Good evening.

Good evening.

How is everyone this evening?

Thank you for being here tonight.

We appreciate it.

Okay.

You know, one of the traditions that we have at Nampus City Council meetings is that we open in prayer.

And I so appreciate Pastor Roe Dudley with Grace Bible Church being here to open us in prayer and the pledge.

Thank you for joining us.

Let's stand.

You would give them your heart and your mind concerning what's going on.

God, you called us all in history for such a time as this, at any time in human history.

So, Lord, here in this area and in this place.

We pray you would give us your heart and your mind concerning these things.

Give us uh especially the counsel here.

Let them know what to do and what not to do.

And we thank you that you're gonna do this, and you're gonna further the liberty, Lord, of the gospel, and we pray that this would always be a place where this area would be where Jesus Christ could be glorified and magnified, and we thank you for all you're going to do tonight, and we ask this in Jesus' name.

Amendment allegiance.

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

Thank you, Pastor Roe.

We appreciate you being here.

Thank you so much.

Okay, roll call.

Here's Reynolds.

Here I feel here.

Here I'll present that.

Our first item of action is to uh discuss proposed amendments to the agenda.

And I do uh want to suggest that we pull item one for M from the agenda.

This is a cooperative agreement with ITD that needs to be pulled from this.

We will not be needing that.

So I ask that get removed from our consent agenda.

Council, are you aware of any other items that need to be uh adjusted?

Yes.

Um since there was no supporting documentation on our packets for items five, six, five, seven, and five eight, no independent study prior to this evening's city council meeting was allowed.

I would request we postpone discussion and action on these three items until at least the next uh city council meeting.

Is that a motion?

Because I'll second if it is.

I'll make the motion.

I'll second that.

Okay, discussion.

I will say that on the second two that were requested to be put on the agenda, which was just to publish a non-binding solicitation of interest.

Um that is one that a hard copy was presented to you at the bench.

It doesn't have to be the action item is to authorize procurement to publish a non-binding.

And so with the copy in an action item tonight, it would authorize them to go ahead and move forward and solicit it after you have the opportunity.

If you have suggested changes to it, you could.

But um, we did ask, I asked procurement, they've put together a solicitation of interest non-binding.

It's just to get the word out to see is there anyone interested.

So help me understand why you would not want to do that.

Well, mayor, to date, we have not had any discussion about the retaining of the Ford Idaho Center.

Everything's been about either conveyance uh freely or now the sale, but we have not had any discussion as far as about the actual uh need for uh raising revenues to be able to retain it.

So that's where my concern lies is we're kind of jumping ahead of the opportunity that I think is still out there to consider uh the retention of the Ford Idaho Center.

Council, do you have any comments?

Mayor Kling.

Yeah, I I so five eight is the uh authorization for an appraisal.

Uh with the exception of that, I think that would be the number one priority right now.

So I I would want that to continue for for right now.

Okay, so uh again if uh the motion then I would be happy to amend it as long as it's an understanding that that's an independent appraisal because it doesn't state that it basically states that it's an appraisal by our staff.

So I'd want it to be independent.

I I agree with that.

So I'll amend my motion to just uh postpone items five, six, and five seven to allow uh the mayor and staff to be able to provide us with information as far as on what you're using for metrics for underutilization, um, and what terms you're looking at as far as in the non-binding solicitation of interest that is not provided in our packet for review.

Okay, and uh I will I will uh second that motion.

Okay, and mayor if I may, uh for item five six, and this is to councilman Haverfield, um part of five six will allow more detail as to underutilization.

So by allowing this to go forward, it opens the gate for further analysis, more detail and elaboration as to those points.

So by delaying it to the next council is only delaying that further, whereas allowing this board tonight would get this to you sooner.

And that's fine with me to delay it.

I'm sorry, Mayor.

It's just again to answer your question.

Um I I feel that we haven't been allowed to look at all avenues uh as far as discussion under utilization is a very major topic because it's one of those major bars that have to be reached by state statute, and uh I have not seen any metrics uh provided to us to be able to make that determination.

Uh and again, just like our last meeting, I'm looking at risk uh the risk associated with the decisions that we're making, we're being asked to make without backup data.

So that's what my concern is.

I will say that we um discussed this at our last council meeting.

Um with the the discussion to move forward and do this was the discussion at our last council meeting.

I did not hear at that time anyone, the only reason I put it on the agenda was because there wasn't an actual motion.

But unless I'm missing something, legal counsel correct me.

This was the discussion at the last council meeting was to move forward with a declaration of the city's intent.

Uh Mayor, that was my understanding too, because that would allow it would allow us to give provide more detail elaboration as to the underutilization piece.

Um prior to investing a lot of time and resources into that.

We wanted the buy-in to go forward with that next preliminary step.

What that would do to it would provide uh detail as to underutilization in a more um specific manner than just the generalities we've talked about.

And so if we do postpone it to um September 15th, you will find it we'll be in the same spot then.

And so if you want data, I would recommend that you authorize five six to go forward with more details.

So, Mayor, my my point here is again it states authorize the city attorney to draft a declaration of city's intent to convey or sell.

It doesn't say convey, retain or sell.

It basically says convey or sell.

Again, so it this almost appears to be uh same song, second verse, conveyance first.

Um if we can't get a high enough bidder as far as on the value uh mentioned that was at our our last meeting, then um it was stated that we'll sell it for a dollar to the CWI.

Who again that's just not who stated that?

I don't know.

I'm not aware of that.

I I've never heard ever I will say that we have that we would sell it for a dollar.

Yeah, if the if the bid didn't come in at a hundred million, that's what it was stated to be, then we could turn around and sell it for a dollar then.

Okay.

That was stated, and um again, if I'm getting my time frames out of line, it's only because I'm concerned about uh transparency to the community, the idea that we're not really looking at the potential of can uh retaining it when there is an avenue to do that.

I'd like to be able to have that conversation before we have the attorney draft a declaration of the city's intent to either convey or sell it.

I think that uh again it could be in another workshop setting.

I don't care right now, what this says is pretty clear that it's either convey it or sell it.

And if we can't uh sell it for a high enough value, then it's been stated that we would sell it for a lot less.

So actually, yes, I think there's a misunderstanding on this.

I would venture to say there's definitely a misunderstanding at the last council meeting, you did not vote the void voice this opposition at the end of the meeting.

If we go back and listen to those minutes, okay you didn't, and so the city always has the opportunity to retain this.

We don't have to take action to retain it.

We're still in the exploratory phase of trying to identify what the right direction is.

Right.

And so this is nothing more than allowing us to move to a public hearing.

The public hearing actually you have to declare at a public hearing, and this is the process going to a public hearing.

This is step two.

We had a discussion about this.

This is step two.

And so first step is we're gonna instruct the attorney to get to work and let's do the paperwork and let's consider all the elements and put it in a written document.

Then when that vote comes through, yes, we're gonna do that.

It goes after the September 15th, it goes to a public hearing.

The public hearing is when you decide if you want to convey sale or keep.

But the documents that he's putting together, I'll let Preston correct me if I'm wrong.

We don't have to put a document together to keep the property.

That is always an option for consideration.

But we did discuss we clearly that we know that we have some financial challenges.

So retaining the property is not off the table.

You just don't have to prepare documents to do that.

This by preparing documents, it allows us to move to that next step if we choose to.

But councilman Bills.

Well, my recollection from our meeting a week ago, uh, the discussion in the workshop fashion in this room, and then after executive session, was to come back with basically samples, if you will, of the various options that were before us so that we could see what those documents would look like.

It wasn't a decision.

I didn't believe there's a decision on any one direction forthcoming, but it was on understanding the process and what was forthcoming or what could be the options from our workshop.

So that's that's how I interpreted these three items that we were going to receive documents and understanding of what those possible pathways were going to would look like.

Okay, so uh is it your understanding then that the metrics used for determination of underutilization will be provided as a part of this action item then?

Is that what you're explaining to us?

Mayor, councilman have yes, this would be the step where you flesh that out more.

We're gonna see the reasoning behind it a little more fleshed out.

You're gonna flush it out.

Are you asking us to flush it out?

Mayor Councilman Haverfield, that would be done by my office, the legal department.

Okay.

That's my concern is that there's been so much information that we've had to try to determine on our own, and that's my problem.

I just would like to have some direction being provided to us by either your office and your your staff or by our legal, so that we're not guessing as to what direction we are going here that's proper and and uh reduces risk on the part of the the community.

Well, I thought last Monday night is that's what we asked was for the legal to come back with information.

But my understanding was that we would still be looking at retention when I read this, it said conveyor sell.

It didn't say or retain.

So that's why I wanted to have more chance to come back and revisit this.

Well, if we retain it, there's no need for documents.

Well, that's fine.

If your explanation is that I don't have to vote on the motion or I vote on uh whether we move forward on it when we get there, but right now I thought if we could be given the information in advance instead of having it be a placeholder in our our agenda for this evening without any backup data to it, that's where my concern lied as far as this is a very major decision.

I would like to have a little bit more information before I make action on it as a decision on my part.

I'm one seat in this council.

So Councilman Haverfield, your comments actually are somewhat disrespectful.

Oh, stop.

And I will say, no, I won't stop it because they are listening.

This action item is only to authorize this is a follow-up to our council meeting that we had where we discussed as a counsel, and you did not say you didn't want to, to authorize the attorney to begin drafting the information so we have it to look at.

That's what this is for.

So there isn't any backup information because this is authorizing him to do the work.

We don't want him to move forward in doing the work if we're not going to do anything with it.

So unless we the vote is strictly to authorize him.

So there isn't any backup information to review on this item because this is just a follow-up to the last meeting where we're asking him to draft a declaration.

That way, then at the next meeting, you would have it to review and you would have it in advance of the meeting because it would be in the packet for the public.

Mayor, that makes no sense at all.

And the fact that item 5-7 is authorizing the procurement and publishing of a non-buying solicitation of interest to purchase the IDO center.

So you're moving forward with either selling it or conveying it.

The posture was to pivot back to the conveyance if the cell wasn't high enough dollar amount.

That's what the discussion was.

I have from the beginning, you know that I've been trying to provide or ask for information as far as on the valuation.

Now we're looking at obtaining an appraisal finally.

That's independent, I hope, uh, so that we're moving forward in the best interest of the community.

So don't say I'm being disrespectful.

I'm respecting the citizens that I represent.

That's from that's my point of view.

So if you don't agree with that, I'm sorry.

Well, we had a discussion about it.

Just call for the vote.

I will in a minute when I'm ready.

Okay.

So, Councilman Bills, I think you had asked about the non-binding solicitation of interest.

Um, which was at trying to, and it was out of the well, it was one it was one option a week ago that we discussed, and so we said what I thought our discussion was, and I thought leaving the building a week ago was that we were on a parallel of three options, and in order to do so, we were gathering information under each option so we could better understand what those options entail and what would be the repercussions or benefits, etc.

of each option.

The three options, one being the retention of the facility.

Correct.

Okay.

That would have been a lot of the facility.

That would have been fine with me if that would have been stated somehow in these in these items, because again, it comes across as being and confusing to not only me but to the public when they review this, and I get the question.

Well, you have voting on that tonight to sell or convey it.

My recollection in our discussion a week ago was that it would be on tonight's agenda to authorize to have the city attorney spend time, whether it's himself personally or outside council, in coming back with a framework of education to council.

If you choose option B, this is what the documents are gonna look like.

This is your pathway.

And I understood that then the other was if we put it on the market, how would we do a solicitation agreement?

And whether we even do a solicitation, because I've heard otherwise that you don't, and so that was an issue to be explored tonight.

That's publishing is the motion is to publish it.

That is nothing more than putting out this isn't a motion.

This is an action item item to.

Then we take action.

No, we don't want to continue to pursue that option, or yeah, we've got to have more information.

Okay.

May I interrupt that's how I entered.

That's how I understood that may I interrupt.

And I want to excuse me.

Yes.

I do want to note a solicitation for interest, just for clarity, is not listing a property.

It isn't putting a value on it.

It's actually as a result of a comment where it was said that I know somebody that'll pay 20 million dollars for this.

Okay.

Well, if we're gonna say that, then let's publish a solicitation of interest.

It is non-binding.

It's very clear it's non-binding.

It's nothing more than saying getting the word out to say, is there somebody interested in this property?

Is there anybody interested?

It's not a listing, it is non-binding.

What it's trying to do is explore.

I believe what our citizens have asked is that we explore options.

So we're trying to, in a very safe, non-biased fashion, find out what the interest is out there.

Is there an interest?

A solicitation for interest is exactly that.

Just is there anybody interested?

That helps us make a decision and know better how to move forward.

So these items on here are strictly in the interest of saying we want to do the best job we can in getting the word out and giving an opportunity.

If there was a lack of clarity on this action item, when you saw it, you could have reached out to our office and asked us to clarify that.

We could have amended the agenda and clarified the language if it was that confusing.

But it wasn't when it's a gotcha at the bench, then that is very difficult because we can't correct it.

So if I had known that there was and something had come through to me, we could have identified that you know what, maybe the word wording if that needs to be worded differently, and we could correct that.

I'm very happy to correct it.

But we've got a lot of information, but um, if you want, if we are going to pursue, as council has said, and as councilman Bills has said, if we are going to pursue various options, we're going to have to authorize our legal counsel to spend time on it, and we may outsource that so that it at a cost that so that we have the bandwidth to do it.

And that is the question that is before city council tonight.

Do we want our legal council to go ahead and draft something?

It's not saying we're doing it, it's strictly do we want to authorize them to draft it.

With that, there is a motion.

Could you repeat the motion on the table?

Mary Clinton, if you don't mind, Mayor.

Um it's it's almost asking that we go forward without any information whatsoever.

And I I'm I'm I have in very much difficulty in doing that, and that's been some of some of the direction in the past.

I I I would like to um I don't know that the two weeks is gonna hurt us any bit.

I think we could get back and figure this thing out, but we really can't figure out on the bench.

There's been a motion on the table.

Let's just vote on it and go from there and see what happens.

I have an additional amendment, or do we have to go through the motion first?

No, we have a motion and a second on the table.

If you want to amend the motion, have an additional motion.

You no, it's it's not on that.

I I would like to pull another item off the agenda.

So I just want to finish our current motion.

I don't know to that.

As soon as this vote's done, we're moving on.

I just wanted to be sure.

Mayor I just wanted to say my recollection of the last meeting and how we the path moving forward was the same as Councilman Bill's.

So it was clear to me.

Okay.

And may I read to you repeat with the motion?

Yes, please.

Um, I have the motion as um for item 5-6 and 5.7 to post postpone action until the next meeting with the clarity that 5-8 will be an independent um appraisal.

Yes, thank you.

Is that correct?

Okay, those are actually um 5-8.

I would like to take 5.8 out because the action was to remove these from the agenda.

5.8 is not being removed from the agenda, so we can't vote on that right now because the motion is actually we're in the very front of our agenda, and this is proposed amendments to the agenda.

I guess we can't do an amendment.

So the amendment is that it's an independent appraisal.

Okay, thank you.

So the motion is to uh remove five six and five seven from the agenda and to change the uh to add the word independent in front of the appraisal.

It's been moved and seconded.

Roll call.

Just to clarify if we're removing from the agenda, does that mean that we're just gonna vote independently on each of these, or we're removing in it's going away if we vote yes?

It's going away, I believe.

I I would prefer as well to do item by item rather than a blanket to move them.

Let's vote on five six, five seven and then amend it language on five eight.

Okay, yes.

Okay, I'll make a motion on five six to uh postpone uh any action on that item to the uh next city council meeting.

Second, okay, it's been moved and seconded to postpone that.

What about five seven?

We'll just do that in a separate action.

Okay.

So the motion is to postpone uh five six to September 15th.

Let's just do a roll and can I say real quickly, I want to clarify something.

What information are you gonna put in there?

And five because there isn't any information to put on, so we can postpone it till the 15th, but that means you don't do any work on this for two weeks because we're not authorizing you to, and this same action item with no backup will be on here on September 15th.

Right.

Can I ask a question then?

Yes, yep, and I'll clarify your point and so my understanding was we have no metrics so far as far as what determines underutilization.

It's all been speculation.

Uh whatever.

Are you able to provide in this uh item the underutilization component?

The metrics behind it.

As it will be legal legal legally defensible, that's my point.

Let me uh Mary, I'll just your question first and then yours, Councilman Haverfield.

Um, yes, so if you did not vote for 5.6 to go forward tonight, I'm gonna be pending the holding pattern waiting for direction to go forward.

That's it requires that at some point if you are to convey real property, you need to declare your intent to do so.

That intent will spill out in the reasoning for why you want to do so.

And like we've discussed here for uh with the public and with you many times, you have vast discretion on what you underutilization means.

That's what the courts have said.

There is no metric, there is no formula per se.

We would follow just like any other cities have done where we explain our reasoning in a rational manner, and so by delaying this, you're not gonna get any more information to make a decision that you want information for it.

My recommendation is to keep this on.

Allow me to go forward and draft that for you to empower you with reasoning.

I would also add for 5.7 and 5.8, it's the same situation.

These are all to give you information to make an informed decision.

There's no vote, there's no action, there's no non-binding nature.

It is a non-binding nature, there's no binding nature to it.

And and to your point about unutilization, I think I addressed that, Councilman Haverfield, but there is no there's no silver bullet, it's rather the rationale that is to a great extent already been fleshed out in many of the publications that will be compacted, compiled into one singular document for you all to review.

And as drafted here, there would be one document about conveyance.

There would be one about selling for a high bidder, and so those will be before you in your packets for review, just like any other council meetings.

You have adequate time to review.

The action is only to allow you to draft those things.

There'll be another vote at the next meeting.

That's correct.

Yep.

Thank you.

Okay, so we have a motion on the table to postpone the set this 5-6 to the September 15th meeting, and I think we all understand that it will come back exactly as it is today, and no work is going to take place if we move forward with this roll call.

Angola.

No.

Bells.

Oh no.

Red B.

No.

Vegas.

Yes.

Yes.

In favor?

What closed?

Motion failed.

There's same motion for item 5-7.

And the second for that.

Any discussion?

Roll call.

No.

Oh.

Right.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

In favor or opposed.

Motion fails.

Motion for 5.8 then would be that uh that it be for an independent appraisal on the Ford Ihoe Center, which to be a third-party appraisal.

Madam Mayor.

Um I think this is a point of order on 5-8.

That's an action item on new business.

I think we should discuss that when we get to it.

Thank you.

And um go back to their consent agenda.

I would agree.

Okay, so are there any?

I believe that we do.

Did you have another proposed amendment to the agenda?

Yes.

Do we have to vote on the motion since it was proposed?

I'll pull my motion.

Okay.

Uh 13A, I would like to have pulled off for discussion, please.

Okay.

So we have at this time we have one three A pulled off for discussion, and we have um one for M pulled off uh just indefinitely.

Are there any other proposed amendments to the agenda?

If there are none, I would stand for a motion to adopt the agenda as discussed.

All in favor?

Stand for a motion to approve the consent agenda as uh amended.

I guess all in favor?

Any opposed?

Okay.

So now we're gonna move to item one three A.

Let's find that one.

Okay.

So just a clarity.

13A is an upcoming public hearing.

So I need legal because my understanding is I don't know before you get into a question.

Um I don't think we're allowed to have discussions around public hearings prior to the public hearing.

Am I correct on that?

Mayor, yes.

You have here an authorization to proceed to the next forum to have the record open again for your public hearing of testimony.

So any discussion here should be limited to logistics and things of that nature, not the substance itself.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh Mayor, the reason I pulled one three A off is uh we've had discussions about growth, continuing growth.

How do we pay for growth?

Growth paying for itself.

I have uh time and time again opposed uh moving forward with any significant growth because mayor, uh please councilman griffin.

Not to cut you off, but it sounds like you're getting at the merit of the no of the application about not yet.

Maybe it would tie into a vote.

Will this tie you to a vote?

Will it indicate a vote?

No, because I think you and legal figure this out.

I believe every applicant deserves the right to a hearing, and none of my decisions are made prior to hearing a presentation made by an applicant.

The clarification that I have to make here is if you when you proceed with your comments, do not talk to the substance of why you would prefer it or not prefer it.

It needs to be strictly logistical, not your outlook.

Thank you.

Then I'll just jump to my questions.

Doug, have we had any changes in our funding mechanism to where that if we build any house by any developer at any point from here on out, that growth pays for itself?

There's a two-part answer.

One, we know that with the impact of 389 and the related bill, that growth no longer pays fully for itself.

However, growth does pay for the majority of the cost, the net cost increase to the city will continue no matter what you do.

If you decide to limit growth, I would suggest being extremely strategic in how you do it, because growth is necessary to bring new money in, and we're better off with properly strategized growth and with no growth at all.

So it's not a clear-cut answer.

If you just say no, you're probably strangling the city.

If you say yes, you might be causing a degree of harm, but we have more money coming in to help deal with some of the challenges.

Complex issue.

I want to pause real quickly.

But I my recommendation would be to cease this conversation, let it be what it is.

It needs to be had on the 15th of September because I could see us getting into a legal issue here.

Only because the uh the public is not a notice to be here to offer testimony for that.

So my general comments are based off of what our finance director has just stated strategically.

I believe that we need to really evaluate every applicant and application moving forward to really strongly consider mitigation fees for every applicant and every application moving forward because if the funding is not proper and in place, we're strong arming our citizens to pay for growth that was not caused by them or their doing.

I'm not urging council to deny any specific application.

I'm urging counsel because I've been told when we get later on in the application process, this should have been decided before the application was ever submitted.

Time and time again, we have applications and public hearings moving forward, and nothing's been discussed or moved forward on.

So my the reason I pull this isn't to say I want to deny this specific application.

I want to strategically look at how we move forward funding growth in general and with all applications moving forward from this point on.

So mayor.

Yes.

So my suggestion is uh or request is that if we're wanting to discuss a some type of fee structure or a moratorium, then that request should be put before the mayor and the clerk and be put on the next agenda.

And uh part of that discussion needs to be how to deal with uh applications that have been received and dealt with by planning and zoning to date.

And so if we're if we're gonna take a pause and we're gonna put up a bulletin that says no more applications are being received, then this council needs to take that action, and there needs to be notification to the public that that's happening versus hitting on each item as it comes.

And that's what I'm understanding you.

And I I would completely agree with that sentiment, and I feel that that's what I've been asking for months.

Well, my suggestion is if you write a specific memo to the mayor and the clerk and copy each council member and say this is what I'm asking for to be put on the next agenda.

I will do it.

And then staff and and the whole thing can be it can start getting vetted.

Uh, but again, at the process, and I'm one who you know has commented back, is uh even this process right here for an applicant already gone through planning and zoning, have the affirmative from planning and zoning to come to council, uh it is way long into the process.

And if we're gonna do something, some type of action, we need to be talking about it, and what's a cutoff date or what's what's the action?

So versus holding up something that's on the consent agenda that's normal going through the process.

So I'd like to real quickly say something.

We actually had this discussion.

Preston, I don't remember if it was an executive session or if it was at the bench where we talked about mitigation fees.

The reason we did not move forward with this discussion on mitigation fees was, and I'll just be candid, a very strong feeling of it not being legal.

And we as a council had that discussion.

We've already had the discussion, and that's why we haven't moved forward with it.

Now, you may not agree with it, but our legal counsel has advised us, and I've since heard from other cities.

Their legal counsel feels like this is a very touchy area for us to be maybe moving into.

We as a city have decided not to.

However, um, I we will put this on the next council workshop, um, which is September the 18th, I believe, 15, 16, 17, 18th.

So we have an hour available at that council workshop to have this discussion.

Is it going to be open to public comment?

No, but prefer that it be on a public forum so we can have stakeholders from both the builders' community as well as other legal representation to be able to state their opinion on mitigation fees to testify.

My suggestion is we should have a discussion about the options available pathways for.

And I think with that, we would then open it up and invite the public and the various groups to then do a discussion about the possible options.

But if we don't even know what the options we're interested in, it's very difficult to then have us open-ended discussion with the public.

The only the only counter that I have to that.

And the reason that I asked for the public forum is there are individuals who know the options better than I because I'm not a developer.

And I know there's individuals that have researched the legal side because I'm not an attorney.

And I have taken our legal representation's opinion as well and chewed on that and said I still feel that we have options that we need to look into and allowing the forum for those individuals to come and speak and talk about their experiences, their perspectives, and how the city can move forward in a workshop.

We're confined to our six seven brain powers put together.

Specifically, I will say we we will put it on a workshop and have this discussion.

And the appropriate setting, which is not tonight, because it's not agendized.

So this is not on the agenda for a discussion.

We will create a workshop, and um we have just I just want for the public to know we have advised on this topic, and we've had legal counsel advise council on this topic.

The fact that we have not moved forward is because of hearing legal counsel on this.

I'm not one that typically goes against legal counsel.

So with that, uh, we've not moved forward with it.

What you're asking is that we may be ignore legal counsel and get more legal counsel, but we will have a discussion at a workshop to discuss how to move forward, if at all.

Um the only point I'll put to that, I do not feel that I'm ignoring legal counsel.

I'm asking for the minds to come together on every avenue of this issue and discuss um ignoring legal counsel would be asking for a mitigation fee on an application tonight, whatever his opinion might be.

And that's not what I'm asking.

I'm asking for a forum to discuss the issue.

Yeah, and uh Mayor, if I may there'd be additional conversation executive session on this topic.

Uh would just be absolutely needed.

Thank you.

Okay, with that.

Um we pulled it.

We're leaving three-one on, right?

Madam Mayor.

Yes.

I'd make a motion that we approve one three A.

Second.

Okay.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

What was it?

What was the motion again?

Just to continue to authorize the public hearing.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

That is the conclusion of uh two on our agenda.

There are no agency or commission reports.

Let's move on to staff communications.

Rodney, we've got Rodney and Tom.

Who's ready to go?

Tom, are you ready?

Okay.

Our new water resource director, John Spencer.

And so John has been with us since for about five years now in various roles.

Um he started out as a PM as a staff engineer too, and then moved on to be the assistant city engineer of utilities, and now is a water division manager.

We've got 41 employees that for that group.

We did a really great job.

Um with the culture and production and everything on that group.

And uh so John's also an environmental engineer, which comes in very handy in some of our projects, like the Carcher Wetland that he's the manager on, which is uh first of its kind using carbon for water uh filtration for surface water.

So um anyway, I'd like to turn it over to John if you'd like to say something, John.

Mayor, council.

Um thank you, Tom and Jeff, for this opportunity, and um I appreciate all their their guidance, their mentorship, and their leadership.

Um I'm also very grateful for this opportunity um to work in this new capacity to serve the citizens of NAMPA.

Um I also look forward to working um under Mayor, Council, uh under your leadership to manage the water resources group effectively in such a way that benefits all the residents of Napa.

Um I also appreciate all the support I've received thus far.

So thank you.

Congratulations and thank you for stepping out.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tom.

Thank you.

Rodney.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

I'll just uh provide a quick update on what's planning and zoning decided on the 26th of August.

The first one is a final one year extension for subdivision final plat for Salazar Point.

This is a 11496 Lake Lowell Avenue.

This one um was for 19 single family detached dwelling units and four column lots, and that was approved for their final um their final one year extension for the final plat.

And then um the next one was public hearing conditional use permit for a data center.

This is at the Park 84 uh development uh industrial park at 8300 Birch Lane, and it's uh a kind of a smaller data center that uh had um a conditional use permit that was required for this to go in.

Um they will take up one of those buildings in the Park 84 Industrial Complex, and that was approved.

Um the next one was a conditional use permit to allow um outdoor display of products.

Um as you may recall, um you approved a code change to require a conditional use permit for any outdoor storage in or excuse me, sale um of equipment or products uh in front of uh a building, and so this is another one of those.

We've seen it at Home Depot and Lowe's and uh I think a couple other DMB, yeah.

And this is another one for tractor supply um at 216 in uh Caldwell Boulevard, and that one was approved as well with their concept plan that they had submitted.

And then finally, the last one is a zoning map amendment and development agreement modification for the Greenhurst Crossing development.

This one is um at 2321 Sunny Ridge Road and 617 East Greenhurst Road.

If you recall, it's on the corner there, Greenhurst and Sunny Ridge.

Um, and this was approved uh it's a couple years ago.

Uh Greenhurst Crossing, it was a cottage cluster development with uh daycare out in front, um, and that was zone BN.

So they are requesting a change to their development agreement to allow drive-throughs and to allow additional uh commercial uses through the rezone to BC.

The BN wouldn't allow some of the uses that they would like to see one of those being a drive-through.

Um, and so that will come before you.

That was uh recommended for approval by the planning and zoning commission, and that will come before you on the 20th of October of this year.

That's all I have for a report on P and Z.

Um a quick update just on our comprehensive plan outreach.

Um, I I don't have specific details.

I I will have some more details for you because we're just gathering a whole bunch of data.

Um, we're still gathering surveys.

We have um been to you probably have seen our staff at all kinds of events.

The Thursday, uh, third Thursday, the Saturday market.

Um we go to almost every big event that the city is putting on, trying to reach out to people, and we're gathering their their feedback as well as their addresses to get a sense of what the community as a whole is saying about the fruit future vision of our city.

Um I will continue to update you.

Um I don't again, I don't have a lot of data right now.

We'll start analyzing that, and I should have some more data for you in the near future.

Rodney, I just want to say for you and your team, when I look at the calendar, you guys are everywhere.

We are all week, weekends, evenings, you're going everywhere, and I'm really impressed with the outreach that you're doing.

Thank you so much for that.

They're doing a great job.

They are.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So that ends up section four on our agenda.

We're getting really close to our public hearing time frame.

I have a quick question for really public works.

If we were to postpone the decisions, do you have anyone here that needs to be here for our business items coming up?

Because we by the time we do the public forum side, I don't know how many we have signed up.

How many?

Okay.

Um you're good if we wait.

Thank you.

Okay, so we'll get to your new business items after we move into the public hearing section.

So we're gonna move on.

We do have a proclamation this evening.

It's National Recovery Month.

And just keep going.

Um National Recovery Month.

Jacob, I see you here.

Thank you.

What a fun meeting for you to be here.

Welcome to City Council.

Yeah.

So I'll read this proclamation, then I'll have you guys come forward.

Um so, and then Margie's also here.

There you are.

So we'll have you both come forward in just a minute.

Tell us a little bit about what you do, but thank you so much.

So this is whereas National Recovery Month is a national observance held every September to promote and support evidence-based treatment and recovery practices, to celebrate the strength of individuals in recovery and honor the dedication of service providers and community partners who make every make recovery possible.

And whereas behavioral health is essential to overall health prevention works, treatment is effective, and people do recover.

And whereas the city of Napa recognizes that mental health and substance use challenges affect individuals, families, workplaces, and neighborhoods, and that recovery strengthens our entire community.

And whereas the Southwest Idaho Recovery Community Center serves as a vital local resource by offering peer support, recovery programming, and advocacy to individuals and families striving toward lasting recovery.

And whereas it is both fitting and proper to recognize September as a time for raising public awareness, strengthening partnerships, and celebrating recovery in all its forms, and to encourage all citizens to engage in supportive events, programs, and activities that foster healing and well-being.

Whereas the um SIRCC, as it is on here, in collaboration with local leaders, service providers, and residents works tirelessly to create a recovery-friendly community where hope is restored, stigma is reduced, and lives are rebuilt.

Now, therefore, IW Clean Mirror, the City of Napa, do hereby proclaim September 2025 in the city of Napa as National Recovery Month.

I call upon all residents to join with our community partners in supporting individuals and families on their recovery journey and to help make NAMPA a place where everyone has the opportunity to thrive in health and wellness.

I'd like you both to come forward if you would.

And so okay, we'll take turns.

So she'll go first, and then Jacob, you'll be next.

Jacob and Dr.

Norman Yeager and Marty Cooper, who's the executive director of the uh SIRCC, to shorten that up for you.

Um, just for a second, and then I'm gonna read something, and that you're just gonna say something real quick.

Okay, and Margie Potter, 1811, Mark Calball, and uh Mayor and uh uh council members.

Um, thank you for reading that proclamation and recognizing September as National Recovery Month.

Um you all know me, Margie.

And um, I'm honored to stand here in behalf of the um SAR, the Southwest Idaho Recovery Community Center, and also as someone who is celebrating 24 years of sobriety myself in recovery, and uh substance issues.

We we share each other on all the time.

Um, substance use disorder is a family disease.

It impacts not just the individual but loved ones, neighbors, and entire communities.

And the truth is it affects people from all walks of life, as you can see.

Um, Shar was worried when we first came in.

She said, Did you bring all these people here?

Because she thought it was a problem.

And I said, Yep, nope, they're just coming to celebrate.

And um, so uh recovery too, it's a family and community effort.

So it takes awareness, compassion, and strong support systems for people to find healing and to thrive.

That's why partnerships matter so much.

Organizations like Hope Guides, our fire and police department, they're here as well.

Um we've talked earlier, the Idaho Department of Corrections, and where they all play a role in bringing hope to people and families affected by addiction together.

They remind us that recovery is possible, that cycles can be broken, and that brighter futures can be built on behalf of the SIRC.

Uh and personally, as someone in long-term recovery, I want to thank you for the proclamation and for helping make recovery visible in our community by working together.

We can give other people hope.

Oh, and I want to thank you.

Yeah, come on up, please.

Well, all of you, if you just say something fast, city council meeting, so they already know it's my jam.

Thank you, Margie.

Uh Mayor, City Council members, uh NAMPA has become such a beautiful shining star.

And I think hope, hope lives in NAMPA.

Hope lives because of the partnerships, because of the support, because people care for each other.

And so to recognize National Recovery Month is so in tune with who you are, uh, and we thank you for that.

Thank you for those good words.

Thank you, counsel.

My name is Jacob Evans.

Um, some of you all know who I am, but I will say I'm not celebrating 24 years, but I'm coming up on 11.

And I'm here to say that.

Thank you.

I'm here to say that uh a couple of cool things are is that um, you know, when you think of people that struggle with substance misuse, I think that we have a caricature in our heads of what that looks like.

And the reality is that it comes in many different forms.

I was in law school.

I was sitting in a in a classroom that was not much bigger than this, sitting in the back of a room that I couldn't sit in for 45 minutes without getting high four times in a class, and I was struggling.

My mom comes from like super high ranking government official, my dad's a dentist.

Like I can't tell you the number of people that I've connected with over the years from tier one operators and special forces all the way down to the people that are calling out from underneath the bridges.

And the one thing that is true amongst everybody is that they can't do it by themselves.

So the simple fact that our city is recognizing we're together in this is huge, and it's amazing because I know I wouldn't be here today.

Um, the national average is 5.35 serious attempts at recovery before somebody gets it.

It's not good enough anymore, right?

With fentanyl on the rise, the reality is that most people, when they go into treatment, all they're doing is lowering their tolerance.

They need help and they need support.

And you guys issuing this proclamation, and the amount of support that we have in the community shows that NAPA is a city of support, which is amazing.

Because I have three little soon to be three little girls that are gonna be, you know, I'm a dad now to three little children.

And um, my birthday is in September, so not a better month than recovery month.

My um second daughter's birthday is in September, and our due date is in a week.

So it's proof that if one person can have the right supports and create families, they can create programs that help the city at large.

So thank you all.

Jacob, stay up there.

Thank you so much.

I take yes, okay.

I don't know why I'm clapping for myself.

You're making an incredible difference.

Thank you.

And so let's all come forward.

Marty too.

Marty, do you want to talk?

She does.

She does.

Okay.

Hi, I'm Marty Hooper, and I'm a grateful alcoholic.

That's how I start everything, right?

I'm 43 years sober.

I've been in alcohol and drug counselor for 45 years.

So if you do the math, I was drunk and voted for two.

So I probably owe some amends, but I can't remember that far back.

So I just wanted to share with you all.

And mayor and council, thank you for that proclamation.

It's an honor and a privilege for all of us to be here and to serve NAMPA and to serve Ken County.

So here's just a few of the things we're doing.

Um we do free family social events once a month.

We're having a huge rally in the park, and you're all invited.

September 27th.

Uh, we do free phones.

We do housing placement referrals.

We're now a screener for access.

We make referrals for people's utility bills to be paid.

We do have an emergency pantry.

We offer employment assistance.

I think Fleetwood has to stop sending us people.

So and we do education referrals.

We have recovery coaches.

I brought them with me tonight.

So that we can help people be successful in their own community.

We are picking up, we pick people up at the gate at the prison, and we bring them home and we provide services.

We have laundry vouchers because sometimes they just can't afford to wash their own clothes.

I want to introduce you all to Bryce.

Bryce is our ambassador.

Because Bryce utilized our services with his family.

He went out last week and gathered bags in his whole neighborhood for our food pantry because we didn't have any.

So we've made him our honorary ambassador.

And he brought Wednesday night, he brought this lady and he said, This is my neighbor, she needs food.

So he he even brings us people.

So it's a privilege and an honor to provide this service.

And I thank you all.

And if any of you have any extra money, we would gladly gladly accept it because we're funded by the millennial fund.

Uh we are applying for opioid settlement money, but it takes a lot to provide all the services that we're providing.

So again, I thank you, and I thank you for the privilege.

And I thank you all for your service to this community.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Want to say hi, Bryce?

Hi.

Okay, come on up.

Let's do a photo.

Here we go.

Yeah.

Oh.

Okay, everybody.

That's real here.

That's good.

I am glad they're all here.

That is wonderful.

Yeah.

Thank you for what do we do?

That is awesome.

Thank you all for being here tonight.

This is awesome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can we get our feet behind?

Okay.

All right.

I'm not low enough.

Did you get it?

Thank you so much for all you do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You're amazing.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Margie.

Thank you for the question.

Oh, I know.

I'm never a bridge big problem.

Thank you.

What a cutie.

I don't know if it's cute.

Crystal, I'm going to put you on the spot and ask you a question.

Is 5-5 the only item you need to stay for?

Uh Mayor, five four I'm here for as well.

Okay.

Oh man.

I don't know how long these are going to take, but I hate to have people sitting here for hours when they're pretty quick.

Um counsel, would you like to?

Okay.

Yes.

I asked Mike from Timber Creek to come for item 5-1.

He's here specifically for that item.

Okay.

Well, good to see you.

So you know what?

Let's see how long it takes us to go through new business.

That way the people that are here would have the opportunity to leave, and then we'll step in.

So we'll be a little late on our public hearings.

So we'll start with five-one.

Five one is an action item is to authorize the mayor and the senior public director of public works to proceed with the advertisement of request for proposals for a lease to own agreement of a new pyrolysis high rose.

How do I say that?

Thank you.

Um Bioreactor for the resource recovery demonstration project at the water renewal facility.

And Tom Points is here to share with us.

Tom, do you want to come forward and share?

Briefly.

I think it might be good just a real quick overview of the record.

Tom Points, Senior Public Works Director.

So we have a little shift in our demonstration project.

We still want to continue with that.

And it mainly is a delay on obtaining an air permit.

We're not able to operate a machine until we get an air permit from the DEQ.

When we did our we were hopeful that under the demonstration clause and the air permit, we would be able to follow under that to get up and run it to run some samples.

But after we did our fuels testing, we we're not in some initial modeling on the air permit.

It doesn't look like we're gonna meet that threshold.

So which throws us into a longer process, which could be up to 10 months.

So uh that that buys us some time to kind of change some things around and and look for at least to own on a new piece of equipment and then uh a dryer and some other things.

So we're working on a RFP language with legal with some of the key criteria that we need to have in place, like made in the USA, got a track record of uh performance in the past from the inventor in a manufacturer, the gas outputs and all those things.

So we're working on that right now, and this is just a request for us to work worth legal on the language for that to put that out.

Thank you, Tom.

Council, do you have any questions?

Mayor Clane.

Yes.

Um yeah, I have several questions, but I thought maybe if if it would be all right, Mayor, if I could invite Mike to come up since I think you're dependent on Timber Creek for some of the products that you're gonna need uh for your uh biochar at least.

So mayor and council, we want to work with Timber Creek since they're a local recycler and and continue the public-private partnership that we've already have with them.

So but they're they wouldn't necessarily have either any source of the wood, but we certainly would want to work with them on it.

I'm not sure if that's did you have a specific question on this?

Yeah, I had there were some questions, but if Mike could come up, maybe you can just address them for me.

Um meeting with Kenya County SWAC, you know, if if you've got their approval yet.

I know that you need you needed to meet with Paul Woods as far as to determine some of these questions that are financial and nature and the and the payback and and then the dependency on Timber Creek as far as for the wood products that you'll be using.

I just thought it might be good so that you know we're getting it directly from Timber Creek.

Yeah, Mike McGurdio, 26.3 South Hillest Place, Murray Nine Hill, 83642.

Um, yeah, we we've spoke a few times about uh suppliance and materials for him.

Um we don't have the final stages for you know a price or uh a moisture content to be provided yet.

So there's some additional information they're probably gonna be needing from us for that.

Um we don't we've also um offered um our services to help them market the materials at the end use.

It's all in very preliminary stages.

Um so we don't have an analysis quite yet there to be able to help him on that to know what the price points and risk analysis is for these materials.

That's really a key to recycling is making sure that you have it in use for these places and a backup plan and another backup plan because um when things go south in recycling uh the Green Sword Act of China, you can go and see what happened with the plastic industry.

So we just want to make sure we help him out in every way we can have it.

So do we need uh have any pause as far as on this to allow this to take place, the numbers that you need to provide?

So um I'm not sure exactly what the um proposed thing is for today for to lease or I guess it's just to do a request for proposals on it, is what I understand.

So I assume at that point there would be some sort of a performa associated with that, and um to make that happen.

So I would say that that's oh if that's in the uh purview, then I'd say it'd be a great, great way to go.

As long as the the perform is there.

Well, we recognize the innovation obviously as something that's really unique.

So just wanted to make sure that we're crossing the keys and doting the eyes.

Yeah, thank you.

Mike, thank you.

We've loved our partnership with you, and we appreciate you.

And thank you for moving your uh business to NAPA.

That's been a warm welcome, and we've been happy here, and you can find me out of here.

I love it.

I just noticed your other one is closing.

I just drove by the other day.

Yeah, yeah.

We're gonna expand in uh NAMPA even more.

So happy to be here.

Thank you for the partnership.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So are there any other questions for before we move forward with the motion?

Or is there a motion?

Madam Mayor.

Move it.

Uh we pass uh 5.1.

It's been moved and seconded to authorize the mayor and the senior works director to proceed with the advertisement of the request for proposal.

Is there any further discussion?

Seeing none, roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Engola.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

5.2 is an action item.

It's to authorize the mayor and the senior director of public works to sign the phase two headworks construction price agreement.

Construction manager, general contractor, CGMC with MCO construction in the amount of 23,144,369 and 63 cents and the SCADA integration task order with Jacobs for the water renewal facility group G Headworks Replacement Project in the amount of $35,492.

This was approved by attorney more kilty and approved in the FY24 budget, 25 budget.

Any questions for Shannon?

Move, Mayor.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Roll call.

Ingula.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Five three is an action item.

It's to authorize the mayor and the senior director of public works to sign a task order with Erstead Architects for Architectural and Engineering Services for the Water Renewal Facility Remodel and expansion in the amount of 409,065 dollars.

It is approved in the FY25 and 26 budget.

We'll move.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any discussion?

Roll call.

Ingula.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

5.4 is an action item.

This is to authorize the mayor to sign a resolution for FY26 CPI rate increase of 2.8% increase for the existing airport rental hangars and land pieces.

So move.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Item 5.5 is an action item.

It's the first reading of a street naming ordinance.

And it is, as we read the ordinance, we'll have a motion after that.

And the motion is requested to pass under suspension of rules.

In order to the city of Napa Canyon County, Idaho, naming a public street, East Barnes Street.

Madam Mayor, I move this pass under suspension of rules.

It's been moved and seconded to pass under suspension of rules.

So Crystal, can we show this street and talk about it?

Are you could we do that real quickly?

Jeff, come on up here.

We you know what?

We might as well.

I don't know if anybody put two and two together, but this is pretty cool.

Mm-hmm.

So can somebody pull it up?

Come on, Jeff.

Well, I know we have a motion and a second on the table, but this is the discussion point.

Absolutely.

Thank you, Christine.

Daniel's gonna pull this up for me.

I I gave him like a 30-second notice.

I was like, oh, they're probably gonna want to see it again.

But it is in the packet for anyone watching.

Uh this is a new road that is part of a freight grant that we have going through ITD.

It's roughly just south of I84 on Franklin Boulevard, the north-south one, not the east-west one.

Um where we're gonna cul-de-sac industrial and third street, right?

Where it's it's it's very challenging intersection, relocated slightly to the south.

And we have a new road.

Um, as you guys know, we just are hiring a new director of water resources because our fearless leader here is going through a much much deserved retirement.

So we wanted to memorialize him.

Um unfortunately, Craig Street was already taken.

Uh but but much better.

It's East Barnes Street right here.

So you can see the relocation of this.

Um, it's going to bring my heart joy every time that I drive by here.

Jeff Barnes has done so much for the city of Nampa.

He's such a tremendous leader, uh, a wonderful friend, and just a fantastic human being.

So I'm excited.

Hopefully, whenever you guys drive by this road, you will think of him very fondly and know that we miss him.

Don't you love it?

That just putting you on the spot.

But congratulations.

I think it is so cool.

Thank you for sharing that.

And with that, Jeff is like, can I go now?

Okay, let's do a roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Engula.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Jeff, you're amazing, and uh thank you for your work.

Thank you.

Okay, so 5.6 was an action item.

We talked about it earlier.

The question is, how do we want to move forward with five six?

It is an action item to authorize the city attorney to draft a declaration of the city's intent to convey or sell city-owned real property pursuant to Idaho law that the city has found to be underutilized.

We'll move.

Second.

Okay.

It's been moved and seconded.

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

No.

Yes.

Hammerfield.

No.

Griffin.

No.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

And a mayor that's a tie.

So I'm going to say yes to the tie.

And every time I do this, it's used against me, but I'm going to make it very clear why I'm saying yes.

That is the only way we can move forward is if we have information.

If you have no information, you cannot move forward.

And so all this is doing is authorizing our legal council to put the information together.

That's all it's doing.

And so with that, my uh I'll break the tie with the yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

5-7 is an action item to authorize the city procurement to publish a non-binding solicitation of interest for the purchase of the Fort Idaho Center.

Before we move to any action, is there are there any questions about what a non-binding solicitation is or why we would do it?

I do want to say something real quickly.

It costs the city nothing to do this.

It just puts it out that there that to see if there is anyone interested at all.

It doesn't mean we're going to go there.

This is nothing more than gathering information so we can make a good decision.

But with that.

At this point, I feel that we need to be pausing.

I've never been a supporter, and I've stated that from the get of selling, selling the property.

I know why we're going through this process.

It's to check that box off that we did our due diligence.

Mayor Clain.

Yes.

Would you please explain?

Publish a non-binding solicitation of interest.

How are you going to do that?

I'm I'm curious.

We would do a press release.

We would put it out nationally to I would ask that the International Association of Venue Managers actually publish it.

We would reach out to the private management companies.

Because with the deed restrictions to continue to operate, it would be just getting the word out to say would there be anyone of interest?

So we would uh that's how we would begin.

Okay, thank you, Mayor.

Are there any other questions?

Madam Mayor.

Yes.

I feel like uh just for the record that email that uh Councilman Griffin was referring to needs to be part of our public record.

Um she mentioned it.

Okay.

And um I would uh make a motion that we uh uh pass this item 5.7 is there a second second okay it's been moved and seconded to authorize city procurement to publish a non-binding solicitation of interest for the purchase of the Fort Idaho Center.

Any further yeah, discussion uh clarification because last Monday uh workshop it was mentioned that there was a party who was uh possibly gonna offer uh a great deal of money for the center, etc.

And it seems like we have to put out this type of general solicitation in order to solidify whether that's fact or fiction and whether there's people out there who want to do.

And I that's my understanding of why this item is on the agenda.

Is that true?

Is that well it was because it was just asked uh of us to put it on the agenda?

Okay, so uh, but yes, it would it would solidify that that way if there is someone out there that we would be able to identify them and identify if they had the financial means.

Okay, question yes.

So deed restrictions um have been mentioned as a part of this.

Is this non-binding solicitation going to come back before council before it goes out?

It's actually before you on the bench tonight.

Umbinding solicitation, it does have the deed restrictions that were in the original um the agreement with CWI that is posted online.

It has the same deed restrictions, with the exception of it does not have the soccer fields, it doesn't have a rec center involved.

Uh Preston, would you like to speak to the deed restrictions or anything about this?

I know this is a draft that's been put together.

This may be happy to.

Um as you see here in your packet, I believe it's on the second page.

Um there's a list beginning with one down to six.

And it's in subsection three.

Next page on the uh the visual here, James, if you go down one more page or flip the page, whatever it may be.

Perfect, thank you.

Those of you online watching, um these have the what I'd call the generally universal um deed restriction uses, right?

Um snake river stampede use would remain in effect, horse park facilities, got in country, traditional events such as high school graduations, um uh gun shows, state sport tournaments.

Um importantly, there's a reversion of ownership.

Um the language being that they'd be returned to us in good working condition in the event they were to breach any of these use requirements or try to sell, gift, convey the property uh without city's prior written consent.

And then um there are some entities that may be subject to um other building code that might be a state agency, for example.

If that were to happen, we would ask that they come through the city for design review and a traffic impact study as another assurance of um city involvement.

Um it does not to Mayor to your point, uh it does not include uh the recenter or some of the other more uh explicit terms.

I think that would be sorted out in a purchase and sell agreement if this materialized, um, and these would be fleshed out more in detail in the actual deed, but this is to give you the essence, the principal terms of what would be in there.

This would be maybe six pages long if it was the full fleshed out version.

So this gives you a quick high-level overview of what would be in this proposal.

So I think direction and mayor from you and the council would be is there any other deed restriction you want to have in here?

Yes, I have a I have a clarifying question just in regard to our agreement between us and OVG.

One of the articles within that agreement states that while our contract is still valid with OVG, we cannot sell the the venue.

Are we having to be bound to the uh uh the 2027 date of the contract ending?

Or are we are we nullifying our agreement with them?

Is that going to be an issue?

Councilman Griffin, I don't think we'll be nullifying the agreement.

Uh and again, I don't have that a whole other agreement memorized chapter and verse, but the fact OVG has been actively involved at every step um that they are giving their consent and and and I'd say involvement for how we proceed forward so I don't think we'd run afoul of any of those, and we've been in close conversation with them and their legal counsel.

Um hasn't been a concern raised yet.

And the only reason I bring that up is it is a term within the OVG city of Napa, it was Spectra at that point agreement now OVG that we cannot sell the property while the contract still.

So I just think has there been any written or transmitted approval from OVG that that term is no longer valid?

Uh Mayor Councilman Griffin, if you're looking for maybe a formal uh statement, I'm not aware of one, but certainly there's been uh the inference is strongly there that they are on board with this and uh being involved with this at every stage.

If they fear there'd be some sort of breach, we would have known months ago.

Thank you.

Okay.

So I think we have a motion and a second on the table.

Mayor.

Yes.

I just have a question.

I'm I'm just concerned that we're going maybe I would have put 5.8 before 55, 5.6 uh because it's the appraisal part.

So it doesn't say in this document that it's based uh uh dependent on the appraisal.

So clarify, are these both going to be hand in hand?

No.

No.

They are not, they're really I have to say a solicitation for interest is not an RFP.

It is not at that level.

All it is, it's just putting the word out on the street to say, is there anybody interested?

And it really is a it that's all it is.

It is not binding, it is not a listing for sale.

It would just guide us if there if we think there may be some interest out there, then we would move forward with that.

I see.

But it really is not.

It's um it's just asking, is there anybody interested?

Okay.

Because we've heard people say that hey, we've got somebody there, and it's like if they're there, let's give them an opportunity to come forward and say I'm interested.

Okay, thank you.

That's all it is.

Is transparency.

If there's no further discussion, roll call.

Renriguez.

I'm gonna go with you on this, yes.

Yes, Hammerfield.

Griffin.

Yes, yes.

Reynolds.

No.

Or excuse me.

Yes.

Five in favor, one opposed.

It's been a long night, and we're still not even kind of halfway started.

So okay.

Then the last discussion item is 5-8.

It is an action item, it's to authorize city staff to obtain an appraisal on the Fort Idaho Center.

I will say getting an appraisal is not going to be easy because of the uniqueness of this property.

And it will it potentially could be expensive and time consuming.

So I I because of the style of appraisal that we will need, and because of the uniqueness of the property.

So mayor.

Yes.

Um are we able to put this up on the screen?

Do you no?

Yeah.

Thank you.

I guess so.

What do you what are you looking at?

So this is I I reached out to a local appraiser just to ask some questions.

I feel bad because he didn't probably intend to be public, but I wanted to ask him what it would take to do an appraisal on the property.

Go ahead.

So uh reading this uh letter from Mr.

Langston, it it's just confirmed what I've I've been saying and thinking about the an appraisal on the property.

Um like councilman Bills stated a few meetings ago, uh, that property is worth what you can get from a willing buyer and a willing seller.

It's it's uh almost impossible to appraise with the deed restrictions.

Um what the what the uh actual venue is.

So to me it's it's a waste of city resources and money to get an appraisal to tell us what I don't understand uh why we would we would uh need to have a number if we can have somebody in the solicitation that we're doing uh not solicitation um let's see the the non-binding solicitation, yeah.

We can get somebody that's that steps up and says hey, we have some interest in that that would give me hope to say that there maybe is somebody there that was willing to pay something for this property, but we we had a uh professional individual give us a number on the property of what it's worth currently with uh the situation it's in and the deed restrictions on the property, and uh I'm inclined to go with that.

We know what the uh the uh property tax um uh assessment is on it.

We know what the uh I cram valuation has on it.

We we have done our due diligence, I feel like, on working through the process to figure out what this uh property is worth.

And uh I still have the same feeling that I don't want to sell this property, it needs to stay here for NAMPA for future generations, and uh if you know, if we even if we had somebody to come in and say it's worth 150 million dollars, it it just to me is not what we want for the city of Napa with and I cannot imagine for the life of me uh somebody would do that with his deed restrictions.

It does not pencil for a developer unless they come in, scrub the property and build on it new.

And um to do that, they would take the uh land value less the demolition cost, and that's what it's worth, and that would leave us with having to rebuild a facility for the snake river stampede rodeo.

And um that doesn't pencil either.

We would end up digging into our pockets to to cover the expense of that new venue.

So back to the appraisal.

Uh I don't see a point of having the appraisal, and I certainly don't want to waste any taxpayer dollars uh getting an appraisal.

Um Mr.

Langston makes it sound like it's very well written email, like it's almost impossible to get an appraisal on it with what the that um the property is, and and I don't know where he would get any comps on this kind of a venue to begin with.

And and I don't know where he would get any comps on this kind of a venue to begin with.

So that's my my comments, my thoughts.

I will not be in favor of voting for an appraisal on the property.

Thank you.

Yes.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to obtain an independent appraisal.

Yes, ma'am.

Correct?

On the Fort Idaho Center.

Is there further discussion?

Mayor discussion.

What budget amount are we allocating if we're going to obtain, or are we just soliciting at this stage?

The motion doesn't clarify uh what we're doing.

So well, okay.

David, I don't know how much it's gonna cost.

Do you want me to say it over a certain amount?

I have no idea.

Let's get the numbers to the appraisal first, how much is gonna cost, and then we go from there for right now.

I'm just approving that the actual appraisal be approved.

The numbers we can discuss later.

Well, if we're gonna solicit something, we ought to put a budget to it or have an idea of what we're trying to obtain.

Uh in terms of okay, so let's do this.

Then how about we get four or five people appraisers that want to give us a bid on it and we pick for that?

I guess you want to do it that way.

That's fine with me.

Well, that'd be similar to how some of the design uh folks are or solicited and obtained.

So that would be a okay.

A pattern to look at, and then we'll wait and see if somebody submits something with dollars and have a have been the operating.

Okay, that's fine with me too.

So it doesn't matter.

I just want the clarification so that uh staff knows what they're soliciting.

Mayor.

Yes.

Does anyone have an estimate or an approximate on what this appraisal would cost?

Yeah, we need to ballpark.

We don't know.

I was hoping to get that, however, because this is extremely reputable, one of the best commercial appraisers in the Treasure Valley.

Um the fact that they said I'm not I'm not gonna it falls without outside of his level of expertise.

That would speak to me that the level of expertise needed to do a appraisal on a venue of this nature may not even be local.

It may be someone that does it nationally.

Um but when you add the deed restrictions that we're gonna put on there, um it could be very expensive.

I but I don't know.

I have no idea.

Um six to seven digits.

You think six to seven?

I don't know.

Um I have no idea.

Mayor the I don't think the deed restrictions would be a part of the appraisal.

Yes, it would have to be.

It would have to be as far as uh adding in those numbers as far as as uh a deduct from what the value of the facility would be or an add to the what the facility might be able to generate.

Well, you would have to if we don't put deed restrictions on the appraisal, then that would tell us that we are going to sell it with no deed restrictions.

And we if that means that the Snake River Stampede's gone, the horse parks gone.

And so the value of that property is the value based on the deed restrictions.

So it would have to include the deed restrictions.

So the commercial appraisal includes three parts.

One is economic obsolescence.

So what that economic obsolescence is going to deal with.

Are there restrictions to the use?

Are they inhibiting in terms of uh access to the property?

Other words, those issues that deal with the financial operation of the property, and obsolescence is not available or are defunct, and so uh it's it's a major part of the deed restrictions is a major part of the appraisal and the economic obsolescence.

It devalues the property.

So uh it so standard point.

So I guess I have to I have to change my motion then if you want to do it that way.

Is shouldn't this shouldn't this be a bid, Mayor?

I guess similar to a bid where the appraisers go out and do their own bidding how much it would be, and then we pick from there.

Wouldn't anything over fifty thousand dollars have to come back to council anyway for approval so this would open up the opportunity for something.

Or an RFQ.

Maybe one suggestion here is to just reach out for quotes and see what we come back with, and if it's over 50, you know, whatever the number is in um procurement team, we can go out for quotes, get you those numbers just as soon as we get them back, and we might expand it to a national survey.

And we might expand it to a national survey.

Well it stands as is then.

So I think if you would like to adjust your motion, it would be to authorize city staff to go out for bids.

Yes.

Um and bringing those bids back to city council.

Yes, okay.

I'll I'll I'll amend that motion.

Mayor, what's the time frame on that?

As the time frame to get the bids out, or the time frame to get an appraisal back?

Time frame to if we if we put out, then how long does it take until we would get a bid back?

Or three weeks.

Also okay.

Looks like three to four weeks this to be.

And we could potentially not have anyone respond.

That's a possibility too.

We no one is willing or can't give a bid on this, but you won't know until you ask.

Okay.

Mayor?

Yes.

Just prior to the vote, I want to express uh once again that I my heart goes out to OVG.

We have an opportunity with them to do something with the facility if we allow them or an opportunity to have CWI do something with them.

We're now another four weeks just in getting a quote back, and then the actual bid process.

And then and then and then and then I am at the point, and I just state this.

I know it's not regarding the motion that we whether internally or however we need to decide.

We need to decide quicker than not to allow OVG, the one who's generating the revenue on behalf of the city to either do what they're going to do with us or do what they're going to do with CWI.

I know this is all part of that process, but another item puts us another month, and now we're in a year since we've even begun discussions that this is needed, this is necessary.

The amplifier needs to stay relevant.

So I'll I won't belabor any more points.

Thank you.

Mayor, if we do move forward with a bid, what does that postpone in this process of the timeline that you um mentioned earlier?

Well, mayor, I'm I may try to maybe clarify that.

There's some procedural steps here.

Thank you.

Um what it might do, you know, before you can have a vote to officially move forward to sell or convey, um, you got to decide if you're gonna do either of those.

You're gonna need a declaration from legal that outlines that a utilization piece.

Um we had talked about maybe having that for September 15th, and then from there you have to wait at least 14 days.

So in theory, there could be a vote as early as October 6.

Obviously, there's a lot of moving parts right here.

If you wanted to have an appraisal to inform your decision, do you want to sell or not?

It's not required by statute.

It doesn't mention you can obtain an appraisal.

If you wanted that to inform a dollar figure, uh you would want to have that appraisal number if there is any out there before you did that.

And that's if you wanted to have that as an informing number.

You could set a number right now based on your own research, your understanding.

Uh there's no specific guidance on that in the statute.

But if you wanted it, it would potentially delay out a sell vote, a conveyance vote that we've discussed about for a few months now, CWI.

The appraisal uh may have no bearing on that because of the consideration that's being exchanged.

There's no money being brought, it's more of offloading expenses and agreeing to do certain uses.

Thank you.

I think an interesting question is if no one really desires to sell that property.

Um to have an appraisal.

I think we're feeling pushed into an appraisal.

But um if the interest is not to sell the property, which I hear from a number of people, and I've heard it from a lot of citizens, um, then it may be less relevant, but it is this is a decision of council.

Mayor, yes, just one last comment.

I feel that we're putting the cart way in front of the horse here.

Well, let's go and see what we can conjure up by allowing individuals to say their interests in the property.

If somebody comes up and says we're interested, we haven't decided on our number, that's a point where we then can decide what's a valid bid, what's a valid offer?

To decide this now, we don't even know if there's interested parties yet.

Um so I think that this should be delayed or or postponed.

I don't think I I don't want to vote no, because if we have to end up going out to bid, having that option available to us.

We can certainly get the bids that are non-binding, so at least we know what it is and how long it would take and still move forward in a parallel path to the uh nonbinding solicitation if we needed to do that, and not authorize us actually to go out because I'm seeing a shaking of a head from Rick, and I think you would agree that if we get some bids, we need to communicate that we're not bound to go ahead and move forward.

And that is Mayor, that's in the uh draft language for that non-binding solicitation.

We do have in there an October 1st deadline by four o'clock.

This is on the appraisal appraisal piece.

If we went out for bids for someone to do an appraisal for us and they gave us a bid, do we have to move forward with it, or could we say we're not going to?

No, this is a professional service agreement.

It's exempt from the standard bid process that we would follow in other instances.

So this would be a non-binding um informal quote solicitation.

That's right.

We would capture it.

Okay.

Is there any other discussion on this item?

Any other questions?

Okay.

I think would you restate the motion?

Shar, just to make sure we all remember.

Uh the motion is to a request for bids for an independent appraisal on the Ford Idaho Center.

That's correct.

Roll call.

Yes.

No.

Reynolds.

No.

Griffin.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

More in favor, two opposed washing curies.

Okay.

So we will be back in contact with counsel regarding the bids and who responds and how we go through that.

We are now ready for public forum.

And so I think we have some people possibly that have been waiting.

And I'm sorry, typically I should have done the public forum typically before new business.

I just followed the agenda.

So here we go.

Madam Mayor, our first speaker is Alan Clemens, who did provide a handout.

It's in the blue folder that is in front of everyone.

Good evening.

Thank you for giving us your name and address.

And you'll have three minutes.

Hello, Mayor.

My name is Alan Mayor and City Council members.

My name is Alan Clemens, and I live at 5414 Cherry Lane, Napa, Idaho, right next to the beautiful Baptist Church next door.

The uh I I came here 10 years ago to speak because I was very upset and sick to my stomach because there were I'm gonna I'm gonna characterize the drawings as arrogant drawings depicting unfair use of the public right-of-way in front of my property.

Uh this is a picture of when I bought the property at Cherry Lane, and this was sold to me by the by uh Mixon and the city council because this was on the agenda.

If there's any way that the count that people behind us could sort of look at this drawing or not, anyway, you all have it.

Pauses time can this is what let's put it on the screen.

Okay.

Let's give you one.

Could you give me one, please?

Thank you.

If you we'll pause for a second and we'll put it up on the screen for you.

Maybe turn it the other way.

Yeah, that's this was uh push it back up so you can see the yellow.

There it is.

That's my property.

And what was sold to me, there's three stipulations that the city made to me and and on Wixham when I bought this property.

Though I had to this this is what's gonna happen.

One of them I don't want.

The other two, uh oh, let's wait a minute.

My introduction to the church was through, and then a man that is his favorite just best church is Vincent Laverante.

Vincent and I are members of a simplot team of troubleshooters that immediately gained the uh reputation of Johnny on the spot.

Do you want it fixed?

You want that line up?

You grab us.

Vince is the ambassador for the church.

No deal has ever been made by anybody for that church but Vincent Laverante.

The best.

He has this is my electrical license.

This is my refrigeration license.

Vince has one of these.

And that church is so lucky because Vince, gosh, Vince and I take care of this place.

And Vince came to me and said, hey, Alan, uh, the church bought the property right next to you.

I said, well, that's great, but you know I have a well, uh, I have a uh easement on that property.

Oh you talk about the commotion.

It was two days later.

I've got the church people over there and the fence is there, and the other, and I showed them this well house that that went my well at.

And uh I one of the comments was I thought it was all the way across the other side of the property or something, because they got such a great deal on it because uh look at look at that piece of property sitting right when it's got the access and everything.

So I'm I'm great with the church.

It's coming in.

I love it.

And Vince and I are working, but this church got built in a way that started bothering me because the whole crap.

Okay, so we're already out of time.

However, I'd like to give you another minute or two.

Can you help me get to what is the issue that's happening?

The issue is I I really want the body, governing body to know that Randy Haverfield was asked by one of the council members.

My question was now that you've put buildings all in front of the property.

How do you expect to um sell that property and uh uh develop it?

And Randy turned right around to this community and said, We'll bring the street through at you can see it right here, I think on this drawing, or is it the next one?

It's the next picture where you can see where um uh Briar Briar Briar Lane is that Briar Lane, Randy?

What street is it?

I'm on the next to the church, right next door.

I've been maintaining, let's move to the okay.

So anyway, Randy told this committee that his favorite way to his way to develop that property was to put Rosebrier through my property.

And the councilman had asked him, Randy was not didn't he seemed to not know that I was there, and he turned right around.

The councilman asked him, how are we gonna get there?

And Randy said we're gonna go through that piece of property.

I waited till the councilman asked me, Mr.

Clemens.

Do you have something to say about this?

And I said, Yeah, that's my property, and that's why I'm here because it looks like he's blocking the front, so he can't go through there while he's building right now.

And uh the church is right there in the middle of the whole thing, and he tells the council that he'll go through my place to develop for the church.

Uh I would like you to I would go for a this is nine, eight, fifteen city council recording.

The council is talking to me.

I'm I'm telling them that Randy did not make me trust him.

That yeah, he his idea to develop for the church is to go through my property.

And my question at that time is there room on this side of the church on away from the yellow to go through there.

And the answer to me is yes, there is.

Nobody is.

Oh, and in this meeting, there were several speakers that were calming me, making me feel better because I just I'm sick to my stomach.

I got a man downtown.

Madam Mary Time.

Okay.

So we are out of time.

So I'm just trying to think.

It sounds like it's a planning and zoning issue.

Is it does this fall?

Because I'm gonna have you go with staff at this point and share with them your challenge.

Okay.

And so is this Rodney?

Is it you or is it Daniel?

Okay, so Daniel, raise your hand over there again.

So if you would step to the back and visit with Alan, Mr.

Clements.

Let's have you work with Daniel and clarify.

Clarify, and let's figure out where we need to go and what we can do to help you.

I'm going to uh the last picture just quickly is my bus, is my motor home.

This is one of two debunked Idaho.

It is a 1955 General Motors Senior Cruiser, needs a garage.

I'm building a garage there.

I've seen the it's gonna be right across the street from Rose Briar.

I've got the Rosebrier people across the street.

This is my fount, my property is city, and I got the county all around me, and they don't want a lot of stuff.

So let's thank you.

And thank you, Randy.

If you would provide the exact time of that, I have the city sent me everything, all the recordings.

I haven't been through.

I hear this one.

Okay.

But I haven't heard the one where Randy was not prepared and turned around and told the council they would come to my place if it was up to him.

Basically, Mayor Clinton.

Thank you, so I asked Mr.

Clemens a question then.

Go ahead and go back to the microphone.

You're right.

On this plat map that's on the screen, is the church on the right side or the left side of that development.

Right here.

Okay, so the whole church is right in the middle of the road.

So it's not a hand putting a new park, a big bus.

And I think for the fifth along my perfect along my side or uh Alan, you want to put into money to put the fifth note.

I will maintain that.

Thank you, folks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll let him deal with Dan.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I will get the uh a back bait and brand new.

I think it's better.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is David Taney.

Thank you, Mayor.

Members of the City Council.

At uh the city council meetings has deteriorated, and it was primarily uh on the issue related to the Idaho Fort Idaho Center.

And that is uh true, it has.

And uh I uh came here because I think I've been a party of that, and I apologize to you.

Um I'm not pleased with my uh conduct.

I don't think any of you, any of the seven of you deserve the kind of uh behavior that I exhibited last time I was here, and I uh do apologize to you.

I think that what might um help because I would there are others besides me uh would be uh if if you could put together a uh uh ad hoc committee of local business experts, uh property experts, uh people who deal with things like uh valuations, for example, her uh operations, uh sale sub lease and other kinds of transactions like that.

People that operate and work in uh areas that may be outside the normal uh scope of work that's done by the city attorney's office.

I think if you put together a group like that, they'd be able to come back to you uh with a list of the options that are available to you and the information, the uh facts and the background and the economic effects of uh whatever decision you finally choose.

Uh but mainly I just want to come here tonight and apologize to you.

You don't deserve to be spoken to you the way that I spoke, and I apologize for it.

Thank you.

David, thank you for your comments.

They're greatly greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, we don't have anyone else that's signed up.

Okay.

So at that, I think we're gonna move forward.

Unless there's someone that really had intended to speak and didn't get signed up.

We're gonna go ahead and move forward into public hearings.

I'm not seeing anybody waving their hand, so okay.

Um we have two public hearings this evening.

The first one is 8-1 on the agenda.

It is reconsideration of city council's denial of a zoning map amendment from two family residential to commercial business zoning district, and a potential development agreement for 1215 13th Street South, and a right-of-way in front of the parcel.

This is for a total of 0.389 acres.

Um, for Aaron Randall, J GT Architecture representing Brenda and Oswaldo Rodriguez.

And the original concept is to construct and operate a new restaurant, and thank you for our applicant being here.

And go ahead and give us your name again and your address.

Yeah, Mayor Kling and uh council members.

My name is Aaron Randall, and with JGT Architecture, we are at 1135 12th Avenue Road in Nampa, Idaho.

So I guess there's a uh is a recap.

Uh again, we have a piece of property that's uh zoned for uh a duplex, but the owner would like to do something more useful with it.

Put a uh restaurant on the property, is being as skinny as it is, it would be very difficult to put any kind of housing on it.

So we thought that this would be something more amenable to the community.

So uh, you know, the original design, we had a uh a drive aisle back behind, and uh we've removed that and throwing landscaping in on the back side there.

So there's that, and we've talked about putting some kind of a of a barrier, brand new uh along the along that uh along that side on the on the residential side there.

Now that's a hundred and eighty-eight feet long, and uh we were hoping not to have to put a CU wall there that would be eleven hundred and twenty-eight square feet of of block that's almost as many square feet as the building itself at 1150.

So and uh the other concern we had about putting a block wall there would be having to put a foundation along there, and there may be issues with some kind of um uh sewer having to go across our property if there's any kind of easement there to go into the alley there, there might be an issue with that.

So we were thinking more of a nice vinyl fence if that's if that's uh appropriate.

Uh we think it would also keep the noise down, you wouldn't have so much noise bouncing off of the block wall.

So uh essentially everything else is stayed the same.

It's still uh a nice looking building, it's a residential in nature, it's short like the other houses that are across the way from it.

Uh and uh we still think it's a viable project for the community.

Stand for any questions.

Thank you.

Council, do you have any questions?

Questions.

So if I'm reading your drawing correctly, you're using uh part of the 10 foot setback easement for your drive aisle, and you're running the drive aisle right up against your uh privacy wall fence.

Yeah, it's yeah, along just along that part there, just before you get to the to the last uh stall there, and then and then yeah, and then it exits into the alley.

So there will be nothing that goes back behind the building itself.

So then uh it's all landscaping at that point.

You're taking asphalt to the property line.

That's correct.

There's no structure there, so we can get away with that.

So what are you doing with your drainage?

Drainage will be it'll be back up along the uh along, yeah, exactly, along the landscaping there, and and if we have anything else, we can also store it underground in this in the parking area.

So another question.

Say you don't want to do a block wall, so you're okay with a vinyl fence.

Uh how are the neighbors supposed to deal with cars and trucks driving right along their property line?

I guess no, not any different than they would if it was along the street line.

So again, we don't anticipate a ton of traffic through there.

I mean, that's really sort of the whole point is that this is a a neighborhood thing where people would walk to it.

That's why we're not worried about parking issues nearly as much as as other people are.

So we think that uh, you know, it's gonna be it's only gonna be open from like 10 in the morning until eight o'clock at night, so it's gonna be it's not gonna be there, it's gonna be there during daylight hours.

I guess that's what we're looking at here.

So it's not gonna be you know, there's not gonna be tons of traffic going through there all the time.

You know, you can have you're gonna get some peak times, maybe between like 11:30 and 130, and then after work, you know, if people go in for dinner, then you're talking about something a little bit different there too.

So again, less parking, uh less parking issues, and again, you'll have some peak times, but don't anticipate a lot of a lot of traffic through there.

So people who want to come pick up their uh mill and five stalls, few tables inside.

Where do they park to stop and get their mill if they called it in or wanted to stop and order?

Well, that would they still would park in the in the parking area there, and then they would and they would get out.

But if it's full, if it's full, then they park on the street.

Okay, so that's parking in the neighborhood.

Park commercial for off-streeting off-street parking for a commercial.

Is that what being proposed?

That that that is an idea, yeah.

If if there's overflow, it's like like anything else, you know, that's where that's where you go.

So I mean it's not that many stalls, it's not that many people that are gonna be eating there.

So it's gonna be pick up and go, and and then you and then that's it.

So you're there for like two minutes, somebody else can move in and out.

And you believe a vinyl six foot high vinyl fence is adequate for sound and barrier.

I think so.

That along with the landscaping there, that'll help a ton.

Well, that's over where the building is.

I'm sorry, that's where the building is, right?

Landscaping beside the building?

Yeah, the landscaping side there, yeah.

So anything, yeah, from the building itself from from the other from the other side.

Um, yeah, and it's there's probably gonna be a little more noise there.

Um talking to the the property owner there, they they didn't seem concerned about it.

They were the ones who who showed up for the public meeting that we had, and they were fine with what we had.

They just wanted to come by and we spent an hour with talking with them about it.

So they were fine with it.

We never didn't hear from the from the uh from the property owner on the opposite side of where the landscaping is, but we did hear from the one there on the north side.

Uh you know, for me to have uh asphalt to the property line.

I'm not uh I'm not recalling where that's been allowed in other projects.

Yeah, as long as it's not uh an actual built surface there, they should be able to go right up to it.

So it's not like this is like a temperature, it's not like a permanent structure that's there, so um there's sorry while you get your questions.

Shall we ask if there are any others?

Yes.

Any other questions?

Yes, Councilman Haverfeld.

Thanks, Aaron.

You've uh you've come back with improvements.

Obviously, the the first uh go around you had a drive lane that ran along the east side of the building, and then uh so actually two points where you're coming back out into the alley, so now you've got that landscape which can then be a retention swale.

Yes for stormwater.

Uh the question I would have for you now is um it's hard to read on our in our packet what the actual width of the drive lane is coming in off of uh what is that street 13th?

Yeah, 13.

I believe it's 25, 25 feet.

Okay, so uh you've got a curb cut.

What is the width of the curb cut?

Is it 16, 18?

What is it at this point?

It's hard to read.

Yeah, it's a good question.

Yeah, I guess it's 16.

So uh maybe it's a question for staff what the minimum would be allowed for a one-way drive to maybe pick up some landscaping along that portion uh of the property there with the drive lane is to kind of soften somewhat um to councilman Bill's point as far as just maybe if we can get that down to 15 feet, if that would be allowed by staff or not.

I would pick up a three-foot then landscape strip along that portion of the property.

Otherwise, um it's an innovative approach to um solving you know a use of a of a landmass there.

The only other question then I would have would be there has been some concern expressed as far as potential parking overflow onto the property to the west.

Uh what uh how are you gonna be able to control that?

Yeah, I completely feel for the problems that they're having there currently.

Um as far as uh I mean about the best thing that we could do would be anybody that comes in, just you have to let them know you can't park over there.

I mean, I I don't know how else to uh to to keep that from happening.

Um I mean I I just I I think people are going to come in and and and park into the parking lot and and and and if there isn't, I mean they're not gonna be able to swing back out and then go down the other aisle because it's all one way, you know.

The parking parking for the other parking or the other uh the other uh uh commercial project across the street there.

It it's a one-way thing.

So if they came in, it would be there's no way for them to park.

Is the width of the building the same as the original proposal?

Yeah, the width stayed the same.

It's pretty still ten feet off the east property line, five feet off the west.

It's still super tight.

So thank you all.

Uh maybe have a question for staff.

Okay.

Okay, councilman bills.

Do you have any other questions?

This time.

Yes, in our packet, uh staff has said uh things that are to be looked at is one is a B and on page uh 279 in our packet, and it talks about uh be at least reasonably compatible with existing and adjoining property uses.

And so I'm struggling with uh reasonably compatible when the asphalt goes to the property line, then there's no sound barrier for vehicle traffic against somebody else's property, and then uh says in the interest of the public.

Uh and so I I need to know where have you addressed these issues.

I mean, I don't feel like from where you were before council prior to this.

I'm not sure the issues have been addressed that were raised then.

I guess the way we look at it is as far as the drive aisle.

The drive aisle sort of has to go there, it doesn't work any other way.

I mean it has to be a drive aisle into the property, right?

They're allowed a drive aisle.

It's they have to be able to access their property.

Now you could have it on the opposite side on the on the uh side of the of the uh of the alley, but then all of a sudden you've got people parking, you know, right up against up against the uh the residential side.

At least here we're keeping the you know the the cars and when they stop, you know, at least it's the opposite side of the property.

Do you understand?

I fully understand.

I just don't see where if there was a house there, they'd still have to have a driveway, right?

I mean a driveway has to be allowed on the property.

If there was a duplex, there'd be one probably from both sides.

There'd be a curb cut and a drive aisle from both sides of that property as opposed to just this one side.

Here everything is not facing, nothing's facing residentially, it's all facing towards the alley, it's all facing to the opposite side of the property.

So I think this is this is as good as you're gonna get on this particular piece of property.

It's just a skinny little piece that's gonna be empty, anything there but dirt and dust and weeds and people parking there and doing drugs and whatever else is there right now.

Well, I don't know that this solves that issue, does it?

That's me.

So this is yeah, this is just a question time for the applicant.

Are there any other questions for the applicant?

I did want to say I did also address the one of the comments was the uh the uh trash uh location there, trash enclosure.

I did angle that a little bit differently now, so you can see there's a 50-foot uh uh pull in there, so it should be able to access that without uh going in anybody else's property.

So again, we're not we're not we're not saying we won't put or that we would never put a block wall there.

We're just saying that it's it's an incredible amount of cost for this particular project to do it.

So thank you.

Okay, so we will have you back as you know after public hearing.

So we'll move to staff at this time.

Thank you, Christine.

All right, thank you, Mayor and Council.

Um, you know most of the history on this project, so I'll just go through it really quickly.

Again, this is what the building would ultimately look like.

Um some late comments were received today.

Um concerned about lack of adequate on-site parking for the businesses across the alley that operate off of 12th Avenue.

Uh the property manager will not assist in installing signage or a contract with a towing company on their property, so they have complaints about people parking there that do not belong in those businesses.

Um let's see, parking and safety are a high concern in the alleyway.

Uh currently experiencing parking issues with their own businesses.

A restaurant would create more parking and safety issues.

Um this has changed this this and other businesses have changed the neighborhood environment for the people who've lived there for a long period of time.

It's dusty, noisy, and generates lots of traffic, and this would just add to that problem.

Um letters that we did receive that's in your staff report was from James Wogan.

He lives, he's one of the residences that's adjacent to the property.

Stated that he has had a conversation with the new owner about protecting the access and maintenance of the sewer and water lines that run through the subject property to his property.

He states that the applicant is aware of this concern and is sensitive to it, but he was in uh support of the project otherwise.

These are the previous comments that were received that were in your staff report um from before.

So as stated, this is in harmony with the comprehensive plan to ask for this rezone.

Um it does provide us provide a set of uses that is reasonably compatible with the uses that come off of 12th Avenue and across the alley.

Um it's up to you to determine whether or not it's reasonably compatible with the residences on the other side.

And then it is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary because if it were to be zoned that way, a restaurant would be an allowed use in that zone.

They have agreed to preserve and protect the sewer and water lines that serve the adjacent properties.

The restaurant would be required to go through design review.

And then of course, as stated, there are some concerns about noise traffic, late night activity, trash bright lights, decrease in property values, parking, and the character of the quiet residential neighborhood.

So these are your conditions of approval.

I added the statement from Mr.

Wogan preserve and protect the sewer and water lines that serve adjacent properties.

So that would be one of the conditions.

And these are your potential motions.

I'll stand for any questions.

I have a question, Mayor.

Yes.

Okay.

I think it's going to be more toward Daniel, unless you want to answer a traffic question.

I really don't.

That's what I thought.

Thank you.

Okay.

Daniel.

Is this entry and exit into this business?

Is it really coincide?

Is it really fit within the small density area?

And using the alley.

Mayor Councilman Rodriguez, the access points that they have shown comply with the City of Nampa's access management policy.

Does that matter when there's such a close proximity though?

Or does it matter at all?

If where the roadways that they are asking accessing on is a local roadway, the the access spacing works just fine.

It does.

Yes.

Did you include the alley in that or the other businesses?

So on a local roadway, the access management policy is very uh is not very restrictive because of the it's based on the volume of traffic that um is there and on the local roadways, the volumes of traffic is much lower than say a collector or arterial, and so that is why those um are set up the way they are.

Um I don't see an issue the the issues that we see with having accesses very close together comes from then conflict points with the traffic on the roadways and coming in and out on those lower volume roadways like um like we are looking at here.

We just don't see enough volume to to need to restrict those access distances to to farther away.

Okay, so I'm talking uh uh on 12th Avenue where they use the businesses just to the west, use their driveway or uh or the coffee shops driveway.

So that is that's not a guaranteed access for them then?

No, they they would not have legal access through those private properties to 12th Avenue.

Their legal access would come off of Roosevelt at the alley, um, and then I believe it's 13th Street on the other side.

But but but but I but I want to make sure that the the the even for the two the businesses that are there and the customers that go there to those businesses shouldn't be used in the alley, but they do.

Uh so is that a an access point that we should the out the alley one lane and that is the nature of an alley, they are certainly um the there is no issue from the city standpoint from staff standpoint of those businesses that are back up to the alley, whether on the 12th Avenue side or on the other side, utilizing access to the alley.

Uh again, the the traffic volumes on those are are low enough that um a one-way in and out is not an issue.

Um I've never in my time here at the city, I've not experienced a problem where access to the alley is creates a traffic hazard.

Thank you, Daniel.

So I'll just I saw a ran a hand raised, so I'll just tell you that we not yet not yet though.

I wanted to tell you real quickly that we're gonna be in a public hearing in just a minute, and we're gonna let you come forward and talk.

So just remember your question on well, just what reguses get to talk, and I don't they don't yet.

So you can speak forward.

No, well, he's the applicant, so there's an applicant, and then there's a public hearing, and you're next.

So that you're next in just a minute, you'll get to speak.

So just hang tight and we'll call on you in just a minute.

So you will get to speak.

I just wanted to let you know since you're waiting right now.

So we start with the applicant's report, then we move to the staff report, and then we move to public comment.

And so we'll get to public comment in just a minute.

We'll get there just a minute.

So we'll finish with staff questions.

I have a question.

Uh-huh.

Rodney, can you come back up or maybe Christy can answer the question?

Uh I found the information I was looking for as far as one-way traffic, drive lane, feeding a 45-degree angle parking stall.

Can be all the way down to 12 feet wide.

Is that correct?

Uh Councilman Haverfield, yes, that is correct.

We actually found that same chart.

Oh, there you go.

In code one.

And then the required parking is one per 200 square feet of gross floor area.

Is that correct?

One for 200 square feet.

Yes.

So if it's a thousand square foot building, five stalls is adequate.

I think I came up with six parking spaces required.

Six parking spaces are shown, so they can ply there.

They could actually reduce the width of the drive lane down from I think it was 18 or whatever they said it was.

We could reduce that.

So the landscape buffer could be provided.

So Ronnie, go to chapter one.

We have it at the top.

I'm sorry, I'm trying.

There's a teens uh thing in the way, so I'm struggling to get to it.

There we go.

Um and the the size of the of the building.

1150.

So yeah, you're at you're correct.

I think uh, but you've confirmed the idea that we can reduce that drive line drive lane down if we choose to.

That is correct.

Thank you.

Just to make clear, you did clarify that the required parking is a is there.

Is that yes?

Okay.

Are there other questions from council at this time?

I do have a quick question.

Is there street parking on Roosevelt?

Um, yes, there is adequate room for on street parking on Roosevelt.

Um there's not a um lot, but as I look at the um aerial imagery, there are there is street parking on on Roosevelt.

And it's allowed.

Yes.

Okay.

And then another question.

Um could housing be built on this strip of land.

I know it's zoned RD two family residential.

Would is it big enough to actually accommodate?

So, Mayor, um, we have had multiple conversations with various people who have been interested in purchasing this property over the last few years.

Um because it's owned RD, we've looked a lot at duplexes and it is big enough for that.

Um as stated, it would have driveways that would come in from each direction.

The issue is that there are services running to those adjacent property owners, and so it would be very difficult to then have to again realign their sewer and their water around the structures as they would have to be built.

So if you did a duplex that was uh facing out each direction, that structure is going to potentially sit over where their sewer and water lines are currently, and they'd have to be completely rerouted, which I think they've already been rerouted once.

Um so it it's complicated, it can be done.

Um they're small units, but it can be done.

So when we speak of storum water, um, how does this current um project impact that?

Is it because it's just it's it's parking this drive aisle, there isn't a building setting where they are.

Is that what I'm hearing?

That's they've yeah, so they've made um concessions for those easements that are already in place for that.

Okay, but you could put what's the depth of the property.

I am honestly not sure right off the top of my head.

We might have to ask the applicant that question.

Because with our required setbacks, I'm trying to think if you could put because isn't our required setback today 15 feet in the backyard?

Um on the R D zone, that's correct, yes, it would be 15 feet.

Okay.

So how so and the front structure has to set back so many feet from the parking.

So how many feet would that leave for a building?

That is 39 feet, 40 feet.

I don't think you could put a structure there.

It would be very difficult.

Am I correct?

That it's not because it's 40 feet, and if you have a 15-foot setback in the back, and you have a whatever setback in the front, there would only be about 10 feet.

If they face uh units and you do you do a tiny house concept that's been done in other jurisdictions.

Oh, it can be a tiny house.

There's there's creativity here, and there's also the ability to seek a uh variance to the setback on residential residential can go down to four feet with firewalls, five feet little ways.

So thinking that it's only 40 feet total.

Well it's pretty narrow lot.

If you drive certain parts of the valley, you'll see the tiny houses that have been built.

Um it's capable.

So I don't have any other questions, counsel.

Do you have any other questions?

Okay, we will move to public hearing.

Thank you.

Okay.

Go ahead.

So this is the opportunity where you would get to come up, and you both can come one at a time.

When you come, go ahead and give us your name, your address, and you'll have three minutes.

My name is Patricia Warren.

I live at 1216 13th Street South.

The architect is incorrect.

Because that coffee house moved in, you would not believe the traffic in the dust and the noise, and people already park in front of my house.

They throw their trash in front of my house in my gutter.

And they want to add more traffic to my windows go to the floor.

The lights from the cars, you know how the new lights are these days.

They're I don't know what they are.

They're bright, they shine right in my house.

My house is never dark inside because of the spotlights all those businesses put on the back of the buildings.

All of them.

And the noise, and it's and why can't the Rodriguez speak for themselves?

Why do they have to have an architect?

And Mr.

Wogan, James Wogan, he has never lived in that neighborhood.

He's out, he's from Ireland.

He bought that property to rent as a bed and breakfast.

And he'll take anything.

See, in the years I've lived there like 20 some years, 25, I don't know.

The tenants that used to rent James Wogan's little house, which is the house right next to the vacant lots, they used to mow that area.

Well, Mr.

Wogan moved in and didn't want to mow it.

So he complained.

He'd throw his trash on that lot.

I mean, he has no right to put input into this discussion.

Just because he owns a property he's never lived at.

But I think that maybe the Mr.

Rodriguez and his wife should speak for themselves and not have that man speak for them.

I'm sorry.

It's just, you know, I'm not gonna be here long in this world.

My daughter's supposed to take the house when I'm gone.

How's she gonna live there?

With all that noise, and like I say, they throw the car speeding on that on 13th street south, my street.

They already go speeding, even the school buses speed on that street.

Big big giant trucks back and forth all day long.

And these people think they know what's best for my neighborhood.

They don't know.

The only other neighbor there is is what's her name?

Alita Tovar.

She doesn't want it there, but she doesn't come to the sorry.

I gotta go.

Thank you.

Oh we got smirking at me.

Yeah, smirking.

Okay.

Is there is there someone else that had intended okay?

Go ahead and come forward and give us your name and address.

My name is Andrea Adamson.

I live at 524, no, I 824 Fifth Avenue North.

Um just to address some of the points this individual made.

Um thing is yes, there is already tons of traffic.

It's it's an alley, it's not to build a restaurant.

You could do two homes, one this way and one that way, and that would be something better.

It's a residence, he's proposing that people can park on the streets.

Okay, that's parking in front of people's house to both the east and north and the south.

Um, I mean, he just made a lot of wrong points, I think, saying that um, there won't hardly be anybody there at one time.

Oh, well, then why would you want to open a business that's not going to be profitable if no one's there?

And then secondly, talking about the people entering from 12th Avenue, they're not gonna stop.

If they want to go right through there, they will.

I mean, that's just the way people drive.

I mean, and it is a residential area, but people bought their homes with expectation of living in as a residential area and being it being peaceful, it being their community.

And a lot of people there are long-term residents, and it it's a shame.

The noise will be loud.

You know how it is.

You people drive by with their music blaring, and that's the potential for that is there.

I don't think that they've thought it quite through as far as the traffic goes at the amount of noise.

The walls would be helpful, but not it's just a bad idea, uh, in my opinion for what's there.

I mean, you saw how upset my poor mom is.

She's been sick about this since she heard, and it just breaks my heart for her.

So I that's all I have.

Thank you for taking time to be here tonight.

Thank you so much.

Is there anyone else here this evening that would like to testify?

Okay, seeing no one.

This is an applic opportunity for the applicant to come back and provide closing remarks.

Did you want to speak in open to okay?

Come on forward.

Go ahead and give your name and address.

Thank you.

Hi, good evening.

Uh my name is Brenda Rodriguez, and I live at 916 South Power Line Road.

Um, and after hearing, I mean, I hear that.

Um because we've like she said, we all like to live peacefully.

Um, and obviously the problems that this spot is having right now, it's not gonna go away.

If it's not us, somebody else in the future.

If nothing happens with this um property, I mean somebody else might come in and do something, so the problem is still gonna be there regardless, unfortunately.

Um, like Aaron said, the property we've been cleaning uh every time we cut the grass, um, there's been a lot of trash.

We've been finding needles.

Um I mean, we all look for safety.

If there's nothing built in there, I mean, it's gonna continue to be the same thing.

Um so I mean, I really don't know what else to say.

Um, but I mean, the problem, I mean, the city is growing, unfortunately, and it'll probably be growing.

So if it's not this property, other places are gonna have issues regardless.

So I mean, I don't know what else to say.

But thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else that wanted to speak?

Yes.

Thank you for coming forward and sharing your name and address.

Mark Mitchell, one two three five five landown.

My question is really, Madam Mayor, you had a point of 15 feet set back from the property line.

His diagram, I did not see that.

I saw butter right up to the property line.

Is that correct?

Is that correct on the design?

I'll go ahead, Rodney.

You can go ahead and answer.

Yeah, thanks, madam mayor.

Um, and council.

Um, so the the setbacks here are if you were thinking about residential, uh, it would be different.

Um, but a residential structure would have your 15 rear setback and your 15-foot front set back for the living space and 20 feet for the vehicle uh enclosed vehicle or covered garage.

Um so it's different here for commercial, and in fact, when you have a um a fence that's six feet high, a site obscuring fence at least six feet tall that obscures visibility of a parking lot is placed between the commercially zoned property and adjoining single-family or two-family residentially zoned property, then a zero-foot setback may be allowed in order to separate screen the commercial properties parking lot from the residentially zoned property.

So there's no requirement.

Um the 10 10-foot setback is for the the building, but there's no um if there's the fence there, you can you can pave right up to the the property if there's the side obscuring fence.

That's what code says.

Okay.

So that design would work.

be allowed in order to separate screen the commercial properties parking lot from the residentially zoned property so there's no requirement um the 10 10 foot setback is for the the building but there's no um if there's the fence there you can you can pave right up to the the property if there's the side obscuring fence that's what code says so that design would work so that design would work because they are paving right up to the property line if they got the rezone to be a commercially zoned property and if they put the made sure that there was a site obscuring fence thank you can they use the existing fencing or do they have to go with at least a vinyl fencing new isn't that city code new or can they use that because I think that's wood fencing along that that property line mayor would you like me to respond to that um yeah so um it is a uh requirement that they they have fencing um that is a condition that the the mayor and council can decide on what type of barrier you would like to have there um they I believe that the applicant has indicated that they would propose to put in the vinyl fencing there that six foot vinyl fencing okay I don't believe this fits there I visit there quite frequently it's very tight and to get out on the one thirteenth um I have a pickup it'll drag the hitch and it's four wheel drive so it's that's pretty high um it's not really conducive even onto Roosevelt because it's kind of a blind corner and I can see the traffic issues stack up even into 12 real easy with that um so it's to my opinion it's not a good idea I I it's great plan but not a good location I should say thank you mark thank you very much is there anyone else here that wanted to uh testify this evening okay seeing no one this is an opportunity for the applicant to come back and provide some closing remarks a lot of passion there um I guess to to to comment on some of the uh remarks earlier uh again as we discussed it's any of the traffic coming into the property is not going to be facing uh uh the gal who came up uh Patricia uh wouldn't be it wouldn't be facing her property it's to the north everything else is gonna be going to the south or to the west so there wouldn't be any lights shining in there um again any any lights on the property you're gonna be kept to a minimum per city code per city standards um as far as coming out of uh uh coming out of the of the alley and onto Roosevelt there that's not a blind spot that's fairly easy to see either direction um again I don't see a lot of uh conflict with anything coming into the alley from from the 12th Avenue side uh anybody coming into the restaurant is going to be coming from 13th and then down in so um yeah I guess oh and ask answer your questions 35 feet wide that's how wide the property is so pretty skinny any questions anything else council do you have any questions for the applicant mayor clean just uh for point of clarification the building on uh the building face on the west side and the property line is it three feet or five feet away I believe I'm showing right there now it's ten feet on the east side yeah it's ten feet on the east side and then um and then we're off of the off the alley we're at uh 10 foot setback plus I've got another two feet off of that uh so we're not directly on the on the property line that's only two feet wide then as far as the setback on the west side yeah I'm taking from the from the middle of the alley there so 12 feet from the middle of the alley so I think it's a 20 foot wide alley there so I think it's a zero zero lot line on on that side so I pulled it off two feet just because of uh I didn't want to yeah I didn't want to put any uh there's not a protected walkway along that side of the building as far as for pedestrians no it's just more of a curb just a two foot curb and if we can skinny that road up there on or the the drive aisle I'm more than happy to put three feet of landscaping in there we can put up some tall some tall tall bush tree type of things and help mitigate any kind of uh sound that way I mean that would be just the same way that they do it at uh at uh at the um oh what is it the the windy's there you know because they've got residents on the side of that so they just grow those things tall like that they'll mitigate sound better than than any wall we would put up but yeah we would we would we would definitely put in a uh a new vinyl fence something nice through there that would help mitigate that as well so it wouldn't just be the standard wood that they have right now thank you whoops we can't we can't speak during the hearing thank you I did want to say I I am a member of this neighborhood I'm within a twelve minute walk of this place so I plan to be eating there all the time thank you yes just to clarify uh

But yeah, we would we would we would definitely put in a uh a new vinyl fence, something nice through there that would help mitigate that as well.

So it wouldn't just be the standard wood that they have right now.

Thank you.

Whoops, we can't we can't speak during the hearing.

Thank you.

I did want to say I I am a member of this neighborhood.

I'm within a 12-minute walk of this place, so I plan to be eating there all the time.

Thank you.

Yes.

Just to clarify uh your comment about the landscaping.

Are you saying you uh would be open to the idea of landscaping along that entire west side or just by the building?

No, the the I'm saying the west side in the middle.

Right, right, the east side, yeah, correct.

Yeah, the east on the residential side there.

Yeah, for sure.

Okay, but nothing along the street side.

Along well, we've got as much uh landscaping there as we possibly can.

Um can't do anything along the along the alley side, but we've definitely got on Roosevelt and everything along the side there of the residential residential area.

So what mayor or staff, what's net what's needed or necessary to be able to allow them to put landscaping along that east side along rather uh in addition to the vinyl fence doing the tall tree similar to what you described.

Um Mayor and Councilman Grovin, so um landscaping standards typically are five to six feet to allow for good growth area for bushes and trees.

So um, you know, if they put three or four feet in there, they could get some decent bushes in there still.

Um maybe not larger trees, but they could still get some some landscaping into that smaller space.

Is there room there for that?

Um so they would be able, and I don't know the exact angle of those parking spaces, but as stated um at 45 degree angle would allow for a 12-foot drive aisle, so it looks like they've got four or more feet they have to work with there.

Would that be sufficient for planting?

Yes, what did you say five or six feet?

Five to six feet for large trees for the root ball to be able to be successful, so bushes, uh smaller bushes and smaller trees would probably be fine in that something like foot spider potent potentially.

I'm not a landscape architect, I'd have to ask Doug that question.

Could we potentially submit two taller trees similar to what's described within four feet?

The idea is similar.

I uh just the idea of Wendy's that you had described is along the entire fence line on that portion.

I'm trying to remember the the type of type of it's like really super skinny, it's like a poplar or something, really you know what I'm talking about?

Arbor vitis.

Everybody's been through there, yeah.

It's like I can't remember what it is, but uh super tall, super skinny, and and that be would that be allowed within four feet?

I'm seeing a nod from an engineer.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions for the applicant?

Do you have any additional comments as you close?

No, again, we're we're up for uh um conditions of staff.

If anybody, you know, wants to hammer something out now.

I'm available or I just don't want to go through what we happen happened last time or we didn't have all this discussion until afterwards.

But again, we're more than happy with uh widening landscaping down along the along that drive aisle all the way down and uh and all the other changes that we've shown.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So Rodney and Christy, I have a question.

We had a public hearing um guest talk about the traffic, and I believe they live on 13th.

Can you help me understand where that would be and what that impact is here?

Sorry, Mayor, can you repeat that?

We had a public hearing guest to talk about the impact of traffic, and I believe they live on 13th.

Could you help me understand possibly where how what that impact is, where they are and what that impact is.

Thank you for showing that picture.

I appreciate it.

So here's 13th.

Um you tell me which property they were.

Oh, there's the their property here, we believe.

Okay.

Um so I think the idea is there's some commercial properties here.

Um you can see that quite a few uh vehicles are are being parked here, and so some of them are using that alleyway or 13th to access that or exit onto it.

And so I'm guessing that I I think what they're saying is they don't want increased traffic to this location because of the traffic that's already occurring in the that area.

A couple of the comments that have come in reference dust.

Is that alley a gravel alley or is it a paved alley?

Mayor, I believe currently there are portions that are paved and portions that are gravel.

Um as part of this that our codes have changed since a lot of those um businesses went in, and we do now require uh commercial businesses that are accessing utilizing alleys to pave the alley, and so that would be part of their permit, would be to pave the alley.

Mayor.

Okay, so that entire thing would be paved.

Yes.

To speak to likely what the dust is being caused right there in the center of the map is the the coffee shop.

Cars come in from both angles.

You can see right where the pavement ends and the dirt begins.

Every time a car drives over that, it kicks up dust.

So the issue is more caused by the coffee shop that I've personally driven through and experienced the dust from.

So I believe that's what they're referencing to.

So I have a question.

How could we allow a commercial property to go in with a dirt or gravel lot and not have that paved?

Mayor, council.

Um a lot of those developed prior to our current codes.

Um, and so that's that's ultimately what um the reason that the gravel alley is still there, and there were portions of the site that were um on the hot shots that were gravel in the past.

Um that since changed uh when they came in and did an expansion um date or not necessarily an expansion, but they paved the rest of their lot.

So now it is fully paved.

So so their lot is fully paved.

I believe that happened end of last year, possibly.

Okay, because I know they did do the expansion in the front, and so when they did that, you required them to go ahead and make sure that that was paved.

Okay.

So is there an area that's not paved?

Okay, so it's fully paved.

Yes, no.

The com the comments that I believe were referenced to was because of what was caused previously.

Previously.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

Mayor, just for clarification, they have um shown on their site plan that they would pave that entire alleyway there.

Okay.

Mayor.

Daniel, currently, there's no joint uh access agreement for the three properties along 12th Avenue, is there?

Not that I am aware of, no.

But they all all three take advantage of the alley access.

Uh all of those, all of those um businesses with the exception of the 1304 um access through the alley.

Okay.

Right.

Thank you.

Council, are there any other questions for staff?

Before we close public hearing, I want to make sure that there are no discussions that need to take place with the applicant.

Any questions?

If we are if that discussion with the applicant is complete, then I would stand for motion to close public hearing.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Now this is an opportunity for council to have discussion.

Mayor?

Yes.

I would like to see whether it be me or whoever ends up making the motion that we add a development agreement provision requiring that four-foot area have the Arba Vitus trees along that side, in addition to the fencing.

I believe the vinyl fence was what was discussed.

Um if that's allowable in addition to the vinyl fencing.

Okay.

Just for discussion, I believe Patricia's story is very heartbreaking.

It hurts my heart sitting here having to listen to it, and it makes for a tough vote.

Uh however, this is a commercial space.

I believe that it is an area that we'll see an increase in traffic, sure.

Uh, but traffic is there, traffic has been going through there.

I see the pavement of the alley helping actually reduce the dust and the uh the nuisance being caused by that as a benefit.

The lights at least from this business, unless they do a full U-turn and go back down 13 out 13th Avenue.

Uh I hope doesn't keep causing heartache.

But I from the proposed previous map to now, I appreciate the proposed amendments.

I think that it is a good idea to put the landscaping there and add an additional buffer.

Any other comments?

Well, my comment is I I have a tough time because there's other things that uh get approved around the city or design and build or scrutiny on setbacks of commercial against residential and uh and having buffers uh provided, and so there's a multitude of projects that have been required to uh create landscaping buffers and to have separation of uses, and then we come in and say, Oh, we want to change the zoning to commercial, and it's okay that we can just be right up against the property line with use and vehicle use and noise and etc.

Uh I just don't see consistency uh with this project.

So I'm not in favor of it.

It should be granted.

I voted no last time, I'll be voting no this time.

Mayor Clean.

Yes.

I see several issues here.

One is the traffic routes entry and exit.

Um from those existing businesses.

I think that's a safety issue.

And um compatibility to me is what really bothers me on this one, and I'm concerned with the size, the length, and uh the usage of the other parking losses travel.

I will be voting no on this.

Any other comments?

Yes.

Um I'll say from uh from a standpoint I have to defend the architect.

I think he he did try to uh to listen to what uh we asked for the last time around, uh eliminating drive lanes on the south side of the building to be able to create soften um the lands or provide landscaping around the building.

Um now being able to slim down the drive access off of 13th through to the alley and then back out onto Roosevelt uh is a pretty nice flow of traffic.

They've met the parking requirement with the size of the building with the number that are there.

So I I think with the uh the addition or reducing the width to 12 feet on the drive lane and adding a four-foot um landscape area there with uh uprights, uh evergreens, arborvitae, and such, I think is a is a good um to add, and I would I'd be supporting a motion while I'll make the motion to go ahead and support it uh with the uh the changes of the drive lane width to 12 feet, the six foot high, minimum uh site obscuring vinyl fence, and a four-foot landscape buffer where it's not shown now along that drive lane.

Um other uh aspects of it uh as presented in the packet.

Second okay, there is a motion in the second.

Is there any further discussion?

Roll call.

Enriquez.

No.

No.

No.

Reynolds.

Yes, and yes, Hammerfield, yes.

And the mayor, there's a tie.

I had a feeling it was gonna come to that.

I really like don't like breaking these ties.

This is a really difficult one.

Um but I have to say, Councilman Bills made a very important comment, and it has to do with the inconsistency at the bench.

Um, I would like to be able to support the entrepreneurialism that our applicants have, and for your success.

The challenge that we have when it comes to consistency in our recommendations, is that many many times we would never approve something like this because we don't have the setback requirements for us to move forward and approve something without the the typical setbacks, is very inconsistent to what we should be doing as a council.

We should, I think, in fairness be consistent across the board, and this would be asking us to be inconsistent.

And so I'm I'm going to vote no, which means it does not get approved.

And uh I apologize, I do feel bad for you.

And this is a difficult piece of property because it's transitioning from commercial to residential.

And the transition boundary with this piece of property was taking it into that it well, it was originally zoned two family residential.

And Councilman Bills did make a comment about tiny homes.

I have a question for staff.

Would we even do tiny homes?

Would we approve tiny homes?

I don't know if you already own the property, if it's something you could do to where you can make that work.

And I don't know if we would approve it.

But it is a transitional piece of property going from commercial to residential.

It's difficult to expand commercial and put it right on the property line because I can think of some recent decisions we've had where we haven't done that.

We've really required a considerable setback for residential.

So you can answer that or not answer it.

I'm so my as I'm voting no, I guess what I'm thinking is we have some applicants that have made an investment, and I don't know if they own the property today, but what do they do with it?

And what could they do that would we would be open to approving here?

Um residential.

Yeah.

Um Mayor, so in an RD zone, uh they could come forward with a tiny home as long as it's on a foundation.

It would be just like any other single family home, or they could come in with a duplex that fit within that uh lot.

But the challenge there, of course, is what we've described, uh, the conflict with the the utility easements.

Um but it's a single family tiny home on that property, it would be just like any other single family home.

It would just be reviewed under our building code a little differently.

So they have a building code that's specific to tiny homes, and so they they'd review that a little differently.

Um I do want to ask a quick question.

I I believe we need a motion still for denial.

Um is that correct?

Mayor?

What do oh, excuse me, because this was a motion to approve.

Mayor.

And so I voted no.

So we're at uh yes.

Just a clarifying question, because I I'm trying to wrap my head around whatever we end up doing on this property, are we going to have to give a variance or move somewhat and be inconsistent on our code because of the way the layout of the the plot is the plat is?

Mayor um and council, it it depends, but I I think there's ways to not have to get a variance of some kind.

Um for instance, if if the building, if the front of the home, a tiny home, for instance, is facing 13th Street, um, if they can stay out of that easement area, they could just put a single family home there, and if they have 15 feet from 13th Street and 15 feet from is it Roosevelt on the other side?

Um they would that would be their front and their backyards, and so they could they could do that because there's a five-foot setback on the sides.

Because there's five foot setback on the sides.

So you could actually put two single family homes on there, one that you access off of Roosevelt, well, through the alley, would you be accessing, would they be allowed to access through the alley?

Yes.

How would they hear?

I'm seeing yes and hearing yes, so tell us.

So just for clarification, and uh I I'm really am just doing this for the sake of the applicant at this point.

They would have to be 15 feet off of 13th and 15 feet off of Roosevelt, but they could be five feet off the alley and five feet off the neighbor's property that where we were going to put the vinyl fence in the area council.

That's correct.

Um the 15 feet though, I have to clarify it has to be 20 for the covered um parking.

So if it's if it's 15 on the front, it can be in the back, though, but it has to be so we we can then how long is the property from 13th to Roosevelt, how long is the property?

It's pretty lengthy.

Let me approximately 130 feet.

So it would give them a hundred feet by 30 feet is what they could build on, or 100 feet by 25 feet.

And mayor, if if they were, and councilman, if they were to access from the alley, their um structure off the alley is only required to be um five feet from the alley right-of-way rather than 20.

Um, so they could do a garage off the alley and the home off of facing thirteenth or Roosevelt and lay it out that way.

Okay, so they just have to be five feet, five feet, twenty feet, fifteen feet, unless they did the parking structures coming in from the alley, and then it's fifteen fifteen, so they could work with a hundred and ten foot.

Okay.

No.

Yes.

So yes.

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

Doug's ready.

Okay, we are ready to move forward with eight two in our public hearings.

It is an action item.

It's a public hearing to approve the proposed FY25 third budget amendment.

And Doug Racine is here to walk us through it.

Thank you, Doug.

Okay, there we go.

Mayor and Council, I'm um sincerely hopeful I can present this with enough clarity that we can avoid a mayoral tying vote.

Okay.

So the third budget amendment is totals eleven million one hundred and twenty-three thousand five hundred and ninety-two dollars.

Um that's broken down between amendment rollovers of about six point one million dollars and um the other expression.

Yeah, and total new items of about four point nine million dollars.

For comparative reference, if we add the eleven point one million dollars of amendment, that would bring the FY twenty-five total budget to about three hundred and nineteen million dollars uh compared to the FY26 budget, which is three hundred and ten million dollars, so a little higher, but um there's a lot of um uh items that we'll note will fall off by the time we get to the end of the process.

Now the breakdown of this budget is that there is of the eleven million dollars, four hundred and twenty-nine thousand dollars is coming from General Gov.

Um nine point nine million dollars is coming from department department fund balance or grants or rollovers, and six hundred and sixty-one thousand dollars is coming from new income.

The starting in the top and working down the the budget uh for the general gov departments.

Um there are only a couple of large items in there.

Uh the civic center is three hundred and sixty-one thousand dollars for lighting and a lot of that is rollover monies.

We have budgeted in prior and current year.

Uh the streets budgeting uh is for five or six different streets contracts.

I can list them individually if you want, but they're in this file, which should be in your packet as well.

The um irrigation is two point two million dollars, that's pipe prime pipeline replacements from Roosevelt the seventh.

Um the airport federal grants is a uh rollover for the AWAS grant.

I I apologize, Doug.

I don't mean to stop you.

I have no idea where to look at the see this.

It's not in our budget.

Or in our packet.

That would be correct.

Yeah, this is the spreadsheet that goes with it.

And I thought it had been submitted with this uh the I'm believing then the what you see in your packet is just the the um um resolution, the amendment resolution of point one.

This is the detail.

I'll be glad to send this to you.

Um I apologize, I thought this was in the uh the packet.

It should have been.

Oh mayor.

Ask a quick question, yes.

So Doug, what's in our packet is uh the resolution?

The resolution and the resolution says general government uh amendment is ten thousand five hundred.

And what you're showing there is a great deal more there's in a packet it says ten thousand five hundred.

Well, I'm looking at the resolution or the ordinance.

The amended over adopted twenty twenty-five expense line item.

It doesn't have anything in the revenue line item, and then in the final expense line item it's ten thousand five hundred dollars.

Okay, that's absolutely not correct.

This is um well, there's let me bring you up the ordinance that was submitted, which will which will mirror this.

Um why that was the uh ordinance was published two weeks ago and then we published a week later.

We have to do it twice, so I'm correct on those.

You want to take that, you may.

I was gonna say, or do you want to grab your computer, Doug?

Do you have it?

Clay, can you thank you?

Help us here.

We're looking on page 291.

I would prefer if you just walked us through this with the same document so we can follow.

Well, this okay, this is the comparative statement.

We can certainly do this uh in this document.

This document has no details about what you're approving, it just has the departments, which is generally not my preferred style of approach.

I want you to know what you're approving, not just which department it goes into.

If you could if you understand that, if you could follow what we have in our document and tell us, okay, general government has a 10,500 increase, that will do these few items, and you can speak those to us because we can't follow really because the numbers are different, the the descriptions are different, uh the revenues are different, the expenses are different.

It's just hard to track I would like to ask legal a question on this.

Um because what we're going over is different than what's in the packet.

Can we actually move forward with a public hearing and a decision tonight?

Or should we uh I guess what we need to do is we have to approve what is noticed.

So we need to ensure that what was noticed is consistent with tonight what we're actually approving, and if there is a disconnect, we can't move forward and approve it, correct?

If um what was notice for the public to come and comment on is different now than the the public has that uh right to present testimony accordingly.

So I would I'm I wouldn't feel comfortable going.

This I know what I've got on my data is the correct, I don't know why this doesn't tie.

Um I didn't I don't think this is the right document from because it worth making a motion to continue to the next council meeting mayor.

We can do it in the this has to be done in the next council meeting though, but it should be.

However, if we do not have 14 days to renotice this, yeah.

If what was noticed is not correct, then we'll miss we can we just carry this forward to the next meeting and keep it well that's what we just said, but what I was saying was that we this is the FY25 budget amendment.

Does it have to take place in September for FY25 or can it be moved?

Can it go over to the fiscal year because October is 26, and I think it has to be well it has to be done within the prior to 930.

That's the deadline.

So and so what I was saying was we do not have 14 days to re-notice this.

If it's incorrect, then we're we've got a problem.

Mayor, I think we talked about a special council workshop.

Um that was scheduled for September 18th.

It's the 18th.

That would give us a little breathing room.

I would need to verify if we have to publish it in a paper.

I don't know offhand, I'm apologize.

Shark could probably speak to that.

Thank you, Sharp.

Sorry, Mayor, I was just trying to find the email of where it was sent to the on the newspaper, and it's the resolution.

It's it's identical.

So it sounds like the resolution may not be correct, and if that's the case, that if we needed to repost this to have it correct, and we send it in is to well, typically it's today, it's Tuesday at noon to get it in Friday's paper.

Right.

So we would have until Wednesday, um, I believe Wednesday noon to get it in the paper for the weekend.

For Saturday, and then it has to be noticed for 14 days, and so Saturday, let's look at this.

I don't think it would work.

Is there any other way to do this?

Okay, so if we had it in, it would be in on the 6th, and our budget, our workshop is on the 18th.

We would have to have a special council meeting and public hearing the week of September 22nd if we if this is not correct.

But what I would say, what I would suggest is that we um postpone this public hearing to a date uncertain at this time.

So moved.

Okay.

So we could uh yeah, we can provide that day to make sure it complies with any notice requirements and make sure it's done no later than September 30th of this year.

Okay, give me just one quick moment before you do that.

Okay, I have I have the file that ties to this fifteen million eight oh five.

Well, I look at it, I give it the total time, but I can't find yeah, I can find the the ten thousand five hundred the FJC.

Yeah, let's try this.

Let me try this screen.

This might this might solve the problem.

I withdraw my motion.

Thank you.

Is the other is that's fine.

The other option is is we could uh adjourn in the executive session and come back and let Doug's hold together.

This this should solve the problem right here.

Do you think you have it?

Okay.

It may have been my overconfidence pulling up the wrong file, wrong completed file.

But this one now ties uh see right here in general.

There's your ten thousand five hundred feet.

Right here.

Okay.

Um if you look at the bottom of the screen, you see the the the fifty five.

Oh you have the one thousand that uh that doesn't match.

Okay, I think what we're gonna have to do a second.

Get my mic on.

I'd like to as uh Councilman Bill suggested, let's adjourn into executive session, and then we will come back and finish this public hearing.

If if while we are in executive session, you can determine Yeah, we and Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay.

So I would stand for a motion to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Idaho code seven four two six one C and one J.

So in favor, motion carries.

Thank you.

We will come back.

That's five.

We're good.

Okay.

So I would stand, are we live?

Okay.

I would stand for a motion to adjourn out of executive session.

So move.

Again.

Okay.

And all in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

So we are going to move forward with our public hearing eight two on the agenda.

This is an action item and it is the public hearing to approve the proposed FY25 third budget amendment.

Doug, thank you for walking us through this.

So the correct budget amendment, as shown on the screen, it has the details, is fifteen million eight hundred and five thousand eight hundred and forty-four dollars, and that matches to the detail of the total on the budget appreciation.

On page two hundred and ninety-one, is that what we're that's the page on I do see that total.

Okay.

So here it's again.

There's ten million ten thousand five hundred governmental spending, which is shown as the ten thousand five and nothing else.

There is department fund balance spend of six point two six million six hundred and twenty-two thousand four hundred and ninety-eight dollars, and then new revenues of nine million one hundred and seventy two thousand eight hundred and forty seven.

It shown on the airport fee for fifty thousand four hundred and twenty-five dollars.

The um this let's find the seven million dollars, one hundred and forty-seven thousand dollars, that will be further down here.

I believe the titles are just different, Doug.

So on your electric franchise fees, you have it listed here as developments, or I apologize.

Downtown fund.

So I think the numbers are there, it's just the description.

The descriptions will be a little different because I'm I I'll have to work on this because I don't the the document in your file is what we're required to publish, but it's not informational for you.

It doesn't give you the detail of what we're doing, which is why I try and publish in this other format that I've got.

Um we can see like the sanitation is one million eight hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

Um my screen and has one million eight hundred and fifty thousand dollars on yours.

The um the um I can tease these apart line out of my line item.

Street traffic and stormwater.

We have it seven hundred seven hundred and sixteen thousand eight seventy-four.

Right.

There's seven hundred and sixteen thousand eight seventy-four.

And then you've got uh utility billing at a hundred thousand.

Right.

That's the uh yeah, that's one hundred thousand dollars.

Well maybe Doug, the thing would be for you to be pulling up what we're looking at and working off of that.

If it's if it's correct, it would be a lot easier than having uh what you're trying to show us be different than what we're looking at.

Sure.

Thank you.

Much easier.

Let me make it a little bigger to read over.

Okay.

So we have the uh ten thousand five we talked about in general govern and we have the subtotal of um funds going into the uh let's see what the title is there.

Enterprise and special revenue funds, two million nine hundred and twenty-one thousand seven hundred and sixty dollars.

Grants and donations, seven million four hundred and thirty thousand twenty dollars.

And then um we have capital projects and debt service funds, most of which is impact fees, five million four hundred and forty-three thousand five hundred and sixty-four dollars, totaling fifteen million eight hundred and five thousand dollars, eight hundred and forty-four.

Eight hundred and five thousand eight hundred forty-four dollars.

Okay.

So the total of the of the three, the uh the enterprise funds two million nine hundred and twenty-one thousand seven hundred and sixty dollars, the grants and donations seven million four hundred and thirty thousand and twenty dollars, and the capital and debt service funds five million four hundred and forty-three thousand five hundred and sixty-four dollars, totaling the fifteen million eight hundred and five thousand eight hundred and forty-four dollars for the increase in the um budget amendment number three to total the budget for uh total FY25 budget, three million three hundred and twenty-three million two hundred and twenty-eight dollars seven hundred and eighty five dollars.

So Mayor, can I ask a question?

Yes, please.

The enterprise, the capital, and the grants are all all their own revenue generating, correct.

The only thing that would be considered a direct tax increase would be the 10,500 from the general gov.

And that's not even a tax increase because it's in general governance FIG and it's uh fund balance or grants related, but not a tax increase.

And what's the expense from general government that's increasing it 10,500?

It's related to FIC, FJC expenses.

Family Justice Center.

And that's primarily grant related.

Thank you.

Uh for sanitation.

So what what happened on the sanitation?

That that is a go ahead, your question again.

So uh is that just growth of customers?

No, what happened there was the uh the way the sanitation budget works is it's a net zero game.

We do the budget for all the revenues we receive as we build for public services, and then we pass the money back to them, and we keep 18 percent that ends up going to the streets department.

So what happened here is that both the revenues and the expenses were under budgeted for the year.

So this is actually a net zero impact.

We increased the revenues, we increase the expenses, but it didn't change the bottom line because the revenues were coming in stronger and the expenses were coming in stronger.

The net impact to the city is zero, but that's just recognizing the the change in the expenses uh so that we don't have a actual budget or actual cost that's higher than we budgeted.

Okay.

I was concerned the Christmas tree lights were getting more expensive.

No, no, no, they're fine in the Mayor Glenn.

Yes, I think.

Just trying to break a little leverage here first.

I'm sorry.

Why are we having the third amendment?

The approach, and this is something we may want to consider changing if the council so desires, the approach has been to limit the number of um to limit the budgetary development so we don't over budget.

When we get to the end of the year, and we find accounts that are going to be either a lot of this is street related.

So you learn notice that a lot of that is development impact fees of $5.3 million, and there are grants in there.

A lot of times we get to the end of the year, and there are certain monies that come in that have to be spent uh related to the streets projects because we're we're getting funding from a grant, and so we have to budget more than we're paying for them because ITD requires it.

So a lot of these come in at the end of the year for situations we can't control the like if IDT IDT has extra money, like they they did recently.

They said we're gonna pay us $5.3 million, we had to send them the check in advance.

Now it's part of the contract, the UL Council approved, but it was money that came in late, and the contract was signed, so we had to recognize both the the grant money coming in and the expense going out.

Um other things there are like the um the $1.8 million dollars was a budget miss, $1.85, where we should have had both expenses and revenues higher, but it didn't cause any net differential, it's just a zero net sum game because the revenues and expenses both go up.

There's no fund balance impact.

Civic center is just lighting uh for issues that they sometimes they don't know exactly what we're gonna spend until we get to the end of the year, and so we get to the end of the year and we try and true up for anything that has been not corrected in prior budgetary items, but we don't want to get to a situation where our actual expenditures are greater than what we budgeted.

So we come back to the end.

I think we would like to get to a position where we're only doing two, but also if you recall, we did the first budget amendment right out of the gate early on in 25 because of actions the council took in 24 in the budget with related to VRT, but we had to do a first budget amendment like October 15th.

That's why we get to the third one this year.

But I think two is where we want to be at normally.

It's pretty it has been very standard that there is a true up budget amendment at the end of the year.

And budget amendments don't take place.

It's not like we're going and spending or asking for more general fund money.

It's where the funds are already there.

It has to do with projects, it has to do with alignment, it has to do with revenues.

Sometimes it has to do with let's say we have done a number of budget amendments, FJ uh C grants that all of a sudden they have grants, and you have to do a budget amendment.

And it's no taxpayer dollars.

It just has to do with the work that they're doing in the timing of the grants.

But the trueing up what is happening, I know tonight started off a little rough.

Yeah.

But this is not this is standard.

The budget amendment at the end of the year, at least the way we have been budgeting, has been a pretty standard thing to true up before the end of the fiscal year some inconsistencies.

And I won't say that sounds bad though.

It's not a good idea.

And when when you look at those agenda items and say we'll be in the second or third amendment, this is what you're seeing is your approvals from the mid-year on to this.

We could technically, it's not advisable.

You could technically go and do one big amendment at the end of the year, but that's kind of not being as transparent as we should be with the public monies.

Is any of these numbers amounts going to flow into 2026 budget?

You know, that's one of the things we really tried hard to prevent is that whatever we're putting in this amendment has to be a lockdown number.

I think for some item that may have been taking place in the second amendment that may not be fully spent.

Um let me give you an example of what will happen in next year.

At the end of 26, we're going to come back with an amendment for you to true up all of the ARPA spend.

Because we didn't put it in the budget this year because we didn't know exactly how the money would be spent, but we're required to have every penny of our money spent by December 31st of 2026.

So we want to make sure we got the split just right, so we waited until the we'll wait until the public utilities has it all set in in stone.

That's what kind of leads this down to the delayed budgetary response in the public.

That's what we're trying to keep away from doing that.

Yeah, we want we want to keep away from over budgeting and underspending.

We don't want to put things in.

And we what we found, and we've had to have meetings with the departments, is this is where we need to tie the project managers closer to the finance department, not just me, but Heather and the public works, because we found the public the project managers are saying, after this project, I've got to do it.

It's been approved in the budget.

I'm going to go ahead and have them put it in the amendment because by heavens we're going to get to it, and then they're not thinking about budgetary requirements and deadlines.

They're thinking, well, I want to start this project.

They may put a budget amendment request in.

And in fact, we pulled out probably about five million dollars worth of requests that would have done just that, rolled over into 26.

So none of the 2026 budget is attracted to this.

So this amendment, there should be very little, if any.

But with our fiscal, with our fiduciary responsibility, if they don't get it fixed, I'm not paying that money in 25.

It may have to be again in 26.

Okay, thank you, Doctor.

Mayor.

Just uh I don't want to open too much on this.

I just go back to the final line item amount from property tax.

There's no amendments being made to be taxed.

You will never have a property tax just amendment.

Because we set the budget once and for property taxes, we leave it.

And we will never have an amendment for sales taxes.

We set it and we leave it.

So you had mentioned that the Family Justice Center is the cause of the 10,500 dollars from the general fund.

I think we had to pull, I think their spending was a little higher than they anticipated, and they needed 10,000 for funds.

They have like 18,000 in fund balance.

They didn't have enough to so we pulled a little bit for them out of fund balance.

So explain to me why that wouldn't have come from the enterprise expense or grant and donation expense.

They're not even related funds.

They're not even even in the same ballpark.

Okay.

Enterprise funds derive their revenues from fees, like water fees, utility fees.

FJC has absolutely nothing to do with with water fees, utility fees, billings, there's nothing to do with them.

It's just listed under that column.

That's why I brought it up.

No.

Um, the auditors are the public requirements of governmental accounting for that.

Okay.

Um just for anybody who's listening, likely nobody, but just to flesh it out.

So the bottom line items one I don't want to go into heavy deal.

This is where we get complex.

If you look down here and you see the $10,500, that's general government, right?

And I say that's going to FJC.

I mean you look down on the enterprise funds, and you see family justice that are listed on enterprise funds.

Well, they are an enterprise fund, but when we supply money to them, it comes from general government to them.

They also receive money from grants.

We could give money from general government to the 911 fees, and we could record the 911 fees going up down in enterprise funds, and then a corresponding offset in general government, if that's where the money was coming from.

And that's what makes it so complex.

The general government can put money wherever you as council decide, and down below, they can spend it in any any appropriate fund that you decide is appropriate.

That doesn't happen to reverse, but general government, yes.

Mayor, I move to approve the amended budget.

I'm sorry.

I wish we could, but it's a public hearing.

Oh, we have a couple more steps.

Then we'll let you do it.

Thank you.

Yes.

Uh-huh.

Uh Doug, did you say the um Family Justice Center uh the cost was related to going after grants?

Is that no, not going after grants?

They they continually uh chase grants, they're very successful at it.

We do it a lot of resources.

Um this particular $10,500, I think may have been, I don't recall at the top line exactly what it was, but I think it's just operational costs they had that were slightly greater than they anticipated.

Um but they've been chasing and receiving a lot of grant money to fund most of their operations.

I was aware of that um, especially just recently, so I was just checking to see if that was what this was was for um potential grants for federal.

This is not a grants match now.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions for Doug at this time?

Thank you.

Okay.

So this is a public hearing, Madam Mayor.

No one signed up to provide public testimony.

Is there anyone here that would like to provide public testimony?

You're the only one, Mark, because I'm the gentleman right here.

We're trying to control the costs on side, but no.

Okay, so I'm seeing that there is no one here that would like to testify.

So this is an opportunity for Doug's closing remarks.

Doug, is there anything else you'd like to say, or is there um yes, just one quick comment?

Uh I will make sure the packet next year includes both sets of details, the resolution and the data to explain it more clearly.

I prefer going through the data file that gives you the information on exactly what's happening, not just a recap of what's happening by fund, because that doesn't tell you the whole picture in my mind.

The reason we have this file out here is we called the AIC about a year ago to determine what is the preferred method of published the resolution.

We were told this was it, what you're what you're seeing.

That's why this number is presented to you because it gives a comparative flow of the information for the recent budgets.

However, uh I neglected to make sure from my side that this secondary sheet that I was reading from was actually included properly in your deck, and I'll make sure that happens next time.

Thank you.

It's always helpful to have whatever you're presenting to be in the packet along with whatever the official resolution is.

So thank you for that.

Okay, I would stand for a motion to close public hearing.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Okay.

What is the will of the council?

Mayor, I move to approve the budget amendment as presented.

Excuse me.

It's been moved.

It's been choked me up.

Here we go.

Yes.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any further discussion?

Or any discussion.

Seeing that local.

Yes.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carrying.

I realize we do have an action item, which is the first reading of ordinance adopting this amendment.

Uh, the FY25 third budget amendment, and is requested to pass under suspension of rules.

In order to the city of Napa, Idaho, amending the appropriations ordinance for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2024, and ending September 30th, 2025.

Appropriating additional monies that are to be received by the city of Napa, Idaho, and remember an effective date.

I move to approve under suspension of rules.

Rocal.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Ingula.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Thank you.

We have one unfinished business and it is 9-1.

It is an action item.

It's the first reading of ordinance for a zoning map amendment from RS22 to Community Business Zoning District for a 3.03 acre parcel at zero south Happy Valley Road for Rodney Evans and partners representing Esteban or Nilvis.

And it is requested to pass under suspension of rules.

Parcel number R3239 60100.

Located in the southeast one-fourth of the southeast one-fourth of section 36 Township 3 North Range 2 West Boise Meridian.

Totaling 3.0 acres more or less is currently zoned RS22 C Valley residential limits in the city of Napa County State of Idaho.

And that said land should be rezoned BC Committee Business Zoning District on 3.0 acres more or less.

Declaring said lands by proper legal description as described below to be a part of the city of Napa.

Determine that said rezoning is in the best interest of the public and consistent with the comprehensive plan directing the city engineer and the planning and zoning director to add such property to the official zoning maps of the city of Napa and who designate such property as BC community business on the official zoning map and other area maps of the city, providing for conditions of approval, providing for recreation, providing for servability, providing an effective date, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith, and directing the city clerk to file a certified copy of the ordinance of the map theory to be rezoned with Kenny County State of Idaho and the Idaho State Tax Commission pursuant Idaho Code Section 63-215.

Move to approve under suspension rules.

Any discussion?

Rocal.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

I would stand for a motion to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 742061C and J.

So moved.

Second.

Rocal.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

All in favor, motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.