Good evening.

Welcome to our uh September 15th City Council meeting.

And uh Mayor Kling is in Washington DC tonight, uh spreading good cheer for a city of Nampa.

So hopefully she gets a lot accomplished while she's there.

So we have a long-standing tradition here at Nampa City Council.

We open with a pledge and a prayer or a prayer and a pledge.

And tonight we have Nate Roscom with Lakeview Nazarene Church.

Welcome, Nate.

Thank you, City Council and those gathered.

Would you pray with me?

Holy and Almighty God.

In these moments, before we set our minds to the work of the people, we pause to give thanks.

God, we thank you for each unique and gifted individual gathered in this space.

We thank you for the rich and beautiful and diverse tapestry of humanity that calls Nampa home.

We thank you for those who have little and those who have much.

We thank you for those who think like us.

And we thank you for those who see the world differently than we.

Above all, we thank you for your unending grace and mercy that enables us to live in community together.

Without your abiding presence through your Holy Spirit, unity is impossible.

As a human being created in your image, so that we may hear value and hold space for their opinion and perspective.

Power to heal, power to speak love, power to stand for justice, power to free the oppressed, power to break the chains of injustice, power to hold the dignity and human humanity of each individual that calls Nampa their home.

And remind us, oh God, that this power found in Jesus wields no sort or gabble, holds nothing over the neighbor, and is not motivated by self.

It is a power that is found only in sacrifice and giving up oneself for the other.

Maybe so in each of us this day, we pray in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Amen.

And would you join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Nathan.

I appreciate that.

All right, uh, roll call.

Rodriguez.

Here.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds here.

Everfield.

Yes, here.

Griffin.

Here.

All present.

All right.

Before we go to proposed amendments to the agenda, uh, real quick, uh, just want to recognize uh Ron Johnson.

This is his last meeting of City Council before he sails off into the sunset.

So thank you for everything that you have uh offered up over the years and council.

I know since I've been here, you've been a wealth of knowledge, and it's been great to have you here.

And best of luck in uh in your retirement, and hopefully we see you around.

So you uh want to say a few words, mayor council members.

Yeah, I uh it's coming to an end of a long career.

I started in 1996, and uh honestly when I first started, never thought I would end up as the fire marshal and and doing all this stuff.

I just wanted to fight fire.

But as I went through the service, I realized that that was kind of something I had to knack for and moved into prevention in 2006, and I've been there ever since.

So it's been a pleasure working with y'all.

I appreciate the support you've given the Nampa Fire District, especially as we transitioned from uh city department to a district.

So uh that's been a very successful venture, and uh again, I just yeah, want to say I appreciate y'all and uh I'm gonna enjoy some retirement.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Uh I think this is also Jeff Barnes' last council meeting.

Uh, maybe he's going fishing with Ron.

Um Jeff, do you have anything you would like to say?

President of the council, uh, counselors, uh NAMPA's amazing.

The staff are outstanding people, best job I've ever had.

Love, love it, and so thank you for what you've done.

And and uh I feel like we've gotten a lot done.

So it's been really a privilege.

I started to in 2011.

Um just been a part of just amazing, innovative kind of a culture here.

So pretty rare.

Um, anyway, thank you.

You would definitely be missed for everything you've done.

You've been a real asset to the city, and you'll definitely be missed.

So make sure you stop around, and we might see you sitting over here on your new street, uh admiring the street sign or something.

Yeah, thank you for everything.

Thank you.

And then just one last thing.

Uh council members all have birthdays throughout the year, and the mayor's staff and the mayor always do a great job acknowledging our birthdays and giving us a card and and uh telling us happy birthday.

But this particular council person, councilwoman Jangula, to be exact.

Her birthday is actually today.

She has to be at a council meeting on her birthday.

That's commitment right there.

So I was thinking that uh we always do some things in here that aren't so fun sometimes, and uh, so I was thinking it would be great if we could have councilman Bills lead us in happy birthday for councilwoman Daniel.

I don't want to hear that.

Happy birthday, happy birthday to you.

Happy birthday.

Happy birthday to you.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm sure I'll pay for that later.

She's an old lady.

All right, um to the agenda.

Um I would stand for a motion for adoption of the agenda.

Oh, any proposed amendments to the agenda.

I got ahead of myself.

I do have one.

Okay, councilman Haverfield.

Just for conversational purposes, one point six A point six A.

Okay.

We'll pull that one.

Any other uh proposed amendments.

Hearing none, I would stand for a motion uh to approve the agenda with uh one six A pulled off.

So moved.

Second, all in favor, aye.

Motion passes.

All right, um, the consent agenda as amended.

Stand for a motion.

That we make a uh that we approve the consent agenda as uh modified second all in favor?

Aye motion passes, all right.

Um go to one six A.

Councilman Haverfield.

Um yeah, not that uh I'm questioning your reappointment, Dale.

Appreciate your willingness to serve again.

Uh I was just wondering what the process was for other council members to be considered.

Uh there'll be some openings coming up in January, and uh uh so that'll be possibly another topic at that point.

But as far as at the this reappointment, can you go through the process used and why other council members weren't um requested a similar type of an opportunity?

Is Robin available today?

Is she online?

Robin would uh be able to speak to that.

Um do you have any comments on that?

As far as I know, the uh the process is the same for all council members that are on NDC, yeah.

Yeah, president.

Um we looked into this somewhat.

There was a question about recent change in Idaho code uh that governs this, and what we found so far is the process that the city has followed, is what we want to do moving forward.

And I wasn't here for the last time they did it, uh, but code doesn't really spill out in the nitty-gritty specifics of the procedural aspect of it.

And that may not be a satisfying answer, but uh what that would mean is the typical approach that the city's done in the past, we would have continued to follow it.

Not sure that that answers the questions for the other council.

It doesn't matter to me.

I'm I'm on the NDC.

I just know that there are a couple here that would have had an opportunity maybe to consider it, and they weren't given that opportunity.

So that's why I just wanted to bring it up.

Okay.

So um I'll just let it go with uh the balance of the council being able to make the determination as far as moving forward.

But I would recommend that in January, if there's a different occupant of this seat, I'll go I will be stepping off the NDC at that point.

So you'll be needing to look at a replacement there.

Um then seat one uh David still be in C3.

So anyway, just as you go forward into the next year, keep that in consideration as to uh fairness and opportunity make a motion to approve the uh uh reappointment as presented in our packet.

Second roll call on a roll call.

Yes.

Oops.

He just knew it was coming.

Yeah, Rodriguez.

I already said it.

Just for the record.

Yes, sorry.

Thank you.

Yes.

Bills?

Yes.

Reynolds?

Yes.

Griffin?

Yes.

Haverfield?

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Dale, I support you 100%.

Thank you, Councilman.

I appreciate it.

You bet.

All right.

We don't have any agency commission reports today, so we will move on to staff communications.

Rodney.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair and City Council or President and City Council.

We had two items come before City for the Planning and Zoning Commission.

The first one was a pre-annexation and a pre-zone to BC for landscape business.

And this was on the north, excuse me, the southeast corner of North Robinson Boulevard and Airport Road.

And the Planning and Zone Commission recommended approval of that.

And this will come before you in October.

So I'll I'll have to confirm that.

Then the next one is annexation and zoning in RS4 R DC and a subdivision preliminary plat for Breckenwood subdivision near the southeast corner of 11th Avenue, North and East Landry Street.

So that one was also recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and we'll come before you in the coming months.

That's all I have.

Any questions for Rodney?

I do have a question.

Councilman.

If you go through when you have a county property and you want to annex it into the city, you and I think it came before the planning zoning here the other day.

Is that is that there's so much that you have to go through City of Dampa, which is approved it with under a youth permit, but then you have to go back to Kenyon County.

I wonder if we could figure out a better solution to clear up that process.

You don't have to wait a year long to what do you think about that?

So Mr.

Chair and Commission or Councilmember.

Um this the delay for like a year is actually on Canyon County's side.

Oh they are they're scheduling public hearings out for about a year or more, and so that delay just takes a really long time for them for some reason.

Um for our public hearings, we're getting through them pretty darn quick.

Um, four to five months is generally how we go through planning and zoning as well as city council.

Um so the wait time doesn't change while we're going through our process for for the uh county, it still takes them about that long to get through their applications.

Um we've talked to the county about that, they're struggling with load and amount of employees that can handle that workload.

So I can't really speak to them or to the for them on their delay, but we're we're generally pretty quick.

Follow-up uh president.

The thing about it is what I want to know if we can if we can uh uh once we annex in and and approve uh a project.

Why are we going back to Canyon County since we already annexed that area and approve the the project?

Yeah, president and council member Rodriguez.

Um I'll explain all of that when we bring this before you to as a public hearing.

Um I've outlined the you can look back on the staff reports that were done for planning and zoning and have outlined all of the code and the reasons behind it.

Um but just kind of generally I'll state that in order for us knowing that our impact area is a certain boundary, and eventually the city is going to grow into that boundary.

We need to have a say in what occurs in that so that when we become contiguous to it, it can annex into the city and match what our land uses are and some of our standards.

So what we're doing is we're essentially going through that.

It's it's almost as if it's an annexation without it going through the annexation process.

We don't have any authority over building permits or over subdivisions out in the county.

We don't have that authority.

Except that we can make a recommendation on to city council.

So those public hearings are meant to help inform you and give you a chance to make a recommendation on to the county.

Well, thank you.

I was just curious about that.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Or Rodney disappears.

Thanks, Rodney.

All right, moving into new business.

Uh our first uh next item is to authorize the mayor to sign the construction manager general contractor contract with favor construction for phase one design development and phase two construction services for the new fleet services building in an amount not to exceed five million dollars.

Uh approved by City Attorney Preston Rutter, approved in FY25 budget.

So moved.

Second councilman Haverfield.

This is Crystal.

She said she was spicy tonight.

Inside information.

My question is I see the base bid at 3.8, the pre construction at 200,000, that's four million out of the five.

So the ad alternates were uh total a million dollars, but there was a list of uh rough order of magnitude costs of uh seven different ad alternates.

I was wondering which ones will be chosen.

Council President, Councilman Hefferfield, great question.

So this contract is only going to be authorizing the base bid and that pre-construction, so about that four million dollar mark.

Um we will come back to council with a list of the ad alternates that we would like to bring.

The budget that we also have shown here does not include the I don't know, 750, 780, something like that, thousand of impact fees coming from fires.

So we may have a little bit more wiggle room and be able to get some more ad alternates, but some of the costs that came back.

We wanted to take a look at them more closely and see if we could do them in-house cheaper or if we could find another contractor to do an adult um separate from this contract.

So the fuel station might be one of those items.

That is correct.

It would have been above and beyond the million dollars itself.

So okay.

I just wanted to know what your procedure would be.

Thank you.

Any other questions on five one?

None roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Yes, Reynolds.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Item 52 is an action item.

Authorized fleet services to generate purchase orders effective October 1st, 2025 to various vendors and manufacturers for all vehicles and equipment authorized in the FY26 City of Nampa capital budget, excluding vehicles and equipment for golf for the total estimated amount of three million five hundred and eighty-seven thousand six hundred and twenty-four dollars.

And it was approved in the FY26 budget.

So moved.

Second.

Any questions on five two?

Hearing none, roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

In Gula.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Item 5.3.

Authorized mayor and senior director of public works to sign a task order amendment for construction services with Brown and Caldwell for the water renewal facility group Fine 15.0 offsite pipeline extension and the amount of 84,557.

Approved in the FY25 budget.

So moved.

Second.

Questions on 5.3.

Hearing none, roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Ingola.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Item 54, an action item for bid and authorized mayor to sign contract with Maclave Civil Constructors.

Inc for construction of the water renewal facility group F Pioneer 15.0 offsite pop pipeline extension in the amount of 710,300 approved in the FY25 budget.

So moved.

Second.

Question.

Councilman Hatterfield.

President of Council, Councilman Haverfield.

So the off-site pipeline is that for uh water and where does it go?

Yes, sir.

As part of the group F project, uh IDEQ required that none of the recycled water would go into the waters of the U.S.

So this was an off site project with uh pioneer irrigation that uh the pipeline would divert that water into the pioneer irrigation system, it wouldn't go into the um the Boise River system.

So it's not used for industry at all.

No, okay, thank you.

Any other questions on five four?

Roll calla, yes, Reynolds, yes, Haverfield, yes, Griffin, yes, Bills, yes, Rodriguez, yes, all in favor, motion carries.

Action item five five authorized mayor to sign change order number three with Idaho SiteWorks for the 16th Avenue South to 19th Avenue South Waterline Replacement in an amount not to exceed 216,535 dollars approved in the FY25 budget.

So moved.

Second any questions on five five roll call, Rodriguez, yes, Reynolds, yes.

Haverfield, yes, Griffin, Jingula, yes, Bills, yes, all in favor, motion carries item five six is uh first reading of ordinance amending NAPA City Code Title Six, Chapter Two, Section Six Two pertaining to cruelty to animals, Title Six, Chapter 2, Section Six Two Dash 17 pertaining to animals at large, and title six, chapter two, section six dash two dash twenty-eight pertaining to impoundment.

This is uh requested to pass under suspension of rules.

And orderance of the city of Napa Canyon County, Idaho, amending Napa City Code Title Six, Chapter 2, Section 6 2-2 pertaining to cruelty to animals, amending Napa City Code Title Six, Chapter 2, Section 6-2-17 pertaining to animals at large.

Amending Napa City Code Title 6, Chapter 2, Section 6-2-28 pertaining to impoundment in accordance with Idaho Code Title 25, Chapter 28, providing for an effective date, providing for severality, and repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, and parts thereof in conflict here with make a motion to passenger suspension of rules.

Second question, Councilman Griffin?

It's is this a legal question or police question?

Does this give uh broader discretion to police officers and the ability they alleviate certain individuals or certain FTs from having to focus on one job and allow other officers to do the same?

Council President, Councilman Griffin.

Uh yes and no.

This really doesn't change what would constitute an at watch dark uh dog.

Pardon me, I can say that word dog.

Um, or any uh at-large animal.

What it does, it gives more discretion to our law enforcement authorized personnel animal control officers to make um important decisions.

We have a situation as you might be aware, uh, with the animal shelter where there might not be adequate space and room, and so there needs to be more discretion offered to the officers.

This provides that needed discretion.

Thank you.

Any other questions on five six?

Rodriguez.

Yes, Bills, yes, Haverfield, yes, Griffin, yes, Reynolds, yes, yes, all in favor, motion carries item five seven is an action item.

Uh we may or may not have action on this um, but mainly it's about uh Rick Kennedy giving us a staff update on and discussion on results for requesting bids for an independent appraisal on the Ford Idaho Center.

Good afternoon, council president and council.

Uh sent a email out last Friday giving you an update on the appraisal um requests that we've out there.

I really don't have much more to add to that email other than we have a couple people have called me with possible interest, but nothing.

Um nothing as far as a proposal timelines, etc.

Rick so I'm sorry, Mr.

Chair.

Uh just point of order.

I uh you said that an email was sent out, an email to the council.

Yeah, right.

It should have been part of public record.

Oh, okay.

So um if you could provide that to me, if you're going to be talking about it, I'll defer to our legal, but if you're gonna be talking about it, then we need to have it um.

No, I could I could give the same update.

I give the same update.

I had reached out to about six or seven uh local appraisers and national appraisers.

Uh one one of them has definitely denied they don't want to do it.

A couple have expressed possible interest, but nobody's contacted me any more than that.

That's that was what was in the email.

Okay, council president, councilman Griffin.

J just to emphasize for the sake of transparency, were any numbers given of a ballpark of what those bids could cost, what it might look like, what the timeline would be, anything like that.

No, no to the timeline.

I there was some internal discussion that I had with our turnal.

I don't know if you guys know this.

We have two appraisers who work for the city of Nampa.

We started having a let me step back.

As a procurement director, my job is to know what I'm buying.

So I started doing going down this rabbit hole.

And let me tell you something, folks.

Appraisals are a big industry.

This is deep, deep, very specialized.

So in order to do my gathering, I brought in our two internal.

We started talking about appraisals at that time.

We were talking about uh certain type of appraisal that was more than just uh like a real estate firm is more of an accounting firm, and number was thrown out between 250 to 400,000.

Okay.

That is not what we're going after at all.

We're going after a fair market assessment.

In talking with an individual who appraises golf courses, he did give me a number, but he had not seen any of our documents, any of the deed restrictions, etc.

And that number I'd hate, I don't even want to throw it out there, it would just confuse us all because it is such a deep um very specialized field.

Thank you.

Yep.

Any other questions uh to Rick?

I I have one, sir.

Um if you'd pulled up uh uh exhibit Ded restriction agreement for Ford Idaho Center, Council President, just a point of order.

Um Councilman Rodriguez, the exhibit you're referring to.

Is that part of item 5.8?

That's the next item, but not part of this 5.6.

No, yes, it's five eight.

Okay, council president.

There there is some overlap, obviously, between those two items, and so that's what I wanted to make.

I don't have a question record.

Okay.

Anything else?

Any other questions for Rick?

Do we Council Brent?

No.

Go ahead.

I was just gonna make a motion.

So I I was just gonna ask what direction we wanted to give Rick, so I think we're heading down the same path.

So I'd make a motion that we see seeking uh formalized appraisals, second Ford Item Center.

Second discussion on the motion.

I I would like to speak a little bit to it.

I think we're wasting valuable stuff, resources, and time.

If it gets to the point where we receive an offer to the sale, and the offer seems egregious or that we need to investigate a little further.

Uh I understood the point of going through, so we have a ballpark.

I think we're within a ballpark somewhere, but uh just having Rick go through this process, I don't think is a good use of his time or us holding our breath on the issue.

So I think it's time to put it to rest.

Any other discussion on the motion?

Hearing none, roll call.

Rodriguez.

What was the motion, please?

Is to cease seeking formalized uh appraisal on Ford Idaho Center.

Yes.

Um Reynolds, yes, Hummerfield, yes, Griffin.

Yes, Bills, yes, five in favor, one opposed, motion carries.

All right, uh action item five eight make declaration be a resolution that city owned real property, the Ford Idaho Center is underutilized and not used for public purposes.

Declare intend to sell for a minimum price or convey to College of Western Idaho, subject to certain deed restrictions, or retain and provide notice of a public hearing for a vote on October 6, 2025.

Um under utilization and then the the public purpose use uh give us some language around this kind of be great.

Council president would be happy to do that.

Um this is a item we're all familiar with by now.

I don't know where you've been the last couple months, but we this is for your benefit as well as the public's.

Um what we have here tonight is a package resolution.

The process in which a city sells property is spilled out in state statute.

There's certain standards, certain procedures that must be followed.

It cannot be nilly-willy sold.

And so, as a city, we've been very careful and deliberate in how we go through that process.

Um, what is before you tonight is officially the first time the city has proposed a formal resolution to declare formally on the record that a prop this property to Ford Idol Center and the three lots with it are underutilized or not used for a public purpose.

Those findings underutilization or a not use for public purpose by statute is a threshold requirement.

Uh any city, Nampa, any city in the state needs to make that declaration formally.

What's in your packet tonight is a resolution that does that.

Additionally, another step that statute prescribes and requires is that you either decide to sell to a highest bidder, you can convey it to another governmental entity, which we've discussed previously with CWI, and additionally, we put in there something not required by statute, but more as a helpful thing, which is a formal vote to retain it.

This is packaged up in three items in one that, if approved tonight, would authorize the city to take step two.

Step two is that public hearing where the finally it's it's fish or cut bait, right?

There's going to be a vote on one of those options.

So the resolution before you lays out the city's uh proposed findings as to those two threshold questions underutilization or not used for public purposes.

That's in your packet here with some exhibits.

Councilman Rodriguez noted the one earlier, exhibit D.

And that's the discussion point for you tonight is do you want to approve this resolution, which is the formal declaration that the uh this particular property is underutilized or not used for public purpose.

That kicks off step one, authorizing for step two.

And presently, a hearing is proposed for October 6, if this were to be approved tonight.

That October 6th hearing would be the vote and step two.

Another point, councilman, uh council president Reynolds.

With since there is a proposal to sell the property to a highest bidder, statute says that whenever a city does that, it needs to declare if it wants a minimum price uh to sell the property.

And as was on the previous item with uh our director of procurement Rick Kennedy, um, there's been some outreach to try to hone in on a number, perhaps.

Statute does not require an appraisal, it is optional.

The city pursued that in good faith and in good diligence.

Um I can attest to Mr.

Kennedy's efforts in that regard.

That said, the the council here is authorized by statute to set that price.

And so there will be a discussion if this were to move forward.

You need to declare on the record at a public meeting what that price would be.

And I'll make sure uh to touch on that if that discussion goes so far tonight.

But we do, if this were approved as proposed, there would need to be a sales price declared for that sell option.

Now for the conveyance to a governmental entity like CWI, no price is needed.

That's a conveyance, and obviously to keep it, there's no price declared for that.

Question Councilman Rodriguez.

Thank you.

Okay.

So here's my concern with that.

In exhibit D, exhibit D, deed restriction agreement for Ford Idol Center.

It says this land use covenant agreement for Ford Idaho Center properties if I see the agreement is entered into as of the last date, set forth herein, effective date by and between the city of Nampa, a municipal corporation, the city, and college of Western Idaho, high bidder, buyer name or entity owner.

So are we so are we circumventing the system again and just pointing out that college of Western Idaho will be the bidder, the buyer name or entity?

Councilman President, Councilman, yes, absolutely not.

There's no circumventing whatsoever.

If anything, this is following the letter of the law, and then some.

So that's not a concern.

What this is, this is a draft.

Sorry, I'm trying to talk directly into this.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Uh the deed that's here, this is a proposed deed restrictions.

This is not etched in stone.

This is to make sure that you, the public, anybody who's interested is aware of what conditions, the nature of those conditions, the city would be conveying this property.

That's been proposed, and the same conditions would also be applied to a high bidder.

So no circum no circumvention on this at all.

Okay, so that's where the high bidder buyer name uh that's where they will go, besides called the Western Idaho.

Yeah.

Okay.

And that those brackets there, um, that's just a convenience to reduce paperwork and just this show that this is a placeholder uh that can be the general nature of it.

I see.

Yeah, okay, thank you, sir.

You bet.

Thank you, Prison.

Questions on this item.

Uh Mr.

President, um I'm trying to find the spot now because my notes aren't 100%.

There's a paragraph E that talks about successors in title.

Um right at the moment, I'm not finding the exact page of the document.

So thank you.

Page uh three seventy-three seventy-three, thank you.

Let me pull that out.

Okay, so for me it was including all successors in title, but the property under the trying to get make sure I got it straight.

So this issue is underutilized and put it up for public.

And I thought our pathway on this particular issue was it's one party, and if there's a default, it rescinds back to the city.

But I'm reading this as if there could be other successors, so I need I need help.

Councilman Bills, appreciate the question.

The what I would say on this for this subsection E, when it talks about successors and interest, um, conceptually, consider it like uh similar to a condition covenant restriction of CCNR, right?

Regardless of ownership, they would be subject to the same use restrictions, uh prohibitions for the property.

If the council wanted that changed uh to be more explicit, that it would stay with the immediate new or next owner if it went that route.

Um that could be changed again.

This is like I said, a proposed draft that we could have a change to that end.

That's really a question up for you.

Um if you want it to stay locked with a particular entity, conveying it to a governmental entity like CWI, you know who that recipient is, you know who it would be locked in.

A high bidder is just a it's the nature of it is totally different.

You do not know who that would be.

And so if you wanted it to be able to pass on, this would allow it to do so, and the next owner in the next would be subject to the same restrictions.

If you did not want that language and it wanted to read whoever it buys it, it's yours for time and memorial, unless uh and if you do try to convey it, um that could be a uh point of default, and it could result in reversion back to the city.

That is an option for the council if it wanted to go that direction to be really specific on it.

So I'm recalling our workshop two or three weeks ago, probably three weeks ago now, and it seemed like uh the discussion was that there would be the reversion.

So if if there was a transfer and the transfer didn't go or transfer goes, and yet the event doesn't end up being what was anticipated between the parties that there would be a reversion to the city, and that it couldn't be to one party as an interim to another party or multiple parties thereafter.

I was thinking our the discussion was that it was the city was going to somewhat stay close to the situation.

So that's that's why this paragraph kind of yeah stood out at me.

Yeah, and if I may, council president, going from prior discussions, and there's been as you know, a bevy of them, and there's been a lot.

Um earlier on there was discussion when CWI was kind of the loan track where there was a deed restriction that reversion of ownership would happen if they tried to sell any portion of the property, unless there was a consent in writing by the city.

Maybe there was an entity the city would like to give a blessing for it.

That could happen here too with whatever path you go.

If it's sell, if it's convey, and if you keep obviously keep it, it's irrelevant.

But we can make it more explicit.

Um if you want it to stay with the immediate next owner.

Um when you draft these types of deed restrictions, they have to be drafted pretty specific.

And I envision between now and a hearing date, whenever that is, that um these would be tightened up a little more.

What I wanted to give you tonight was the concept, the general nature of it, and to get any feedback like this.

So if you do want anything specific, we can then draft it to that end.

Um we can certainly do that, but that's up for discussion with the council.

Yeah, that's uh just a follow-up, Ms.

President.

So I I agree with getting it moving to a public hearing, but I I want to also have our documents relay with our discussions from three three plus weeks ago as far as our narrowing our focus and right of reversion uh if there is a default should the transfer uh go forward at some point in the future.

So thank you.

Councilman Griffin.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh Preston, in regard to the deed restrictions, are they needing to be tightened up as you say by that October 6th hearing?

I would recommend that.

That's my plan and intent.

Um nothing in statute says it needs to be like that, but I think as a course of conduct, I would I would do that, and that's been my intent.

Take any feedback that's needed from tonight, hone that in, and I think this will kind of model more similarly to what you see with uh a C C and R restriction.

It's referenced in the deed and vice versa.

Very very standard.

I think that's probably the best approach to it.

Thank you.

Uh, just in regard to the deed restrictions, then I agree with councilman bills and likely removing the all successors.

I think from what I'm feeling from this council, we're not moving in a direction to sell.

So we could very much specify that for CWI and making sure that it ends with them or is reverted back to the city.

Uh I would like to see tightened up once again the recreational facilities language.

Uh I still feel that that is uh too loose and non uh very binding that that will be done.

I'd like to set a timeline to it.

I know we had discussed in previous meetings and didn't get to conclude on what those terms would state.

Um I also would like to visit with CWI regarding the extent that we can do the stock or fields.

I know currently states 10 years.

I would like to tie that up for as long as possible.

If 10 years is it, great.

Just getting confirmation of that.

Uh, if we're gonna transfer significant asset, I'd like to have some significant benefits back to the community, and I think that's one area where it could be.

So those are my thoughts for right now.

I'm ready to make a motion.

One sec, President.

Um, just for the record, I know President and I already talked about it putting gun shows back in here.

That was something that the public wanted in there.

Um, President and I did talk about the language and the things that need to happen, so he is aware.

I just want to put on the record that that is something that we will discuss.

By all means, uh the way I'm seeing the resolution for underutilization is is pretty specific for that topic, and then um for as far as the rest of the exhibits, um, they can be tightened up based on what we decide after the public hearing to either or doing that public hearing to convey, sell, or retain.

Uh am I seeing that correctly?

Yeah, and there's a practical point here too, right?

Um, if you want to commit down a path with a known party, such as like CWI, um giving them the benefit of what this transaction is in advance, and being um in agreement on that could be beneficial.

It's not required by statute, but just as a practical point, um, if the city wanted to go that route, what you see here, and this is uh I believe posted to the uh city's website uh terms at the city and CWI had reached an agreement at some point.

I know there's still some desired left on the table, right?

For some specificity, um, and that is where the parties could meet on that language, and you know, implied in every contract is a duty of good faith and fair dealing, and so um as you know, maybe non-specific as the language is to the extent those circumstances come up, Councilman Griffin.

Uh, they would be under that duty to try to fulfill that in good faith.

Council are that's already ready for a motion on this.

Yes, sir.

Okay, I'm I'm uh the declaration I do not agree with.

Uh one thing is that I don't believe the board auto center is underutilized.

And I is and I don't believe is not used for public purposes.

We're heading to areas where we jumped in the ground here.

So I believe that uh if CWI wants to continue this bid or this can the sell or purchase, then I think they should give us a price.

And I think we are hoping they will sound like, but the process of acceptance of whatever we get from CWI is way down the road.

I believe at this point that uh the motion that I'm gonna make actually is gonna is gonna be this.

I want to stop this process.

That's what I've just said.

Stop this process until another time, another date, another whenever a year's from now.

I don't know when until we get all the ducks on the row, until CWI figures out what they're gonna do.

Uh that is my motion, is no longer go for selling that okay.

I get some clarity on that.

Um, so what you're saying is you want to retain the ownership of the of the Ford Ideo Center at the state.

That's correct.

As of now, yes.

I will second that motion.

I don't believe again as a follow-up.

I do not believe that um underutilization is really even on the table.

I think what has been stated is that there could be further uh utilization above and beyond what it currently has capable at this time.

So that's not under utilization.

Um my level, and I believe that it is totally used for public purposes.

So I don't think the criteria is supported documentation that's been presented to us.

I'll second the motion.

Any discussion on the motion?

No, bills, no, Reynolds, no, Griffin.

No.

Hummerfield, yes.

Everybody has yes, two in favor or opposed, motion carries.

Are we allowed to have a substitute motion here?

Since that was a fail, council president, yes, on this.

Okay, I would like to make a motion that uh we uh pass the resolution for the underutilization, and for uh price, I would like to put 120 million dollars on there if we were to come up with an option to sell it.

Clarification isn't that a separate motion, the dollar amount that we're putting towards, or is that one councilman president?

I don't think it has to be a second motion.

We can't approve this as going forward with the option to sell, can they keep and as to the sell have a minimum price?

And so we could have that.

Council President, I think it would be appropriate if you wanted to break that up and have an agreement on moving forward and then talk about the price.

Either way, withdraw the motion, and I'll make it just for uh motion to pass a resolution uh for underutilization, and we'll talk about the price separately.

Second discussion on the motion, council president, griffin.

I I would just like to state I I'm anxious and excited to hear what comes of a public hearing on the discussion.

Uh I still think that there needs to be work done for me to convey on the deed restrictions to ensure that there is still uh a community benefit.

Obviously, CWI will continue as as it is, but if we're going to transfer a significant asset, I'd like to see those terms refined and tightened up just a little bit.

I think that we're gonna have quite a night on October 6th.

I encourage everybody to turn out and uh testify.

I I speak on behalf of myself.

I am not set in one camp or another.

Uh this has been a very difficult decision, and likely the most difficult decision I'll make on my tenure here, and I'd appreciate the discussion on October 6th.

Other comments.

Rodriguez.

No.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Or in favor, two opposed, motion carries.

Preston, uh, do we need to discuss price uh to have that before we go into the public hearing?

Council president, I would advise you do just the benefit of the council members in making their vote.

Um again, statute does not specify any criteria, it doesn't set forth any parameters.

It just says that the city may elect to declare a minimum price or value that it wants for a high bid at a public auction.

Okay, so just for clarification, this price is only would be set if we choose the sale option out of the three options that we have before us.

So that's the only thing that we're we're looking at as a minimum price to open a bid at.

So that's correct.

Councilman Griffin.

I think I would like to make a motion.

I I'm not in the sale camp whatsoever.

Uh so I prefer not even to set the number, but if we were to set the number, I know our restrictions are pretty significant.

I would like the investment that the community has put into it over the last 28 years to be what we get out of it.

So I'd like to see that at least at a minimum bid of 30 million dollars, and that would be my motion.

Question?

Councilman Rodriguez.

This is a question for legal.

So what if I was it mainly under which I'm not, but I wanted to buy the Ford the Ford Idol Center itself and nothing else.

How does this how does this contract or this resolution have situations like that?

But where others could buy other portions of that property, and not necessarily owned by one in one entity.

Council President, Councilman Rodriguez.

This proposal is for the Ford Ido Center campus.

It includes three parcels.

The buildings and fixtures are pertinent to that land.

They go with the transaction.

There's no there's no building purchase or anything like that or ground lease proposed.

This is as proposed right now, a sale and conveyance of the real property, which includes all its buildings, fixtures, okay, etc.

Thank you.

I'll second it.

I'm just trying to get a public hearing.

Whether whether there's no motion of any dollar amount, it's any dollar amount is only for guidance to the public hearing, but the public hearing is gonna bring about uh information and direction and a final uh say as to dollar or transaction.

Councilman President.

I want to make make sure it's very clear, unmistakably clear that the number you declare officially here will be the number you're bound to if you go proceed to a settl.

So this is not a a placeholder, we'll come back later.

This is what will that price be?

And if a buyer did come in with the funds and the ability and right to buy it, they would take subject to these deed restrictions so long as they clear the minimum threshold and are the highest bidder.

I appreciate the clarification, so I'll modify the pull your second pull the second.

Okay.

Motion fails, so President.

I wanna I'm thinking of that we should probably make a motion.

One of the numbers that we heard was um Councilman Haverfield said 100 million dollars.

I trust that he has done his due diligence in that.

I think that his number is probably a good number, so I think we should go with 100 million.

I would second that discussion on the motion.

We'll call Rodriguez.

Okay.

No.

Bills, yes, Haverfield.

No.

Griffin.

No, yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Is it die?

So motion fails.

Uh some kind of a compromise uh on a dollar figure that we can have going into the public hearing.

Uh uh, President.

Uh a solution would be maybe it says to the highest bidder.

Uh we have to set that bid, but since we've had a default, basically, in there in our hearing here today with number.

Uh oh boy.

Uh I would need some more facts as to what direction to go to.

I'm just curious.

I have no idea what that thing is worth.

I've heard 165 million, I've heard 50 million.

Oh boy, I'm gonna continue to say no on this until nobody wants to do an uh an appraisal.

So it's like throwing up a quarter and seeing where it lands.

I'm not sure where to go with this because I don't think we we even know that put a number or number to put a number down is difficult.

Council President, if I could.

I believe it would be difficult if this council's intention were to sell.

I don't think we should put a number either, because I'm not in a camp to sell.

So if we have to put a number down, and we somehow come to the conclusion that we want to sell all of a sudden, I would like us to get a return on what was invested.

That's why you came up with the 30 million as a minimum bid.

I still don't think anybody's gonna buy it for that.

Uh so I if there is the chance that we do go in a direction, I would also like it to be realistic of where we set our minimum bid if we end up deciding at some point to sell for some reason that it's a viable option.

So I'll make a motion for 40 million dollars.

Question for legal.

Is there so on or on requesting or setting aside a public hearing?

Do we need to leave the language in the cell at a minimum price?

Or could we go to a public hearing strictly on the conveyance to CWI?

Council President, Councilman Bills.

Uh the vote that was taken just before this was to take all three options to a public hearing, convey, sell, or keep okay so prior to that vote.

Yes, there could have been just the carve out to take it only on conveyance.

Conveyance is still an option.

It's just one of three that will be considered now at October 6th hearing president, councilwoman Jangil.

The number that we heard from the public, and I'm just trying to support what the public was saying to us was a hundred million dollars.

We all heard that over and over and over again.

So I guess I want to know kind of from Councilman Haberfield where he's at with the numbers, since that was his number, and I just want to know why that number wasn't supported.

Mr.

Chair, point of order.

We do have a motion on the table.

Sorry about that.

We got a motion.

Don't have a second.

No second.

Motion failed.

So your question again.

100 million dollar.

I'm just trying to support what the number was that you thought that it was worth.

So I'm just wondering why you didn't support the motion.

Because I don't believe that we should sell it.

I believe that we should retain it.

So no no dollar amount from me.

I don't think it's underutilized.

I think it's fully utilized.

I don't think that we can say that it's not used for the public purposes.

It is.

So again, on the surface of what statute says, uh where we're treading on pretty thin water as far as in my determination.

The idea of conveying it, giving it away is just open for lawsuit.

So that's not the path I'm gonna go down.

I don't believe that we should be selling it.

I believe that we should be retaining it, and then uh working towards providing our own means of revenue to be able to maintain it.

That's my position.

I can tell you what it's worth.

I can tell you what every building on the property is worth, but that doesn't change my my mind as to why I didn't support your motion.

Sorry.

So what would your dollar amount be that it's worth all together?

Okay, so let me break it down for you.

You can look at the ICRAMP report, it gives you values.

That's a replacement value.

It doesn't include any furniture fixtures or equipment, doesn't include any foundation systems, doesn't include the site cost or the site development costs above and below surface.

So when you start breaking it down into those terms, it's uh basically a menu of costs.

Uh what you'd end up with at the end of the day, if you were to do a um a progressive uh approach to the metrics involved there, you'd probably be in the 150 million dollar range today to replace it.

Thank you.

That would include the value of the ground.

So, President?

Councilman Jangula?

I would like to see this go to a public hearing because I want to get more feedback from the public.

And so, in order for us, as I'm understanding from legal, in order for us to get to that stage, we do have to put a dollar price on this.

So, knowing that councilman Haverfield has done his due diligence in researching this significantly, that number's probably somewhat accurate as far as a number that we could move forward with this.

So I would support a motion for 150 million seconds.

We have a motion and a second for 150 million dollars.

I don't think the desire from the council is to sell this asset at all.

Um, just by the discussion I'm hearing tonight.

And uh, so it's either a conveyor option when we get to public hearing, it sounds like, but we have to have this number going into the sell option.

Um councilman president, to that point.

Statute does not require you to set a minimum, but if you do want a minimum, this is the time, this is the place to set it.

So you could proceed forward with a sell option as one of your three, move forward to the six, but have no minimum dollar value set tonight.

That would mean when you have a vote on the six, if a motion is made to sell it and it does pass, it will be to the highest bidder with the starting bid at zero, subject to the deed restrictions.

But for all intents and purposes, technically, you do not have to have a number tonight.

But if you do want one, this is the time and place to do it.

We have a motion and a second.

Uh roll call.

Rodriguez.

No.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Haverfield.

No.

Griffin.

No.

Bills.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion fails.

33 motion fails.

Oh, President.

Knowing that we want to move forward and hear from the public, it would be very scary, knowing that the rest of us, nobody on this council wants to sell this.

So if we move forward without a dollar amount, knowing that it could be set at zero dollars, anyone could come in.

That's a very scary, very scary thought.

So we've got to put a dollar, in my opinion, we've got to put a dollar amount to this that would make sense to the city.

Council President.

Councilman Griffin.

Make the motion for 45 million dollars.

And I'll reiterate again.

I don't think we're going that direction.

I think the minimum should be what we would recoup for the citizen benefit at a minimum.

I think at a maximum, if we're leaving all options on the table, which was the motion, whatever's the option most viable, if that ends up being the sell, we shouldn't pigeonhole ourselves at an amount that will is not gonna produce any fruits.

I understand that it's we're getting into the weeds and it's doesn't matter because it won't sell.

So my motion is for 45 million.

I would second that.

And um it uh with the with the deed restrictions that uh we're requesting on this, no matter which way it goes, unless we retain it.

Um I think that covers us for what we want to retain for the city of Nampa and the residents.

So second that any other discussion?

Discussion.

Go ahead.

Councilman?

Councilman Griffin.

I'm curious to know why you're not supporting President Hat or Councilman Haverfield's numbers, the hundred or the hundred and fifty.

It's not that I don't support his numbers or support your numbers or support my own numbers.

I know what's been invested in 27 years.

I'd like to at least recoup that.

So I'm if it's a minimum bid discussion for a topic that'll never see the light a day, we might as well do it the proper avenue if it's going to be a viable option.

So somehow we get to the point of a sale, and that we end up deciding rather than retaining rather than transferring the CWI, should actually be a viable option.

Setting the price tag to 150 million with these deed restrictions is not viable to any anybody.

So that's why I get to the point.

If we're going to go through the process and say it's a viable option, we should set the number as such.

Thanks.

Councilman Bills.

One more time.

I need a clarification on the dollar side.

Tonight we haven't forced the issue of dollar included versus just a conveyance public hearing.

Previous meeting.

Councilman President, uh Councilman Bills, is your question more of what the prior motion which you approved, what that means about sell convey or keep, or is your question about uh a prior meeting we had and a different different discussion.

So if we went back and amended that and removed the word sale, would we then need a dollar amount in the current discussion?

The time for that vote is come and gone.

We don't we didn't adopt the formal Roberts rules of order, which allows for a withdrawal immediately.

And so that action uh for all intents and purposes is is final.

Okay, yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah, councilman uh Bills.

We do not need a dollar amount to move into this public hearing on October 6th.

Uh just for clarification, we're just setting one as a safeguard.

If that was the way the council voted on that date, we would have a minimum bid in there.

So that time to set that safeguard is now.

If we don't want to have a minimum, we don't have to have a minimum.

But uh I fully understand, and I I agree on some type of minimum.

Yeah, and you can imagine the reasons why councilman president.

Um part of this will after this meeting, whatever the final vote is here, um a public notice will be made.

Statute requires that we wait at least 14 days, and that public notice will let the world know what's gonna happen on October 6th.

There'll be a discussion about whether to uh convey it, keep it, or sell it, and if they pursue a sell, what that dollar number is, that allows the public to gather themselves and you know prepare maybe a proposal, you know, to to come forward for that uh public auction.

And so, yes, one does not have to be set here tonight, but one can be.

It's up to the council, Mr.

President.

One more time for clarification.

Uh, even if sold for a dollar amount, it could still gonna have the deed restrictions.

That's correct, and honoring the agreements.

So we're not selling and don't honor the agreements that are in play.

That's correct.

Okay, I just need that clarification.

And we've covered this before, councilman president, it's probably worth uh refresher.

Um state statute articulates that if a public auction is held for sale and no high bidder reaches that minimum threshold, right?

The the minimum price, uh the statute authorizes the city to you know dispose of the property as it deems in its best interest.

And so it's not the end of the road if it if a if a sale vote was taken on the six.

I know there's discussion about whether that's viable or gonna happen.

Uh but uh it's not the end of the road if a cell were to be the prevailing vote on the sixth we don't have or the option to convey.

That's correct.

That's a that is on the table for the six, and if that's the prevailing vote, um then it would be a conveyance uh presumably with CWI as the you know uh grantee of that.

Thank you.

We do have a motion and a second.

Um other discussion?

Roll call Rodriguez, no gingula bills, yes, uh-huh.

No 25 Reynolds, yes, Griffin.

Yes, motion fails.

President, I make a motion for 75 million second discussion on the motion.

Roll call Rodriguez, no gula, yes.

Bills, yes, Reynolds, yes, Hummerfield, no Griffin, yes, motion carries.

All right, uh gonna move on to action item.

Let's see, do you need to read that resolution, Madam Clerk?

No.

Okay.

Move on to uh action item five nine.

It's to authorize a mayor to sign a resolution authorizing and confirming the financing of wastewater system improvements through the state of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, and in particular authorizing a promissory note and a loan offer, acceptance and agreement and related documents with the Department of Environmental Quality and an amount of 165 million dollars authorizing a reserve fund and authorizing related matters and proceedings approved by John McDermott legal bond counsel and Doug Racine.

Doug, would you like to speak to this?

Counselor Reynolds, we have John McDermott on our our bond counsel to walk through the resolution.

Um council members, can you hear me?

Yes.

Um yeah, thank you.

So John McDevitt from Skinner Fossett, we serve as a bond counsel to the city of Napa.

And before you this evening is a resolution approving the issuance of a promissory note in the amount of 165 million.

This relates to the loan from the Department of Environmental Quality DEQ.

And the project for the city's wastewater system has been substantially completed, and we're ready to close out this loan.

And what when the note is issued, um be a term of 30 years, maturing September 26, 2055, um paid annually.

So the resolution authorizes the issuance of the note, the city mayor to sign and deliver the note, and to also enter into uh new loan agreement with DEQ that provides for this permanent financing that was funded initially with the interim construction loan from DEQ.

And with that, I'll stand for any questions.

Have a question.

What is the interest on that uh note?

It is I think it's one point go ahead.

1.68 percent.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Um, I I do have one, sorry.

Um, is this a separate loan than what we have?

No, no, it's taking the draw today.

We have the authorization to borrow, and we took draws against that authorization.

Now it's converting all those draws into a formal note and a promissory note.

I see.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's correct.

I have a question for Doug then.

Councilman Hairfield.

Um what was the um on the SRF loan?

What was that interest rate?

The which if the one prior, right?

I don't recall exactly, but I think it was like five percent.

I could be wrong.

I'd have to look back.

That was a 17 million dollar note that we had back in 2017.

Okay, and I think that was John.

I don't know if you remember the interest rate on that one, but I thought it was like five percent.

I could be wrong.

In just one moment, I can tell you.

That's okay.

I just know that it was quite a bit more.

It was higher.

Thank you.

It was two percent.

Two percent.

Well, that's not that much then.

Thank you.

And this note will be issued on a parody position with that prior loan.

No.

So both held by DEQ the pledges system revenues to pay uh respective balance.

Any other questions?

I make a motion that we uh authorize the mayor to sign resolution authorizing final uh financing with the Department of Environmental Quality, State of Idaho.

Second question on the motion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Angola.

Yes.

Hoverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

All right.

Moving on to proclamations.

We have two of them tonight.

Our first one is Hispanic Heritage Month.

And I'll see if I can get through these here.

Whereas each year, Americans Americans observe National Hispanic Heritage Month by celebrating the histories, cultures, and countless contributions of Americans whose ancestors were indigenous to North America, including those from Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America, and South America.

And whereas Hispanics have enriched and shaped our national character with traditions that span centuries, reflecting the multi-ethnic and multicultural customs of their communities, while bringing their own distinct and dynamic perspectives to the story of our country.

And whereas, since the United States first celebrated National Hispanic Heritage Week in 1968 under President Lyndon B.

Johnson, and later a month-long celebration in 1988 under President Ronald Reagan, Hispanics have become an integral and thriving part of our diverse community.

And whereas this month's theme, collective heritage, honoring the past, inspiring the future, calls us to embrace the rich traditions, stories, and contributions that bind our diverse communities through music, art, literature, and shared histories.

We recognize the power of our collective heritage to shape a vibrant and inclusive future for all.

And whereas in NAMPA and across the nation, the Hispanic community strengthens cultural, educational, economic, and political vitality through leadership, entrepreneurship, cultural events, and the presence of community hubs such as the Idaho Hispanic Community Center, where families, businesses, and organizations come together to celebrate culture and foster growth.

Now, therefore, I, Mayor Debbie Kling, do hereby proclaim September 15th through October 15th, 2025 in the city of Napa as Hispanic Heritage Month.

And tonight we have uh Mari Ramos.

I am not great at uh pronouncing your name, but uh, would you like to say a few words and then we'll get the picture with you?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Council.

First of all, thank you for your service and the time that you take to be here every month.

Um so when I was growing up here in Idaho, there was like less than three percent Hispanic in Idaho.

Today, there's more than 25 percent Hispanic of our of NAMPA is Hispanic of NAMPA.

That's one in four community members here in NAMPA is Hispanic.

So, you know, even though we have much more in common than we have at uh our differences, it's those differences the celebrating those uh cultural our health our heritage and learning about it that can really bring us together, which I think now more than ever we need.

So thank you for celebrating our differences, celebrating our culture, celebrating our heritage uh here in Antha.

So on behalf of the Idaho Hispanic Foundation, thank you very much.

And hurry up so you can come eat some tacos at the Hispanic Community Center.

Thank you.

If we could get a picture up here with council, that'd be fantastic.

All right.

And we have one more proclamation.

Whereas September 17th, 2025 marks the 238th anniversary of the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America by the Constitutional Convention, and whereas it is fitting and proper to read, study, and celebrate America's founding documents and to protect the freedom set forth in the Bill of Rights.

And whereas it is fitting and proper to officially recognize this magnificent document and its memorable anniversary and to the patriotic celebrations which will commemor commemorate the occasion.

And whereas it is important to commemorate the historic anniversary and the patriotic celebrations which occur and whereas public law 915 guarantees the issuing of a proclamation each year by the President of the United States of America, designating September 17th through the 23rd as Constitution Week.

Now, therefore, I Debbie Kling, Mayor of the City of Nampa, Idaho, do hereby proclaim September 17th through September 23rd in the city of Nampa as Constitution Week.

And tonight we have the Daughters of American Revolution that uh would please come up here and uh you can say a few words first and then we'll come up here and give you this and you can take a picture.

Thank you.

Thank you, President uh Reynolds and other council members.

We appreciate uh the proclamation.

I am Susie Christensen and I serve as the chapter regent of the Idaho chapter, Daughters of the American Revolution, which was founded in 1890.

DAR is a nonprofit, non-political, volunteer women's organization dedicated to promoting patriotism, historic preservation, and education.

It is our privilege to encourage study and education educate the public about the Constitution, which was adopted on September 17th, 1787 in Philadelphia, after four months of writing and deliberation, which we can testify tonight.

2025 marks the 70th year of the cons of Constitution Week, which is celebrated from September 17th through the 23rd each year.

DAR is instrumental in getting the uh designation and the petition for Congress for this resolution.

Following the passage of the resolution by both houses, President Eisenhower issued his proclamation on August 19th, 1955.

The following year, the week was observed and signed into the law.

As our organization, DAR marks this annual event by requesting a proclamation from the city as well as ringing bells in celebration as it did in 1787.

The news spread from town, one town to the next, and the time at this time I would like you all to join us in ringing the bills in acknowledgement of the importance of the foundation of our document and of our nation.

Thank you, everyone.

I appreciate your time.

And please come up here and we'll continue with this and we'll get a picture of you.

Thank you.

All right.

Always nice to have some proclamations.

All right, uh gonna step into our public forum.

Uh Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up tonight?

Mr.

Chair, just so the audience is aware uh for the public forum, NAPA residents wishing to speak on a non-agenda item, a three-minute limit per speaker is allowed.

Comments related to zoning and land use matters may only be made during properly noticed public hearings.

We do have someone signed up to speak, and that is David Gerston uh David Gerston, 11929 West Calais Drive, NAMPA President Reynolds and Council members.

Thank you for all you do.

I know public form is not the public hearing agenda, is not for public hearing agenda items, although I believe 8.1 is being continued today.

So I'd like to just make a brief comment.

My email sent to you all on Thursday 9-11 regarding Lloyd Square and the downtown implementation plan was sent premature.

Although I'm still very concerned about the fate.

Mr.

Chair David Point of order I'll I'll defer to um Rodney and legal about receiving comments on an item that is on the agenda.

Council President, yeah, it's our standard practice that if there is an item for a public hearing.

Although it's being continued.

And this is for which item?

81.

81.

That is being continued.

That's got that comment needs to be when that item will be up for public hearing.

So whatever remarks you would have prepared tonight, you're welcome to come back when that is finally continued to a date certain, be here, provide those same remarks or whatever ones you wish.

Okay.

The reason being there's a record that when that meeting starts that your comments would want, I presume you want to have into that record, and so that's why we adopt that practice understood.

Um the comment is regarding the email sent, not the content of the email.

Just the fact that it was premature.

Still I could send them an email saying that then.

Still the direction would be to reserve it for that at public hearing item.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Clarification.

In the past, we have allowed folks to talk and to testify and attach that to the hearing.

Weeks ahead.

Why can't you do that today?

Council President, uh Councilman Rodriguez.

I I'm not aware of any of those prior instances.

Um to the extent they may have happened.

The direction here that I'm providing is that this will take place when the hearing happens.

It's creates a cleaner record and gives the applicant um actually more opportunity to express the repoints in a in a better venue.

Mr.

Chair, I just jump in here.

Um I just want to make sure that it's clear we will include those comments that we received into the packet.

So as done in times pass, if somebody submits a letter or written or communication.

You have prov your you your department has provided that as a part of our packet for that public hearing.

That's correct.

Yeah, so point of order.

Can Mr.

Gershon get back up and finish his testimony?

Councilman, uh Council President.

The there's a difference between oral testimony versus written testimony.

This is live testimony.

Um yes, we do submit into the record and packet comments received in advance, but those are written comments.

The nature of the oral testimony is different inherently, and that's why we reserve those for the actual public hearing testimony portion.

The written comments that were referred to should be in that issue forthcoming or any additional comments would be placed into the packet, correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

No, thank you for the clarification.

Madam Clerk, do we have anyone else signed up?

Uh Mr.

Chair, we do not.

Have anyone that did not get signed up for public forum that would like to testify tonight?

Is that what you've got to go up?

My name is Sylvia Nampa Colts.

I look 416 Meyer Avenue in NAPA.

I just had a question.

How are you guys gonna get the public hearing on October 6th out to NAMPA?

Besides the website, if we're gonna get it up to the world to know about it, Madam Clerk, uh would you like to respond to that?

Typically we don't respond on in public forum.

Mr.

Chair, I'm gonna defer to legal as um it it's a I was gonna say it's in coordination with the clerk's office.

Council President.

It's going to contain a summary of what happened tonight.

So everything will be published as the law requires.

Two.

We'll get this thing underway.

All right, action item 82.

Uh it's an annexation and zoning to RS7, RSA point five, RS12, RS22 zoning districts and potential development agreement and subdivision preliminary platform Lake View neighborhood on a total of 57.16 acres at 1259 Midway Road and Zero Iowa Avenue for Conger Group representative Karen and Bob Anderson.

Regional concept development of 14.86 acres for RS22, 29.08 acres for RS 12, 9.94 acres for RS 8.5, 23.4 acres for RS7 with a combined 131 detached single family lots, which includes one with the current detached single family resident and 19 common lots.

Clarification where these came from.

Sorry.

Someone that is going to be speaking carefully had asked that things be distributed so that it won't get into her time when she's speaking.

Okay, thank you.

And um, I did want to let the audience know that we will be displaying that on the projector so the audience can see it as well.

We'll start off with our applicant tonight, and you'll have seven minutes to present to us.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

Heath Clark, 251 East Front Street representing the applicant.

This is property that is located in the air uh city's area of impact and immediately adjacent to existing existing city limits.

It's come back to you tonight with the benefit of direct your direction from a prior hearing.

So what you see on the screen right now is the prior application.

It included 155 units, and at the time there were a number of things that were going on, including there were you were negotiating updates to the comprehensive plan, you were having conversations with the county, and we were also told to reduce the density and increase our buffer to come up with a plan to help kind of provide some more space against our neighbors to the west and the southwest.

We took all that to heart.

We waited for the comp plan to be updated.

We also had several meetings with staff to come up with an updated plan to arrive at the best solution, and we did that with a fair amount of neighborhood outreach that you can see on the screen here.

That was all the outreach that led up to the planning and zoning commission meeting a few months ago, including reaching out to stakeholders such as the manager of the deer flat refuge.

Now, this is a very unique location.

It is not far flung.

In fact, there are city services on our eastern boundary with Carriage Hill.

Uh that has a medium density uh city uh designation, and then only a few hundred feet to the west, you can see the county canyon county residential lots.

Uh uh, those separate the project from the from Lake Lowell.

In addition, you have Iowa and Lake Avenues that are also between our project and Lake Lowell.

And so, based on the direction we received, we needed to figure out how to transition from Carriage Hill to the county lots.

We needed to figure out how to reduce our density, and we needed to figure out how to provide a bigger buffer to our neighbors on the west and southwest.

And we think that we have done everything that was asked of us at the time.

What we did was we worked within the city zoning to provide that transition from Carriage Hill.

The lots on the southwest now are not only a minimum of excuse me of a half acre, but they're also separated from those county lots by a new trail, a natural path that's 150 feet wide.

I've done this for 20 years.

I've never seen an applicant do a buffer of that sort.

The by adding the trail and working with the city to provide this transition, we were able to reduce the project density by 25 lots and still provide a very nice mix of lot sizes.

We have 7,000 square foot lots on the east that range all the way to these the blue where you can see near on the south and southwest, those are a minimum of a half acre, so they get all the way up to three quarters of an acre.

It's a very nicely amenitized project.

We have dog parks, sport courts, place structures in addition to the nature trail and buffer that I mentioned previously.

We have great pathways around the project.

This includes the new pathways against Lake and Iowa and Midway, internal pathways on the east side, as well as the 150 foot buffer and natural pathway against the county lots.

We were also careful to keep an area open in the far northwest.

Um if you're familiar with the site, this is a property that's been farmed for many years.

It has rocky soil, it's been disked and cultivated, so it's not what you would think of as habitat.

But in we what we've been told is is that the deer do like to use the area in the far northwest, and so we left that open and tried to create this essentially a wildlife corridor to make it easier for the wildlife to get to that location without having to go up through the county lots on our south and southwest.

We really like this buffer.

We think it's a great amenity for the site.

You know, this was not the kind of thing that's gonna happen everywhere.

Uh, but P and Z was very happy with it, and Commissioner Turner said it was quote, unheard of.

And with all these pathways and buffers, it's not surprising that our open space is well above what the city code requires.

Uh, 22 percent is excuse me, qualified open space, and we're at about 25 percent of the overall project is actual open space.

So I'll wrap up and be available for questions, but in a nutshell, we have a revised and we think improved project based on the direction that we heard when we were in front of city council last, based on our conversations with staff and based on our conversations with the neighbors again.

It resulted in a reduction in density, the 150 foot wide seven and a half acre buffer, and a project with 25 percent in open space.

It provides excellent amenities, including that buffer, and we've been able to provide a transition from the higher density on Carriage Hill on the east to the county lots on the west.

And I think that's an important thing because that's very difficult balance to strike to go from a medium density to county lots in that short of a distance.

Um we are in agreement with staff's staff report.

Uh we are in agreement with the conditions of approval, and we were grateful to get a unanimous recommendation of approval from planning and zoning, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Trying to see the lot and block as far as the map, but there's a lot that's on the corner, uh slightly to the north of where you have some of your green space improvements.

The power line runs across that lot.

Oh, that almost looks like half of the lot is under the power line.

It almost seems that one should also be green space.

Curious on what you're thinking on that particular yeah, council uh president, council member Bills.

Um, that's actually one that I was discussing with our group uh earlier today to make sure that I understood what was going on there.

So as you can see, um, you can see the corridor there, that is the Idaho Power Corridor.

Um we have taken advantage of that to try to create this longer linear park.

And so as you kind of work your way from the north, that's where our dog park is.

If you can continue on along the 45 degree angle, that's where our top lot is, and then if you continue all the way down, there's a sport court.

So, with regard to the lot in question, I think you're talking about the northeast lot on that north-south block right there that's being covered up.

So that is a lot that lot is encumbered by the Idaho Power Easement.

We made it wider so that we could work with Idaho Power to try to arrive at a at a uh buildable lot there.

If in fact that's not uh able to happen, then we would look at making it additional open space, but we wanted to have the ability to be able to try to configure something there, and we're pretty comfortable that we can.

Um, if you were to zoom out uh council member bills and look further down along this um along the Idaho Power Corridor down to like Red Hawk, there are other houses that are excuse me, lots that are encumbered similarly, easy for me to say, encumbered similarly, and they were able to make a housework.

And so that's the that's the approach there.

We were pr preserving the ability to to try and have a house on that.

Thank you.

Yep.

Council President.

How far off is that line from the ground?

Uh council uh president, council member uh Griffin, excuse me.

Um the the homes would not be, I don't know exactly the height of the of the of the uh wires in the air.

I think that's what you're asking.

The homes would not be directly underneath, they would be off to the side outside of it.

I just in thinking going down the same pipeline as council member Bills.

Uh I'd hope a retired couple would live here, not a bunch of kids on a play set or want and the flag kite as we've heard.

So I would also want to see that turned into green space just prior to so you can discuss and then come back.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Mr.

President.

Just a follow-up.

It just seems like in the in your design.

Well laid out, that particular lot being uh continuing that green corridor.

Just makes more sense in my mind.

And uh so uh some revision there, I I think would be uh potentially in order.

Uh which we'll see what the desire of council is, but of course it's just one of the issues that stood out maybe when I reviewed this.

Uh so I appreciate that.

I'll understand the question and hear a little bit of discussion.

Thanks.

Thank you.

And I'll and I'll talk with our team about that and be prepared to discuss it on rebuttal.

If you're done with the presentation, we will have you back after public testimony.

Christy, I think we're ready for staff report.

All right.

Thank you, Council President and Council Members.

I am Christy Watkins, the principal planner for the city of NAMPA.

Um, the actions requested from you this evening are recommended, sorry, approval of annexation and zoning to multiple RS zoning districts and the subdivision preliminary plat for the Lakeview subdivision at 12529 Midway Road.

On this map, the blue shaded area is RS22 at 14.86 acres.

The purple area is 29.08 acres for RS 12.

The red area is 9.94 acres for RS 8.5, and the tan area is 23.4 acres for RS 7.

In the green area on the southwest corner, you will see the 150 foot wide buffer, and that is 7.64 acres, and it will be zoned RS22.

So a traffic impact study concluded that all studied intersections meet the city of NAMPA level of service standards under the 2023 existing traffic and the 2027 background and total traffic and the 2030 through 32 background and total traffic scenarios.

This traffic study would have been from the previous proposal, so now they've actually brought those numbers down.

Um turn lanes were found not to be warranted at all.

Studied intersections.

The NAMPA Engineering Division may require a striped center turn lane at West Capriana Drive and Midway Road intersection if it is found that there is sufficient space to accommodate that striping.

The midway road and Lake Lowell Avenue intersection was found to have a high crash rate during the five-year period between 2017 and 2021.

There are no documented fatality crashes during that period at any of the studied intersections.

Right-of-way dedication along Midway Road is required, and then another right-of-way dedication along Iowa Avenue is required.

They will be required to construct frontage road improvements along Midway Road and Iowa Avenue, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk, and full pavement widening for roads classified as locals and collectors.

So the city's uh wastewater treatment plant currently has adequate capacity to serve this development.

The city's sewer master plan consultant analyzed this, adding that this development to the Wilson sewer basin and found that there was sufficient capacity in the downstream mains.

The development is unable to sewer the entire development by gravity to the Capriana Drive sewer main due to site topography.

The preliminary plat reflects the westerly 37 residential lots require a pump station to pump back to the gravity main.

This pump station shall be privately owned and maintained by the HOA.

The city's water system has adequate capacity to serve this property.

The city's pressurized irrigation system is limited in this part of the city due to the variable gravity irrigation delivery by the Boise Boise Cuna irrigation district.

The majority of the area is served from the NAMPA of City of Nampa well 17.

The developer will be required to construct these utilities to and through the property at the time of development.

The proposed RS7, RS 8.5, RS12, and RS22 are permitted zones under the comprehensive plan future land use map designation of low density residential and medium density residential.

The property is located in an area that is desiccated, designated as very low residential and very low density, excuse me, residential, and intends to stretch the medium density residential from the east and the low density residential from the southeast.

It is not located within the Southwest NAPA specific area plan boundary.

The proposed annexation and zoning complies with the definitions for compatibility, density, and smart growth as they are outlined in the comprehensive plan.

So the lot sizes within the four zones range from 7,000 square feet to one acre with an average lot area of 10,401 square feet.

All lots proposed meet the lot width and lot depth required by code.

The required density range for the medium density residential for the RS7 and the RSA.5 is 2.51 to 8 dwelling units per acre.

The required density range for the low density residential area in the RS 12 and RS22 zones is 1 to 2.5 dwelling units per acre.

On this 57.16 acres with 130 lots, the project proposes a density of 2.27 dwelling units per acre, thereby meeting the requirements of the low density residential designation.

15% open space is required in the platted areas with two qualified open space elements.

The qualified open space is provided within 12.67 acres of the platted area, which is 22.17% qualified.

Open space will include a natural habitat area that is 150 feet wide on 7.64 acres to buffer along the southwest side of the project.

A 25 foot landscape buffer is required along Midway and Iowa.

The landscape plan shows a 20 foot 25 foot wide landscape buffer on these two rights of way.

The landscape plan was provided with this application and is uh going to be reviewed.

Sorry, with the final plot will be when they are ready to implement it.

Correspondence was received.

Um there are three late comments in front of you this evening that talk about the number of lots, traffic, and preservation of wildlife.

We also received two other comments that were included in your packet talking about the type of great growth that is not sustainable or healthy for our community, that new growth is not paying for itself, and that taxes will go up with the level of service will go down.

Other comments that were received for the planning and zoning commission hearing regarding housing and loss of open space, requirements to potentially enlarge the open space, the fencing type on the subdivision, requiring single story homes, questions regarding proximity to the lots to the southwest, and complaints about how it was notified.

Boise CUNY irrigation states that the property has no surface irrigation as it is on high ground.

NAMPA GIS requests some street name changes.

NAMPA COCOMPliance found that there were weeds and debris that needed to be removed.

The NAMPA police department recommends a commitment to fund 0.43 officers and 0.23 support staff.

Let's see, this development is located approximately 2.7 miles from fire station number five with an approximate response time of seven minutes.

This would create a demand for.37 firefighter positions.

And then engineering, of course, lists their standard conditions of approval.

So for annexation, there are four criteria that need to be met when determining whether or not an annexation is appropriate.

First, the landowners have consented to this annexation.

Second, the property is contiguous to the city limits.

Third, the property is included in the annexation area within the comp plan.

And fourth, the roadways surrounding it are subject to the memorandum of understanding between the city and the highway district.

There are three criteria that you will need to find to establish the zoning on the property.

Staff has found that this project is in harmony with the comprehensive plan.

It proposes a set of uses that is compatible with adjoining current and for future uses in that area and is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary because it has proposed a subdivision layout that will extend city utilities, will install frontage improvements, is compatible with the surrounding uses and it complies with all adopted city codes.

So should council choose to approve these requests, staff recommends the approval with conditions as listed in your staff report.

These are your potential motions, and I'll stand for any questions.

Questions for Christy.

So Chrissy, I'm not sure it's definitely yours, maybe Daniel's.

Based on the rendering that we're looking at and the maps that have been provided, it would indicate that the street section is separated sidewalk or the landscape area between sidewalk and curb.

Is that correct?

I am going to defer to Daniel on that.

That is correct.

Now that we've been doing that for the last 12 plus years, are we finding still working or the trees growing such that we're having asphalt damage and sidewalk damage, etc.?

In the newer areas where we have the limits on the type of trees that go in there.

We have not been seeing the sidewalk and roadway damage that we see in the older areas of town with you know the large oak trees and sick moors and that type of stuff.

So we're still good with that concept.

Correct.

We we have an alternative, we have the option for both detached and attached sidewalks in our standard uh our policy manual to give the option for developments to have the aesthetic looks that they are they're going for.

Um we do require on developments that the entrance to the subdivision have detached sidewalks that can go to the attached sidewalks once they get in, depending on the size of really small developments.

We don't require that, but on something of this size, they would at a minimum be required to have that on their entry roads.

Um, but they have elected to propose the entire subdivision with that, and that is acceptable with our policies.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Christy?

All right.

Thank you, Christy.

Good job.

Thanks.

All right, we'll move into our public testimony.

Um, and reminder when you step forward, state your name and address, and you'll have three minutes to talk.

So uh, Madam Clerk.

Mr.

Chair, we do have some individuals that have signed up in advance, and our first speaker is Jill Hallows.

Good evening.

My name is Jill Hallows.

My address is 603 West Crimson Loop, NAMPA.

Um I believe that the property owner has every right to sell.

Um I'm opposed to this development as it's proposed.

Um just because the development has complied with all the codes and laws and everything doesn't mean that it is in the best interest of the community.

Um first of all, since Canyon County will be holding a meeting on October 16th to determine NAMPA's area of impact, and this development falls within that area of impact, it seems premature to decide whether or not this development should be approved tonight.

Secondly, um it sort of feels like the public is not being heard by the council because you're continuing to be criticized for rubber stamping new developments at a pace that it seeds both NAMPAS infrastructure and the budget.

Um for infrastructure, this development will put hundreds of vehicle trips on the roads that haven't been changed at all to meet this need.

Um as far as budget goes, we know the budget is in trouble right now.

Uh Ford Idaho Center is a good example of that.

When land is annexed into the city, and every time I hear the word annex, it just makes me tremble because the cost of extending services exceeds the amount of revenue that can be collected in taxes.

Consequently, our property taxes will be raised to cover the deficit.

I'm wondering if you know just how much this particular development will cost the city if it's approved.

Uh we're already behind in providing enough police, so I'm concerned about how much farther this will put us behind.

Development is inching closer and closer to Lake Lowell.

I'm concerned that increased human activity, light, and noise will negatively affect wildlife.

You hold the keys to preserving this sensitive area, and I'm counting on you to put the needs of the refuge ahead of the needs of the developer.

If you do decide to approve this project, please keep lens density in the very low range in order to keep pressure and traffic to a minimum.

For example, the developer has added three lots adjacent to their green area.

That would be lot 14, 15, and 16.

And to me, this is greedy.

Doing this reduces the open area for rev residents to recreate close to their homes rather than encroaching into near nearby wildlife habitat.

Mr.

Chair Time.

Thank you for your testimony.

Who is next?

I just want to I just want to say something real quickly.

Um Jill, um, you are correct.

The growth isn't funding growth and stopping growth would be somewhat detrimental to the city because the impact fees that we rely on coming in to help people certain things like police would no longer be coming in if we stopped growth.

So I strongly recommend that you guys speak with your legislators about House Bill 389 and get some reform so growth can start funding growth again, because we are down 5.8 million dollars in our base because of that, and it is detrimental, and you are correct.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, our next speaker is Cheryl Higley.

And uh if we can see where our comments towards council discussion time, um that'd be great.

Sorry.

Good evening, President Reynolds and Council.

Please pull out the maps that I provided while I say my name and address.

I'm Cheryl Higley at 12441 South Abbott Valley Way here in NAPA.

Well, I appreciate the fact that this proposal is significantly better than the previous one that this developer presented last year, and I had hoped to be supportive of it.

I find that I cannot be because I have a grievance against them.

At the neighborhood meeting, I reviewed map number one, which is the first map that I gave you, which showed what they were proposing, and I suggested that they eliminate the road shown in red, shift the houses that are to the left of the green space and open it up so that there would be a nice large area for kids to play.

Since I grew up in a mobile home park and we had to play in the streets, having safe place to play is a concern that I know some of you share, such as Councilwoman Jancula has mentioned it before.

When Marcel, the developer's representative, who we met with several times, he was very gracious in doing that.

When he called me at a later date to arrange another neighborhood meeting, I was glad to hear that they had incorporated my suggestion into their new design until I saw the map number two, and realized that they had filled the space that I had opened up with three houses.

I expressed my disapproval on the spot that this was totally contrary to my intention.

And it's contrary to the whole purpose of the neighborhood meetings, which are supposed to be for the developers to listen to the neighbors and mitigate concerns so that the development will be more agreeable to them, not less so.

So please, if any of you make a motion to approve, please make a condition that the three houses be removed.

I ask you to do that.

On a separate note, due to the 2017 study that has come to light recently, which indicated that the ratio for cost of services over the tax revenue for residential property, it's what the ratio is 1.49.

This is quantified.

The growth is not paying for itself, and an updated study is desperately needed before we continue to approve more growth, especially those that are not in film.

In addition, there will be, as Jill mentioned, a public hearing on October 16th before the Board of County Commissioners, where they will review and determine whether or not to re-establish the areas of impact.

And this proposed development is within the boundaries of the area of impact.

We do not yet know what the outcome will be.

Due to these issues, the timing for this application is bad, and I would ask that you deny it.

Thank you so much for your consideration.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, our next speaker is Carol Gammel.

Good evening.

I'm Carol Gammel, 12606 Memory Lane here in NAMPA.

My residence is approximately right over here.

We have already turned Nampa into we every week we see more and more crime, and we just keep adding more people and adding more people.

And if you've driven down Iowa, it's a pretty narrow road.

It's already filled with traffic because people are commuting now from Caldwell into Nampa, that side of Nampa.

It's packed with traffic.

I just think adding more right now is we got to fix our roads before we add more homes in and more people traveling.

And we're already on where I live, already seeing less of the wildlife because we're just adding more and more people.

Carriage Hill was enough.

We're already up against almost the lake.

When is enough enough?

It's just getting out of hand.

Um I um you said there's not gonna be, they said they're made some they uh are don't find a reason to have any turn lanes.

I I don't know how that's gonna work with that many houses in there off of Iowa, especially.

It's such a narrow road.

I wish you would look at that, consider some of that.

This timing isn't great.

Um we watched what happened with Carriage Hill West, where that developer was not honest, and look what happened to a couple of those residents that lived on Iowa.

Their trees were killed, their house, their paint on their homes were destroyed because that development just got in there and wham for three or four years it took them, and the the paint was destroyed on their homes.

No one cares about that now, and it's kind of sad.

Those people have lived there a long time.

I've lived there a long time, 40 years.

I just need to see it just destroyed.

My husband's already to the point where he's done.

We're gonna move.

And I did not want to get emotional.

I also watched my friends on Squart's corner.

They put a subdivision next to them, and of course, their last name is Swartz.

And all of a sudden, the developer said, I know we made agreement and we signed it, but we just can't do part of it after they already have the subdivision in.

So is that gonna happen to us?

Is that buffer gonna go away?

Are we really gonna get 150 feet?

Is that gonna happen?

Are those three houses going to be stuck in there?

I I don't know when I just wish we could get some honesty from them, and it's really gonna happen the way that they say.

This is better than what they oppose they um wanted to do last time, but I'm I'm begging you to look at all of the other when did they do that?

The impact on the Mr.

Chair time.

Anyway, so that's enough.

Please think about it.

Thank you for your comments.

Mr.

Chair, we do not have anyone else that would like to speak on this.

Okay, all right.

Uh that uh just back to our applicant for uh rebuttal and some closing remarks.

Oh anyone else would like to speak before we get there.

I'm sorry, your time is done.

Thank you.

Uh Mayor and members of the city council, thank you for the opportunity to stand before you today.

Would you please state your name and address?

Thank you.

Susan Weaver, uh, my address is 3653 South Pemmet Avenue in Boise, Idaho.

Um my name again is Susan Weaver, and I'm here tonight on behalf of Karen and Bob, the owners of the property who respectfully requesting your recommendation for approval of the lakeside neighborhood.

My client's family has owned and farmed this land for many years.

In fact, they still live in the home and plan to stay there indefinitely.

If you notice on the map, the corner in the southeast corner.

I don't know, down here.

That's Anderson's home.

They live there, have always lived there, and continue will plan and continue to live there.

So I'm a farm girl right here in Idaho, and I have a good understanding of the importance of water accessibility and access to the property.

With the surrounding area now developed into residential subdivisions for the most part, it's become increasingly difficult and costly to continue agricultural operations.

But the owners and the developer could not get any farmer to farm the property for the last couple of years.

The property was once adjacent to open farmland, and the land next to the property is now developed with residential subdivisions.

This growth has brought limited access to the property, the traffic from adjacent subdivisions, making it difficult for the owners to lease the land for farming.

You couldn't get a 4850 anywhere near that property.

We no longer have adequate access with modern farm equipment in any way to get to the property, and the property relies solely on well water with no surface water rights.

So rising irrigation and power costs have made farming unsustainable.

Given the growth around us, we believe the best and most responsible next step is to transition the property to residential use.

This would number one align with the cases of the chance and development.

Number two, eliminate the operational challenges caused by surrounding growth.

And number three, help meet NAPA's growth, growing demand for housing.

We were here approximately a year ago, you probably remember me.

I was here last year with the same developer at the same time, and it didn't pass.

The developer has done all of these items in order to satisfy what they thought that they would like, the city council would like to see in this in this project.

The owner's family have been proud to contribute to Napa's agricultural heritage and now hope to support the city's future growth with a thoughtful, well-intended residential community.

Mr.

Chair Time.

Thank you for your comment.

Anybody else who would want to testify?

Okay, seeing that we'll move to the applicant rebuttal and closing remarks.

You'll have five minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

I'll be brief, um, but happy to answer any questions that come up.

But um, I just a couple of kind of general 30,000 foot points.

Um, there are some times when you kind of try to look at what the open space percentage is or what that density amount is, and you try to calculate it and you get as close as you can and do what you can.

That's not this application.

Um, this application has gone way above and beyond in ways that like I say, I haven't really seen in the the 20 years that I've done this.

Um there is 25% open space, 150-foot buffer.

These are pretty remarkable things.

And they speak to uh try of a mindfulness of the location, you know, a mindfulness of the fact that we've got medium density on one side, we've got county neighbors on the other side.

How do we do a project that fits?

Um we have not been rubber stamped, right?

This is we've we were here about 18 months ago for with a and got a denial, and we listened very carefully to this council and try to come up with something that we thought would address all of the concerns that had had been had been raised.

So let me throw a couple of uh items here and here is a um before I stand for questions.

One, I I did want to thank Cheryl.

Thank you for your input.

Um we did uh appreciate the time chatting with her.

Um her suggestions made the project better.

I'm I'm clear on that.

That allowed us to consolidate that linear open space that you can see on the map.

Um that resulted in a net of two additional lots.

Uh but I also want to keep have everyone keep in mind that this is a project with 25% open space and a 150-foot buffer and a significant pathway system and a taut lot and uh in a dog park and sport courts.

So if there is a project that has the amenities that are needed to keep people keep the kids from playing in the streets, this is it.

Um then the one last thing that I'd say uh council member Bills, the the lot that you'd referenced, and I went and looked it up because I couldn't read the mapp either is lot one of block five, and again, we've done everything we can to make this more leadable to listen to everybody to do these huge open spaces.

We're proud of that linear park.

Um but I would the my my client's direction is that if the can if the council would like to see us lose that lot and consolidate that into the linear open space that we're willing to do that.

So with that, we're I I'm happy to answer any final questions that the council may have.

Mr.

President, Councilman Bills, so a follow-up uh thought for consideration uh in looking at the layout would be uh appreciate that you've discussed lot one and uh 15 and 16 across the street was also in the public comments.

The question there would be in my mind is whether that would be green space, possibly what appears to be your basketball courts.

Um whether you thought you could it seems like a potential building lot where the basketball court is and move the basketball court more up into the central area of the community feels a little tucked away from a safety point of view as well as feeling of access.

So those are observations for consideration, but it seems like uh you would not lose one more home site, but that would certainly amplify the green space, has been mentioned by public comment.

Also, I think it would help on whether it's a basketball court or ball courts, um more in the central part rather than feeling like it's tucked down and away from really uh accessibility is pretty minimal.

I'm I'm just one who's concerned about placing things where people are able to see understood.

I understand about Linux one.

Okay, this is gone.

I don't know how the both of those need to go over one for sure.

Okay, council member Bills just say that a little louder for the record.

So the developers willing to lose the lot one that I mentioned before.

Um willing to explore that reconfiguration to move the sport court up to the general location of 15 and 16, but we would prefer that that be also be a net loss of one lot rather than automatically losing two because we think that we could make that work with only losing the one.

Does that track?

Right, because I I'm thinking where you've currently got the sport court could become a buildable lot.

Yep, we're we're thinking the same thing.

Yeah, we're on the we're on the same page.

So from your layout, it's a total net difference of two lots.

Correct.

Right.

Yeah, so I I think for purposes of trying to get and to distill it into a motion, and I don't want to be presumptuous, I just want to say this out loud because sometimes I find that it helps to try to suggest something is that it would be the loss of lot one and then the loss of one additional lot in order to reconfigure the sport court into the more central park area.

I think I think we're on the same page.

I believe so.

I I just think that would be uh helpful to the community as it is built out, and uh further.

I just want to comment that I think uh you know the layout's been good, the public's been getting input.

You've received it, you've modified you've worked on a new plan that is good and uh transition, so you know.

I think it's I think it's positive.

I think it's why you received some uh positive at the playing zoning side, I would assume.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Any other questions from the council?

Uh I'd move it as a closed public hearing.

I'm still able to ask staff questions of the closed public.

Correct.

Yes, thank you.

No, you're fine.

Second.

All in favor?

Any roll call on that?

In favor, okay.

Um for discussion.

Council President, Council Griffin or staff.

Is the current proposed densities of this plan conducive to the Southwest area plan that was adopted by council?

Um Council Griffin, these densities match what's in the comp plan now.

Since this is not in the Southwest plan, we couldn't use those numbers.

So it is too far south, we considered one or less unit per acre or cluster that was proposed on that plan.

I know it has the charted dashed lines throughout, so obviously it falls just south because Lake Lowell's there next to Iowa.

So we're stretching comp plan boundaries from the east and from the south to be able to get the densities that we need, which is allowed in our comp plan currently to leave it with the very low density residential would knock their reforma out of line.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Daniel, question for you.

What do we have any improvements on Iowa um in the near future?

I don't know if I missed that or if we spoke to it.

Um council woman Jangula, the we do not have any current plans for um improvements on Iowa.

Um the look at one thing on my staff report.

Um Iowa is a local, and so they will be required to do improvements on um Iowa as well as on midway as part of their development.

Um, but the city does not have any plans for for that, but the the development itself would do improvements on those roadways.

Can you remind me what those are?

So Iowa being a local roadway, um the they would be doing curb gutter sidewalk along their north along the north side of Iowa as well as some pavement widening and on midway uh curved gutter sidewalk and pavement widening area midway will be wider than Iowa just because of the traffic volumes associated with those roadways.

Thank you, Daniel Doug.

It's uh my understanding that uh you have some information for us about sales tax revenue for development um I figured out um last week a way to estimate the impact of sales tax revenue on substantial new construction sites, although it applies to just about everything.

The way the state determines the revenue sharing of sales taxes is primarily based on population.

There are reconcil reconciliations that go along each and every uh quarter when they issue them and then annually they update it.

But if you had a substantial or even a small one, it still has its same impact.

Um the last quarter, the state paid us sales tax of about 25.87 cents per head count.

So that was a population based off 117,640, I believe.

And that was just over three million and thirty-six thousand dollars.

Um as our population increases, we will get more sales tax.

So if we look at a particular subdivision and we have an estimate on how many uh head the increase in headcount, when we're determining the cost of new growth, we factor in not only the um real estate or the property taxes, but now I can estimate the amount of money coming in from sales tax.

And that puts us to a point over the edge where even if we have a substantial investment in some cost over time, uh the growth will pay for the growth.

Um we can look at any we we have to take averages.

What's our average head count per acre?

Uh what's the density of the particular subdivision, what's the uh time duration for the growth, and the uh relative property taxes, but yes, we have a a concept now where I can estimate the amount of money coming in, and I factored in one particular analysis, all the police impacts growing at say six percent per year.

That's about the average cost of growth for for public safety, it's about six percent per year.

Factored in at three percent uh annual statutory increase of property taxes, and without the sales tax growth did not pay for growth.

It was nip and tuck, but when we add in the sales tax, it puts us over the top that we actually um are in a point now where we can substantiate so yes, growth will pay for growth if we factor in the sales tax.

I don't I'm not I'm not bringing in impact fees or anything like that into the equation, but I've got some data I can share in a later time where it shows exactly what that looks like.

Council President Council McGriffin?

Can you what is the sales tax average per capita?

The dollar amount.

I $25 and 87 cents per head.

In that's that's NAMPA.

Each each particular city has a slightly different number and they reconcile them over time.

Some will go up, some will go down.

If you're greater than the average, you get less.

If you're greater less than the average, you get more, but it's primarily based on population.

Okay, and for a high number is 25 or would 30 be a more reasonable high number and calculating the sales.

Probably probably about 28.

I think NAMPA was at 2750, and we were at 2587.

I don't know what was it?

Almost identical to us.

So it depends on your population how fast it's growing and how fast it's growing relative to everybody else.

Okay.

And what do we average per household number of heads in per household?

Is it 2.8 or what's our staff average?

It's about 2.6.

So $72.

But that doesn't speak to density, right?

So a de a more dense neighborhood will have more property tax, more sales tax, so less dense would have less sales tax.

So in a project similar to this, what would the head ballpark?

I know I'm putting you on the spot, but this is new information that I find very relevant.

What would the high number be per head in a density similar to the project that's proposed?

Um it's still gonna be right now that same 2587.

But if you take if you did a Google search on NAPPA and asked um or an AI search what the average population is per acre, it's somewhere between 4.8 and 5.52 in the last census survey.

So that's per acre.

But that's gonna change again with density by the location.

Okay, so follow-up just going down this line.

So let's say roughly 100 that we'd see in sales tax increase with a 2.6 percent.

That's a higher number rather than 72.8.

Previously in a workshop, you had mentioned that growth, if we wanted to maintain our levels of service, we're off about 700, I think was the number seven or eight hundred.

We were short because it's a property taxes only, and then I started thinking about how I could evaluate what the impact of sales tax would be.

That's what we just added that in.

Just I just uh had the little mini epiphany, probably should have thought of it earlier, really.

But um, since it's population based, yeah, we can estimate it.

Okay, so in estimating that, uh I hear $72, maybe a hundred per household per rooftop.

But before, not can't considering sales tax, so that's fine, we'll leave it out for a second.

You had said $700, so we're still short six hundred dollars per household if we were.

I don't know.

I the seven hundred dollars you mentioned, I really don't know where that one's come.

I don't think I've ever come up with a seven hundred dollar per household figure.

In the workshop with Rick Hogball and we had sat down and did the calculation of the numbers and I I think if we wanted to look at this more detail, we we could probably do so.

I don't know that it's probably the appropriate place to hash out the numbers here in council.

Yeah, council president I mentioned, Councilman Griffin.

We have a workshop this Thursday covering a similar topic.

That would provide staff enough time to maybe drill on some more questions.

Then all due respect, I don't know why we bring up the topic at all.

I don't know why we bring up sales sales numbers if we're not going to discuss the numbers.

So I'll leave it where it's at.

I won't say any more.

Thank you.

This is for Daniel.

Um concerned with Daniel is the close proximity of the gravel pit to this new subdivision.

So uh is there any different parameters or regulations regarding the closeness, the protection of those uh neighbors from that from that uh gravel pit.

Um Mr.

Chair Commissioner Rodriguez, Councilman Rodriguez.

Um the gravel pit is an existing use within the county.

Um and so I I'm not sure that we would I'm not sure what protections you would be looking for for them with it being an existing operation um uh that has the appropriate approvals for that use.

Um I think it would be a case of the property owners that would be purchasing there would be aware of that.

Um it would be incumbent obviously on the realtors to make sure they disclose that there's a um a gravel pit there and what those operations might look like.

Um but from the city perspective, I don't believe we have any um thing that would um uh uh speak to what you're you're asking and different prestant if he's got a different answer.

Okay, follow up then.

I'm thinking about maybe a hundred foot foot buffer with uh definitely a fence, of course.

That doesn't that doesn't solidify the the the noise and the and the dust, but maybe a set of trees along that or surrounding that to keep them from the from the neighbors uh from the subdivision and uh maybe a fence on the south side of that as well.

We can impose that as a modification, right?

Uh that would be at the will of the council.

I'm just trying to figure out what's the best work for the for the committee that's in that area.

So uh okay.

I that's up to the council.

Okay, Mr.

President.

So on that subject, uh where there's existing conditions, typically either in the covenants or sometimes even in disclosure, um those type of call-outs will be made.

Um that folks know buying that they're buying near it's not necessarily adjacent because I believe the gravel pit was required to set aside a certain distance to their property line, but I don't know that for certain far as being stated as fact.

Don't want to don't want to mislead there.

So from the standpoint of so that that's the typical is disclose that you're near something if there's a uh possible hindrance to future buyers instead of buying and then moving in and then uh issues.

Um in terms of being adjacent and whether to set aside the green space.

That would be uh item of possible discussion.

Uh later uh protection, I guess.

Well, it it may not, it just may be decreasing the amount of green space on the southwest side of the project.

Uh which was part of council's request last time was to have some buffer to those county residents and put some of the buffer space between the gravel pit and the plat.

Uh as they uh presented, there's quite a bit of buffer space between the large lots uh and the county residents for a possible little more buffer on the north side that's an option, but well, I'm concerned with those neighbors that they're that right up against it.

That's all thank you.

I want to make a comment about uh keep hearing about uh comments that Rick Hogelbaum made about growth not paying for growth.

I feel like that comment's been taken out of context based on what I know of those comments.

If we have one kind of growth that uh house, and that's all we build.

That's one thing, and that's where growth wouldn't wouldn't be paying for growth.

But we have a mix of growth of industrial, commercial, residential, different styles of residential, that's where growth pays for growth.

We have to have that tax base in NABA, and um we have to uh continue to have diversity in our uh growth.

Well, your comments remind us of the chart that I think you may have presented, but also I think when the clerk and state tax commission consultant came you got a chart that's you had a chart that spread out the various densities and what they were they were paying for, and others were not necessarily it was more like a this was not that chart it was not based on density, but was based on I think one particular project and how much revenue we could get versus the public safety costs.

Um and that was then it was augmented more later when um Steve uh honor fry on Frey and I got together at Canyon County and looked at the impact of 39 and 673 and how much we were not getting in in property taxes.

So I mean I can always refresh those and bring them back to the council and share the information, but um yeah, it's just from my side the size of what's being proposed in this revise is uh larger home sites, more likely a little more at or equal or more upscale than across the street.

So from a property tax point of view, it this project should bring uh more than others that we've okay.

Yeah, the the property tax.

If I have the the the valuation, the the total taxable value, I can figure that the estimated property tax, but I can figure based on the number of homes and an average cat head count per home, how much we're gonna get in sales tax, but I need a little bit of groundwork to get that information.

Now I uh for this deal, I I'm not looking for that detail as much as just general uh yeah, and I think that one I think uh it really comes down to um yeah, whether there's a little more of a buffer strip on the north side looking at this this plat.

Um we don't know where COP's at when they run out, you know their timing on running out of gravel and not being able to expand any further.

Um but as we uh modified, I'd like to like to make a motion.

So I would move that we approve the annexation and zoning as uh presented and with the modifications to the flat uh reducing two lots and relocating the sports court as discussed second discussion on the motion, the president councilman Griffin.

Uh I I'm I'm just trying the decipher from the comprehensive plan to the future land use map to the Southwest Area map, how this would be conducive.

I know we've heard explanations of stretching the numbers from the eastern portion.

I think midway is a significant uh roadway to be able to decipher the two land masses and decide what density can go where.

I argued this during the Southwest area map amendment timeline.

And I I feel even with the reduction of those three extra lots, which I do believe are necessary simply because of the power line, that we're still not meeting the goal and the expectation that we've worked hard to set.

So I'll be a no.

Council President Reynolds.

Um this is a legislative decision, obviously, and that means it opens the playbook up for you for reasons to evaluate it, including forepassing it.

Um this is different than our other hearings we have where you're calling balls and strikes on an application.

Um a denial here.

Um again, the playbook is open, but to a certain degree.

Um I think we've talked about some of the costs paying for itself, growth paying for growth.

Um I know we haven't tossed out the term mitigation fees, but that'll be a point of discussion for Thursday.

Make sure not to today.

Appreciate that.

Um as you make your decision here, it really opens the playbook up for an application like this, the amenities it provides, and for um finding a path forward.

It really does.

And so fit feel empowered in this type of a decision to find a path forward if you feel like there is one there.

I'm sorry, President.

I didn't know if you were coughing or something.

I've got CPR from these two if I did.

So you gave them 20 bucks a piece.

There you go.

Um, I think this is a this is a good plan initially, and I and I and I uh I am concerned though of of the land restraints, the the growth restraints with with the dead ends on the on the uh east and the and the south, which forces the traffic to back into the NAMP on the east side, which is a is a uh whirlwind approach for density in the confined area.

Also, it affects the traffic signals that there aren't any, by the way, on the on the streets and roads that are uh already full of can of congestion and traffic.

Another thing is that we always talk about growth doesn't pay for growth, growth pays for growth.

It's on you it's in the eye of the beholder.

That's worth that.

And the beholder is the taxpayers.

That's who would be holding this, and that's what we have to be concerned about.

Maybe this this project will bring in millions of dollars, but in the meantime, it'll be br it will bring in millions of dollars from our pockets for infrastructure, for uh taking care of our streets for city services.

What do we do in the meantime?

That's the critical question.

And Doug, I know you brought up something we're not supposed to talk about, but maybe that's an avenue that would re help us and relieve us of that of cost that we're having to pay all the time for the growth.

One of the thing is is the density issue that I still have here.

Um the other thing is police services.

We have had so few uh police officers we've been able to hire or employee because of taxes.

We even had to do had to accept the foregone this year.

And so I I think uh uh development is good, but the timing is just not good for us right now.

So I will be a no on this project.

Mr.

President, so I just think it's important for us as a council to recognize that uh this was turned down before we asked for uh modification and come back, and the applicant has done that through finance zoning and subsequently to here.

Um RS7 is the lowest size, and they've put in the greenscape, they've put in the lots uh that was discussed before.

Uh they're willing to make additional modifications that was brought up from public members.

Uh so from my side uh you know, this is kind of the last piece uh going to the west in this area, and it it just makes sense to uh complete um well there was another well from the standpoint of the project in terms of growth paying for growth.

Well, did it pay for itself 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago?

We don't know.

At times we thought yes, and other times uh it was questionable, and it's it's an ebb and flow.

Part of it's the change that the legislature, which is uh potentially gonna get changed uh in the future session, but is unknown.

Um but I think from the standpoint of if we're going to say no to projects coming to us that meet our ordinances because we're afraid of passing something, then we have to look at citywide a policy change.

It doesn't start and stop on the dime.

So this project uh was uh denied and they've put forth a great deal of effort.

Every project has a great deal of effort uh and financial investment.

So if we're if we're gonna start one C2Z saying no, no, no, then I think we have to be respectful to say uh we're we're not open to making more applications.

And uh is there anything that can satisfy the issue uh that we have learned about and I think finance is helping us understand it.

I think the clerk's office gave us information and the graphs that we're seeing.

But my big concern is is that if we're gonna start saying no to projects that meet our ordinance that meet our annexation, our comp then we we need to look at a broader policy that's communicated, otherwise we're really playing a cat and mouse deceptive game from my perspective, and and so I just uh not very good for you, the applicant, but it's necessary for us to have that discussion and and understanding you're you're in the middle of it.

Um but I I applaud if I was changed as that uh the applicant listened to what council said and what council didn't want and what the public's uh communicated last time and went back through the process, and uh if I could interject.

So I'll I'll stop there, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Um one other thing, President.

If I could is that the other issue is 150 foot uh buffer uh with with installing the uh trees or something that protects the neighbors.

That's the other reason that I'm gonna be denying.

Thank you.

President Councilwoman.

I agree with um, don't misgender me.

Just kidding.

Um I agree with what councilman Bills says.

I mean, if we are gonna cherry pick in that sense, then we as a council have to be bold enough to say that we are doing a moratorium, and none of um and none of us up here have said that we want to do that.

That's not a a conservative thing to do, and so we do need to appreciate the fact that at least I appreciate the fact that they have done what we've asked them to do, they've come back with a good project.

I'm very pro-diversity of housing.

I am I do not like the cookie cutter type things.

That is not what this is.

This is well developed or well thought out, and I really like the lower density on the outside, and the buffer is amazing.

The green space at 25% is far more than what we would even ask for, and the changes that they've been able to make with accommodating and moving the basketball courts up to their more centrally located.

I think that they've done a really good job at listening to us and listening to the public and bringing forth something that is gonna be an asset to the community.

Any other comments?

We have a motion and a second roll call.

Pardon me, yes, no, yes, everfield.

No, FN, no Bills, yes, Reynolds, yes, motion fails motion fails, and um we're gonna take a new motion here.

Can you take a new motion?

And just to help aid the discussion, you know a staff.

We we set the bowling analogy.

We set the lane.

You guys decide how to throw it down the lane.

So as you continue discussion here, um, yes, the playbooks open this is a legislative decision, but you've had our chief financial officer discuss the financial impact this might have.

You've had our planning and zoning director indicate his conformance with the uh comprehensive plan, the specific area plan among others, and legal and engineering here as well to address your concerns.

So if there is another path forward, this is the time to vet it out.

Um if there's concerns about buffering, flesh that out, please talk it out on the record.

If you feel that we need to open up the public record for input from the applicant, we can do that as well to see if they'd be amenable to other concessions.

Um that is an option two that you have tonight.

So don't feel like your hands are tied.

So President uh that's right.

However, the information that we received from Doug cannot be discussed tonight and cannot be part of this decision.

Uh Councilman President and Councilman Rodriguez.

Um I would respectfully disagree.

What Doug has provided is general factual information to the extent it may apply to other aspects, and that would be in executive session.

That is subject to confidentiality, but the general nature of it as to this application definitely is not.

So those those comments are appropriate and wouldn't violate anything else.

But we can't base that our information or our our or our votes because we don't have all the documents information from him to do to show that instead of just word of mouth.

Well, many comments staff respectfully uh the staff provides we do so orally.

Um it's not always supported with a you know a brief or a memo or something like that.

So you have that permission to to rely on staff's oral um guidance, including Doug's mind and other staff here tonight, so that would be appropriate.

And I understand that I'm just saying that that in order for me to make a decision based on what the new information is.

I want to see some documents before I even go there.

That's one thing I'm saying.

If I might president or when I may a comment on the sales tax impact it's up to each one of you how you apply that and interpret it.

Right.

I want more information to you, but what I've said is that with the addition of sales tax, um, and we will go over this soon in more detail.

Growth is paying for growth.

That's what I said.

So for clarification, if I could, Council President.

One second, uh Councilman.

I have Councilman Bills here on the right.

Thank you.

So I I would uh respectfully like to reopen the public hearing.

Um make that discussion, which would allow us to uh handle a couple items if that's a motion.

That would be a motion, but want to wait for the vote if there's a second.

Second uh motion and a second, maybe roll call.

All in favor?

Aye, go ahead.

So um I would also then uh encourage us if if there's questions on this that we would uh allow the applicant to speak towards any of the comments that have been discussed.

But secondly, is whether we would uh keep the public hearing open but could do a continuance and let more information come back forward uh to allow this to stay active rather than uh a hard no on the on the project.

So if that resonates with council members, that would be uh and councilman uh president Reynolds, Councilman Bills along that same vein.

Another variant of the same idea.

We could go forward where mayor is not here tonight.

We could defer this vote to a future public hearing.

Okay, we wouldn't open up public hearing or continue the public hearing per se, but defer the vote.

Um allow our mayor to listen to the entire record, have access to all the documents.

Um that's another variant.

If you would rather have a public hearing open and continued, certainly that's an option as well.

Just wanted to provide another option you have for deferring it.

Kristen, so uh we did we didn't have a motion and it passed to open the reopen the public hearing.

So um I want to make a motion that we continue this to a date certain of um and look to Rodney for that.

I'm working on it.

Give me just a minute.

And um we'll see if you can give us a date.

What's the reasoning to continue?

Of opportunity to have clarity to some of the discussion that we have been having and get the answers as well as to uh deal with the question mark of the north line and I'm the babysitter regularly over here.

Thank you.

So I think it's important for us uh rather than to just deny is to continue the public hearing, allow for the applicant staff and to regroup off the comments and then be able to uh come back and see if there is a acceptable resolution to all of council.

Okay.

If while they're gathering a date and you might have it ready, I would like to see it at least a minimum of half acre lots as the future land use land use map shows.

The southwest area map shows that would be uh a concession, or we can just wait to have a tiebreaker at a later date.

Do you have a date, Rodney?

I do.

I I've got um November 3rd as a possibility there.

Okay, uh finish my motion, uh motion to continue this until uh November 3rd second.

Question on the motion roll call Rodriguez Bills, yes, Haverfield.

Can you remind me what the date is for the um the meeting with the Canyon County Board of Commissioners?

Is that October 16th?

October 16th.

Yeah.

This would be November 3rd, so we would be after so I'll say yes.

Griffin.

No, yes, Reynolds, yes, or in favor, two opposed, motion carries.

Okay, this uh will be brought up again on November 3rd.

Thank you.

All right, moving into um unfinished business.

Um the first one is 91.

It's an action item authorized the mayor to sign resolution for city of Napa adopting a comprehensive plan text amendment incorporating by reference the capital improvement plan and associated fees submitted to the city on April 18th, 2025 as appendix D, incorporating by reference the capital improvement plan and associated fees submitted to the NAMPA Fire Protection District on February 21st, 2025 as appendix D1.

Revisions to Section 7321 for clarity on the NAPA Fire Protection District Services and the addition of section 7327 to outline the city of Napa's authority and intend to collect fire district development impact fees under the terms of an intergovernmental agreement with the district in the NAMPA 2040 comprehensive plan and providing for an effective date solution.

Second roll call.

Yes, angula, yes, Reynolds, yes, Hammerfield, yes, Griffin, yes, bills, yes, all in favor, motion carries.

I did hear that.

Item 92 is an action item.

It's requested to pass under suspension of rules.

First reading of corrected ordinance number 4864 for annexation and zoning to I.

Blake Wolf representing Myra Beltran Felix.

Anyone's at the city of Napa, Idaho, determine that certain lands commonly known as 76 North Happy Valley Road, parcel number R21631, located in the southwest, one fourth of section 19, Township 3, North Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, probably in 2.36 acres more or less.

They can take us to the limits of the city of Napa Canya County, State of Idaho.

And that said land should be annexed into the city of Napa.

And we zoned IL Light Industrial on 2.36 acres more or less.

Declaring said lands by proper legal description as described below to be a part of the city of Napa.

Determining that said annexation and zoning has a cons consent of landowners.

It is contiguous to the city limits and it is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Directing the city engineer and the planning and zoning director to add said properties to the official zoning maps of the city of Napa and to designate said properties as IL Light Industrial as set forth herein on the official zoning map and other area maps of the city, providing for conditions of approval, providing for recordation, providing for separability, provide an effective date, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof in conflict here with, and directing the city clerk to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the area to be annexed with Canyon County State of Idaho and the Idaho State Tax Commission pursuant to Idaho Code Section 63-215.

Make a motion to pass the ordinance as read under suspension of rules.

Yes.

Ingula Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Item 93.

And this is requested to pass under suspension of rules also.

First reading of ordinance for annexation and zoning to RS6.

Single family residential and potential development agreement and preliminary plat for Swainson's Hawk Arbor subdivision at zero west greenhurst road.

In order to the city of Napa, Idaho, determining certain lands commonly known as Zero West Greenhurst Road.

Parcel number R320-970130.

Locate in the southwest one fourth of section 32, Township 3 North, Range 2 West, Boise Meridian, totaling 39.42 acres more or less, like contiguous to the limits of the city of Napa, Canning County, State of Idaho, and that said land should be annexed into the city of Napa and be zoned RS6 six single family residential on 39.42 acres more or less.

Declaring said lands by proper legal description as described below to be a part of the city of Napa.

Determining that said annexation and zoning has the consent of the landowners.

It is contiguous to the city limits, and it is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Directing the city engineer and the planning and zoning director to add said properties to the official zoning maps of the city of Napa and to design said properties as RS6 single family residential set for herein on the official zoning map and other area maps of the city, providing for conditions of approval, providing for recordations, subject to the terms of that certain development agreement between the applicant and the city, providing for several ability, providing 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 and the map of the area to be annexed with Canning County State of Idaho and the Idaho State Tax Commission for certain Idaho Code Section 63-215.

Move this pass under suspension of rules.

Second roll call.

Rodriguez.

No.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Five in favor, one opposed.

Motion carries.

We stand for a motion to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 74-206.

One.

Point of order.

Um you need to identify the exact code.

So it's Idaho Code 74-2061 and then whichever subsection.

I did say that.

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

Pursuant to Idaho Code 74-2061.

And it's for item J and C.

Oh, and C of the C is not marked on my thing.

So item J and item C.

All right.

Second.

All in favor?

No.

We have to do roll call.

All right.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.