tied to our amplitheater as far as with the expansions makes a lot of sense.

So if we were to look at other ways or avenues to uh utilize the facility with more of a profit approach to it, to David's point, um is that something that we could consider to do uh by not conveying the property and looking at retaining ownership and uh moving down a path of maybe multiple approaches to it.

That's kind of the uh my thought has been from the beginning is is there a way that we can approach this without having to give up the ground, lease the property, these portions of the property, sell or if we have to sell, but I don't think we have to.

We could create land leases we've talked about as far as along the front edge, it looks like um CWI is looking at the same approach in their um their agreements.

So that's my thoughts.

Thank you.

Okay, other comments.

Councilman Hammerfield, you know, if I could see some numbers that worked that made sense, I'm not really thinking the city should be in the real estate development business.

But um if I could see some numbers that worked and it made sense, then you know I would be happy to look at that, but I so far I haven't seen any numbers that make sense that gets us in the block consistently council.

I think uh what it sounds like well I I wasn't trying to phrase anything in that in that light.

Okay, so uh what I was trying to uh follow up on is that I'm trying to emphasize that I I believe when if the city's gonna try to develop the property further or part and parcel it, that uh it's only gonna become more convoluted as to uh what we do and how we're gonna fund those changes.

So if we can't fund the operation, or we we're funding a deficit of the operation at the current time, we're not really putting hardly any money into the capital improvements that are needed right now.

And so where does the money come from to physically further develop the property?

Where's the capital come that we would put more investment uh into the property with the expectation of a return?

We're we're now moving into what the private sector does, and uh the private sector may come forward with some ideas and options, but is it realistic that unless it's a uh controlled environment in terms of an enterprise zone or a uh ability for people to purchase or lease the land, et cetera, is the marketplace gonna respond?

It's probably at least a three-year event of whatever we put together to try to then know in three years, five years is this approach even viable.

And any agreement that we enter into would have to have consideration of us being able to cancel cancel those agreements if it determines viability, uh doesn't work.

Other words, somebody could say if it doesn't work, department parcel.

Well, if it doesn't because you you could go through the plating process, you could go through enterprise zone legal ease, do all those things, and possibly only have one person step forward and say, Yeah, I want parcel A.

And the city has to invest infrastructure to do something, and the city now has taken further capital improvement monies and got into the development business.

So not only are we in the horse park and the arena business, but now we're in the development business.

And so uh, and we won't know till what the marketplace says.

Um let me maybe add another layer to this.

Okay, um, and maybe Preston, you can help with it.

Um we've been able to in the past, through the urban renewal effort, uh, to create the Idaho Center, then to create a uh new law enforcement and library and and infrastructure that's in going in place or has been put in place.

Um could we look at this with a different lens and look at it from a standpoint I know that we can't transfer ownership or ability to control the Idaho Center to the Napa Development Corporation, but could there be another spot uh urban renewal area created in that location to allow us then to divert dollars uh that might not that might be available in that effort.

Then we could work, we we we would be able to work with restrictions on development, where currently we can't as a city.

The city has to basically sell it or create a lease arrangement.

Uh the Napa Development Corporation could say, okay, we'll sell it or we'll lease it, but this is what we want to have placed on that property.

Yeah, it's a good question.

Um some points have been brought up about enterprise zones, other districts.

Um I guess a few things that clarify in in Idaho, enterprise zones are not actually a thing uh officially in statute.

It's a it's a concept.

Some states have it, Washington, Arizona, but we don't have it.

So for those listening, um, it's not a special district you create, it's more of a concept.

Um and we've had some discussions, right?

Auditorium district has come up.

Um there's a lot of legal entanglement and how those can and cannot operate.

Some problematic Supreme Court decisions for urban renewal agencies, you know, these these are options that are on the table.

Yeah, but there's not just one way to do this, right?

And uh you know, it would take a little more deep dive on the analysis there.

Yeah.

If I could comment though, uh we have been trying for the over eight years to ten years to sell up the uh lots along Idaho Center Boulevard.

That that has been attempted, it's been discussed.

Um Robin Sellers just recently before the downturn, about the same time that the interest rates went up and we lost the urban renewal deal deal at the corner of third and twelfth that fell apart that high rise that was there was the same time that the entity that was interested in uh either purchasing or leasing property along Idaho Center Boulevard also backed out because of the market.

We can have the concept, but you have to have a willing buyer.

And so far, we haven't had a willing buyer.

Now, across the street, a number of restaurants have built out.

The other thing is there's only so much ground that we can develop there on the parking side.

And I know that there's been a discussion about going to compact parking, and everything I've heard is like no way, because half the people here live in drive trucks.

We drive F SUVs and trucks.

So and those are already small parking spots, I find anyway.

If it were Costco, it'd be different, but those are not big parking spots.

And so you you have to figure out where people are gonna park, right?

If you're gonna do that.

We have certain parking requirements, and it's the same is true of um we could put other stuff on that property, but then how do you accommodate a concert that's a sellout?

I think it was last night or the night before it was 10,005.

When you have that many people coming in, if they don't have a place to park, you are not going to be a viable venue.

Because we're talking about all these different things we could do, but you may not be viable as a venue.

And so I think we're wanting to do a little bit of everything that we could be and do, but is it viable?

Really?

Is it is it a better utilization?

Does it take us down the road?

Um we could get, I know uh we kind of put my penny on the spot, but maybe 200,000 on a lease, or you could sell it.

We had tried, we had a price on that same property for about a million five, which would be a better deal, but that million five still doesn't go a long ways to meeting that bottom line.

I think we've got to be prepared in two things.

There's three issues at hand.

The bottom line of a financial deficit at the end of the day when the competition comes in the market, then you've got deferred maintenance, and then a higher utilization opportunity, which CWI would have definitely have a higher utilization of that property than we would.

And then the fourth thing that I add is is our kids in the next generation.

Some people don't care about that.

I do.

I think it's important to think about the go-on rate and what we can have here in the community of NAMPA.

All that said, I don't know that I have yet to hear a solution that addresses all that that's realistic.

Now, if we sold it and we did a deed restriction, um, you could do a deed restriction, put it up for sale, and do a deed restriction that whoever buys it has to maintain the Snake River Stampede Rodeo.

They have to maintain the horse park because of the economic impact.

And um you could add additional deed restrictions to it.

We would miss out on some things as uh Councilman Reynolds said that currently we what's available in the conveyance, but it isn't guaranteed, and that is the rec center property.

The value of that rec center is between 20 and 30 million dollars in addition to the deferred maintenance.

That's a pretty big deal.

Um but CWI cannot the rec center.

That's not in their agreement that they're gonna provide that.

If they're it's their correct, their intent is to, but and there's nothing holding them to having to do anything.

That is absolutely correct.

You're right.

And and there have been discussions, and Preston has worked with their legal counsel on that.

They've and could you speak to the reason why they don't feel comfortable putting that in there?

I'd be happy to um like any transaction, you've got to have two willing parties to the table, and um each are assessing their own risk.

Uh no different here.

Um CWI uh and and city, mainly me have been interfacing for terms and the feasibility, and there's some question about the um legality uh of requiring a uh uh entity to commit, a public entity to commit to agree to build a uh rec center or whatever the building may be.

Um we've tried to address that as recent as Friday.

I've sent over some new proposed terms that give a little more detail as to the efforts you know, CBI could make towards obtaining funding for such a commitment.

Um but even then they were uh hesitant about that commitment, the ability to do so, and even some of the legality.

Um Idaho's constitution has a as a rule that cities and political subdivisions um are not allowed to incur indebtedness beyond that current fiscal year.

So if something is bound to be uh built in a few years, that could be viewed as a liability, and that's their concern, and we've tried to go about it, and then we may just have reasonable different opinion of how to interpret that law, and that's up to them and their province how they want to interpret the law and assess their risk.

And that's up to them and their province, how they want to interpret the law and assess their risk.

Um, but we've done a good faith effort to try to get more uh definiteness and you know concrete commitments.

Um but it is a it's this is a complex transaction, to say the least.

And again, I mean, like you say, they they're covering themselves as far as from the standpoint of not overcommitting and under delivering, I guess is what we're talking about here.

Yeah, um I was gonna get into the weeds a little bit as far as on the phase one environmental audit that's uh stated in here.

Do you believe that the Jacobs report satisfies the conditions of that environmental audit?

Uh that's probably a better question for uh Daniel Badger, um, our city engineer.

I've consulted with him on that term.

Okay.

And that is, you know, it is a draft.

Um, and given the last month or two's um activity with this transaction, some of this has been put on pause to see what direction to go in before really uh fine-tuning it.

I think that was back to councilwoman Jangula's question at one point as far as the assessment, because it does state that a second phase two could be requested, which would be at the city's full excess expense, where they're supposed to be providing their own, but I don't believe that that they've uh met the criteria for the American or ASTM standard uh that's listed there.

So that's why I was asking the question if that's your interpretation in your conversations with them.

Yeah, on that one I would defer to our city engineer.

I think it wasn't mean to get in the wood.

Those are things that we would have to look at if we're gonna continue to move forward.

But um, I think as uh Preston said, I think you we've somewhat paused because there's no need, especially uh for CWI to be paying legal fees to be working on something that is sitting here um pretty up in the air at this point.

Um I have concern that says why not lease the Fort Auto Center to CWA instead of transferring the property.

The main direction that I see from here is leasing is not a viable option for TWI.

It makes significant investments needed to develop and improve the property.

CWI must have ownership.

Well, I I really don't agree with that.

And I'd like to know, I wish CDL Bay was here, because we're trying to make some investments to the for the city and in uh soccer and and uh recenter and police headquarters or whatever you call it.

Which I wonder about that.

Um why can't they invest with us?

I've asked that several times.

I haven't got a good answer.

So it'd be uh a joint effort.

So I don't know.

So Preston, is there anything legally that prohibits us to do that?

I don't know of anything.

Uh Mayor Councilman, this is a good question.

Um in the community college chapter and titles uh and IDO code, it has sections about the ability of community colleges to work with other governmental entities to pursue certain ventures.

Um that's actually cited in the term sheet.

And so legally, yeah, there's a vehicle there.

Again, it's is it economically sustainable and politically acceptable, you know, for both parties.

And that's what we're trying to hash out right now.

Okay, let me clarify this.

I'm trying to understand you.

You said there isn't anything prohibiting that, right?

It would depend on what is trying uh what type of project or venture, right?

Right both parties are going to be.

It's an investment or on both parties.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Uh just generally speaking, yeah, there's there is the ability for community colleges to work with other governments like cities.

Right, yeah, right.

Okay, thank you.

If I can just speak to that really quick, I did talk to President Um Gordon Jones about that, and his answer to me was if we were to be in a partnership with them, it would hinder their ability to get funds from their donors because then their donors are saying, well, kind of what's in it for me, what's the investment?

And so if they're kind of part, if if they're half in, half out, then their donors can't really fund it entirely.

Um that was just kind of the answer that I got from Gordon.

Well, we've been getting that kind of answer all along, too.

Yeah, yeah.

So mayor.

Yes.

What was the value of the soccer field agreement?

Didn't it give us a paper on that at our last council meeting?

A value?

Yeah, yeah, he had put a value to that.

I don't have that paper with me, I don't think.

But the soccer field agreement for the 10 years uh that it gives our citizens access to the city.

Was it three and a half million to maintain it over 10 years?

I think in that if um I think you know, in reality, it'll probably be you know, three million, and I don't remember what he put in for the value to purchase um acreage.

Um and then I think it was three and a half million, if I remember correctly, uh, was what he had in is the potential maintenance on it.

For 10 years of just maintaining the property for us to have the opportunity to use the property for 10 years and not to have to maintain it is huge for us as a city because uh while we may need to purchase property while there's property to be purchased for 10 years down the road, we don't have to develop that property, and just the cost to develop the fields is cost like and so for someone else to uh allow us the use of the fields, it gives us time, it doesn't take away the need to purchase the fields because we're gonna have to purchase soccer fields and own them down the road, but just the maintenance, especially right now where it's hard to even find parks workers to maintain, so there is a cost for that.

Yes, just following up.

I mean, we've we've had discussions about trying to acquire, we've we've been unsuccessful in acquiring uh additional ground, and then not only I mean the one deal that we were even trying on, that's my recollection that uh that was gonna take all the impact fee money that we'd collected, but it gave no no ability to then improve it and the cost to to put in the improvements, and so from the standpoint of being able to lock in 10 years of usage of existing fields is uh a pretty significant uh issue for the city uh doesn't mean it's a cure all for everything, but it's certainly uh a uh a good benefit.

Well, David, I was looking at about about that the other day, and I was thinking we're gonna get some soccer fields where we're giving up the Ford Idaho Center, and I'm thinking, wow.

That's not good for me.

That doesn't look good for me.

It's just me, that's just my attitude.

And I love soccer.

Okay.

Well, I don't think we're trading Ford Idaho Center for some soccer fields.

I think the soccer fields is just one uh paragraph in the agreement.

I think uh if we're looking at a conveyance and we're wanting to what we're trying to release ourselves from is million dollars, uh millions of dollars of operating costs and capital costs, and and that's really the issue.

And so I'm gonna segue and say from my side, something that we've had discussion from the bench.

Uh, if we choose to keep the facility and continue to operate it, uh execute a revised agreement with OVG and move for further forward, then there's been a real reluctance by council uh or certain members of council at different uh segments to uh go for foregone uh we all know the repercussions and we're seeing the real repercussions of the legislature's move three four years ago, and so um we've had a resistance to hold back, you know, personnel hiring or uh other operation.

So the real bottom line comes down to how are we going to maintain the facility?

And at what point do we enter into a lawsuit because somebody gets injured or damaged or etc because of our facility uh delay of keeping it functional and going?

And at what point are we going to uh be held liable?

And I think that's a viable question that we're yet to discuss in executive session.

What's liability and our legal responsibility?

Um so it's a concern for me, whether I'm on this council or whomever is on, if there's personal liability for not maintaining a facility that's open to the public.

Uh at what point does our insurance carrier say we can no longer insure you?

Uh so there's the some practical issues that come into play as well.

So part of the for me on this whole thing was looking at possibilities that could work for the community, for the entities, etc.

And so it's just simply what what's going to make sense for the city future forward.

Yes.

So I've asked myself this question many times.

I'm like, what are we getting out of the Ford Idaho Center?

I love it, having it there for a community asset for the rodeo and for the horse park and the economic drivers, and it's fun to say we have this Fort Edo Center in NAMPA.

But what are we so scared of losing?

Because with the conveyance that we've talked about at length, we're we're gaining, we're not losing.

We're gaining uh increased opportunity for our youth and for our future.

We're retaining everything that we currently have there concerts, amphitheater, um horse park, rodeo, and we're gaining all these other things.

We're and we're helping our future and our city growth.

So I don't understand what we're so scared of losing and why we keep saying that we're we're losing, we're losing, we're losing.

Why are we choking the life out of this thing?

It just doesn't make sense to me why we would not do that.

And in the agreement, we've even said that we get this thing back.

If they fail, we get it back.

And I personally don't want it back.

I want it to succeed and to grow and flourish and be something better than what we have, because it's not it, we it's not doing well the way it is.

It's it's like a flower that you didn't water, and um so I it I'm still struggling with what we're so afraid of losing here.

You know, an interesting question.

When you said that, and I looked down at these notes earlier, abuse of authority, abuse of discretion, unfairness, bias, the likelihood of a lawsuit, potential lawsuit, and the risks, and would we as individual council members be at risk?

And that is the most amazing thing to think about that because I'm thinking, why?

Based on what you just shared.

Why?

And when we're motivated out of fear, I just don't know why people would even treat us like that candidly.

And that's what's so appalling to me, the comments that have been made when we're truly trying to figure out how do we maintain a great asset, how do we invest in the future generations of our students, the youth of our community?

And actually, if you know what, if CWI owned it, my guess is the average citizen in Nampa wouldn't even know it.

They wouldn't see any change.

They would see a greater utilization, but they wouldn't know because everything would keep happening as it has been happening, but it would be utilized better, and there would be investment in there, and there would be new life breathed into it.

So I am trying to understand with all the tactics, the horrible accusations that have been made that just amaze me.

It's extremely to me, I'm just I cannot believe that people treat people like that.

And it treated me like that.

It's just a it's amazing to me.

When we're trying to do a good thing, we're not trying to do a bad thing, we're trying to do a good thing.

But if to appease everybody, we just say, you know what, throw up your arms and sell it, get rid of it, and we're done.

We won't be sued, we won't be accused of an abuse of authority, we won't have a lawsuit.

There you go.

And the other thing is nobody wants to pay for it.

We could go back, because I it's been loud and clear, do not increase my taxes, right?

I don't want to increase anybody's taxes.

But what do you do if if all I'm hearing is don't increase my taxes, don't the only option that we've been given by the those that are so loud is to sell it.

That doesn't meet the needs of a lot of our citizens, the quiet ones, I will tell you.

But um, is that how we should respond is because of the threats and out of fear, make a decision that probably isn't even the best decision.

But it'll appease the loud.

Mayor, I would just uh recommend a slight pause to make sure that we are assessing the risk.

I mean, we've talked about potential risk of a lawsuit from someone falling into a hole that's 20 feet deep out there in the parking lot or whatever it might be.

Um there are inherent risks on both sides, and that's why I was just asking Preston.

Do we have ENO insurance as a as a council?

I don't know that we do.

I know individually I do, but that's based upon my practice.

But um, errors and omissions is always about your judgment and whether you're exercising good judgment or not, and I think that's been the question some have posed.

So we just want to make sure that we're we're properly uh vetting out uh what we're talking about here.

That's all I'm asking for.

And that's I agree with that.

Yeah.

So again, it's all about risk assessment as we move forward, what's in the best interest of the safety of the public.

Uh we talk about law enforcement, how important that is, and how the funding is very important.

Uh the funding of various aspects of things, obviously the level of service that we provide as a sit, you know, the citizens by city employees, it's all important.

So uh we're not taking any of this lightly.

Um from my standpoint of living here 46 years, it's different than the person that's only been here six to eight.

Uh it's a different uh paradigm.

So what we inherited, what we helped build now is uh what do you you know giving it away is the best thing or not?

Sometimes it's hard as pills to swallow.

Uh that's all I'm trying to say as far as in that regard.

Thank you.

Are there any other comments?

If there aren't, I'm gonna ask that we adjourn into executive session.

Um that is uh I've got to find it pursuant to Idaho Code 742061.

Oh, which one is it?

Preston, do you want to have it in front of me?

I think it's F.

F.

Oh good.

We're not doing all of them.

Yes.

Thank you, F.

Thank you.

We want to be here till midnight.

Yeah.

So I would stand for a motion to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Ida code 742061 F.

Roll call.

I'm sorry, I didn't care who was the motion.

I did.

I second it.

Dale and Victor.

Dale was motioned.

He moved it and Victor seconded it.

Thank you.

Rodriguez.

Oh, I'm sorry, not Rodriguez.

Jingula.

Yes.

Yes.

Hammerfield.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor?