Nampa City Council Special Workshop on Fort Idaho Center Future - August 25, 2025\n\nThe Nampa City Council held a special workshop on August 25, 2025, to discuss the future of the Fort Idaho Center (FIC). The meeting was a discussion-only session with no public testimony or hearings. Council members reviewed financials, considered options including conveyance to College of Western Idaho (CWI), leasing, selling, or public-private partnerships, and assessed legal risks. No formal votes were taken, but several action items and directions emerged.\n\n### Discussion Items\n- Financial Review of Fort Idaho Center: Doug, the city's financial consultant, presented historical financial data. The city has subsidized the FIC with approximately $22 million over 20 years ($14 million in operations and $9 million in capital). In FY24, the city provided $1.6 million in operating support. The FIC has never been profitable, though losses have decreased in recent years. Councilman Bills questioned the return on investment for the $1.5 million horse park RV expansion, which had an estimated 8-year payback period.\n- CWI's Financial Capacity: Councilman Reynolds raised concerns about CWI's ability to assume the asset, citing an independent audit report that noted errors in capital asset valuation and a “going concern” comment. Councilman Bills and Councilman Reynolds requested that Doug review CWI's financial statements and assess the impact of Governor Little's 3% budget holdback for state agencies. The mayor agreed this due diligence was needed.\n- Conveyance Terms and Risks: The council discussed the proposed conveyance agreement with CWI. Key points included a 10-year soccer field usage agreement valued at approximately $3.5 million in maintenance savings, CWI's stated intention to build a recreation center (though not legally committed), and the facility's $28 million deferred maintenance backlog. Attorney Preston clarified that a sale with deed restrictions is legally possible, countering earlier misconceptions.\n- Lease vs. Sale vs. Conveyance: Preston explained legal frameworks: for a sale, the property must go to the highest bidder at public auction; a lease requires a finding that the property is not needed for city purposes and terms must be “just and equitable.” Councilman Griffin expressed opposition to cities owning entertainment venues. Councilman Haverfield questioned whether alternative models (e.g., enterprise zones, urban renewal) were viable. The mayor noted that attempts to develop FIC property commercially had failed due to market conditions.\n- Legal Exposure and Lawsuit Risk: In response to inquiries, Preston outlined that abuse of discretion claims could arise from perceived favoritism or bias. He noted that ICRIMP coverage for such lawsuits is determined case-by-case, and that individual council members could potentially be named. The act of selling might reduce litigation risk compared to a conveyance to CWI. Council members expressed frustration that their efforts to find a sustainable solution had been met with accusations.\n- Utilization and Revenue Options: Andrew, the FIC director, answered questions about ticket pricing (the city does not set prices), facility fees (currently $2/ticket, potentially increased to $4), and the complexity of adding events like ice skating or equine events (cost prohibitive). He noted the facility had 262 event days in the last year, with 72% utilization. Councilman Rodriguez asked about OVG's $10 million amphitheater investment proposal; Andrew confirmed the numbers were preliminary.\n\n### Key Outcomes\n- Due Diligence Directed: Council directed Doug to review CWI's audited financial statements and evaluate the college’s ability to sustain the facility, including the impact of the state budget holdback. Results are to be brought back for further discussion.\n- No Consensus on Path Forward: Council members expressed a range of positions: some favored conveyance to CWI, others preferred selling with deed restrictions, while a few advocated for pausing and exploring revised agreements with Oak View Group (OVG) or other public-private partnerships.\n- Next Steps: The meeting adjourned into executive session (Idaho Code 74-206(1)(f)) to discuss legal risks. No further public action was scheduled.\n- No Formal Votes: All decisions remain pending further analysis and risk assessment.