Test test.

Good morning.

How is everybody this morning?

Good.

Good morning.

I think we're ready to get started.

We have a quorum.

Dale Reynolds is online.

So as we get started this morning, this is a workshop, so we don't start it traditionally with everything like we normally do.

So we will just dig in.

But we will start with roll call and then Clay, I'll have you open us.

Okay.

Sorry, I did not have to.

We cannot hear Dale.

I'm going to mark you, yes.

Ryan.

Oh, you vic I got Victor.

Okay, so I think we have actually we have all of council here.

Um we have one, two, three online and three present.

And then so I think we're good to go.

Okay.

So Clay Long's going to kick us off and here you go.

Thank you, Mayor, Council Commissioners.

Um, just to kind of set the stage for this morning's meeting.

Um, and district future annexed the city of Niampa for fire protection in 2021, which caused uh changes to our operational practices and procedures as far as equipment and uh real property over the last several years.

Uh, we've continued to work through some final things that need to be uh finished with that transition.

Many of those are still uh at staff level discussion and trying to wrap up some of those things.

My hope is to be back to council in November with a staff update on the rest of those items as we finalize them.

But the goal uh for this morning's meeting as we've worked with fire admin uh was to have a conversation and dialogue around two specific areas.

Number one being the fire admin space.

Um as a reminder, I did present uh and provide information regarding the space that was utilized by fire admin in the current location.

Uh and for the CIP, council did approve uh an amount of money for um reimbursement based on the growth that the police department had and that space being used by police for that uh and and relocating fire admin, that bucket of funds being available to council for um their their discretion on that for the fire admin space that they're currently occupying the other item uh for this morning was regarding the uh impact to budgets that urban renewal district has uh for the tax base right now and recognizing that being a constraint, also recognizing that's gonna sunset.

Um but I know that's been um a challenge uh both fire and city for budget perspectives and so an opportunity to have that conversation and discussion this morning.

So with that, I will turn it back to you for for the discussion.

I believe if uh I know the commissioners have prepared some things and information, it sounds like Chief.

So maybe turn it over to Kirk.

Uh good morning.

You know, please excuse me, I have a little bit of a tickle.

So we have the Kleenex protecting the people next to me.

And uh I want to thank both uh council and commission for coming.

Uh it's not often we get this opportunity.

Uh mayor, after yesterday, I feel like we probably should have opened in prayer with the reminder of of that.

Um so I appreciate your words yesterday.

Um and I think just before we get started, uh just wanted to reiterate uh the the fire department will always be um a supporter and a good partner of the city.

Um we try uh very diligently to live by our vision and core values, and our vision is very similar to the cities.

Ours is excellence um safe or excellence service and strength and unity.

And so when we think about those words for us, uh they really do apply to all things, and that strength and unity isn't just within the fire department, it's with our community, it's with with our council, um, all those things.

And so we get to today, it's been a long time since the annexation occurred.

Uh time has passed, and and new members are on council, and and so I know that for us we remember things a certain way.

Council will have thoughts and and perspectives a certain way, and those might not align.

And that's okay.

We could we can have discussions and we can have disagreements, and when we leave the room, our vision and core values don't change.

We're still uh uh supporting partner and and we'll always be a partner of the city and and the divisions within it.

Um I think today we really can we we can focus in on we have just this one item that we have some disagreement in in or different perspectives in and to to kind of give some I guess some highlight or review um I guess for for the fire district or I'll speak personally, there is a little bit of emotion in it, and so that can cloud things.

Um when we annex the city, uh we had been moved from the public safety building to where we are now, and we as a city and uh as an entity of the city, and so I think internally there's this piece of me that says, well, if we would have stayed with the city, we would have a home.

And and so that feels like to me that that should should also be uh today because we're still um a partner with the city, and in fact we we have the same constituents, the ta the taxpayers that you represent are the same taxpayers that we serve and represent as well.

Um and so I think today we're just asking more uh for some clarity as to the decision uh of council uh and then really uh past that just a request to help.

Um as a taxing district, we're we are solely property tax.

We don't have the opportunity for revenue very small opportunity for revenue.

So when we're uh looking at a large sum of money, there is no revenue opportunity for us to gain those funds from.

Uh so for us without a grant, we're we're literally 98% tax property tax dependent.

And so as you guys are experiencing House Bill 389, it it just as much impacts us.

So every opportunity we can get to find um increases in our budget uh we pursue and that was one of the the reasons we wanted to talk about urban renewal district is we do know that there's a new law uh that allows for for fire districts to opt into urban renewal into the future.

Uh we did know when when we approached urban renewal this year that we are encumbered, and and so we knew we weren't going to be released.

Our our goal was to just say, hey, when these encumberments are gone, we would like we would like to be released.

And the encumberment I'm speaking of is the bond on the public safety building.

And I think in that is the little piece of emotion is we have 1.2 million dollars uh of which some belongs to the city and some belongs to us, um that is taken every year in increment, and it's paying off a building that we're we're not gonna be a part of.

And so that that feels weird, and and it and it stings a little bit because that's for a long time.

Um that amount of money would be significant for our for our organization.

And so when we talk about urban renewal, we're not we're not trying to to ask you to uh pitch fork and torch with us to get us out.

We're just asking um if there's opportunity, whether that's urban renewal purchases a piece of property for us or can assist us in finding a new administrative building.

Um that's where we're looking for help.

But we we we need some ideas as to what uh we're going to do for an administrative space, and um every dollar that comes from from our reserves is a dollar that'll come from something else, usually capital or purchase of apparatus.

And so I think that's the space we're in, is we are at a at a point where we got to figure out what to do.

I know I can only imagine because we are in the same boat.

We we don't want to talk about this anymore.

We want it, we as you want it to be done.

Uh we want to we want to move forward with uh collaboration and cooperation, and and this is the this is really uh the one sticking point that we have left that if we can complete it, then I think the rest is all smooth because everything else is already in in partnership and and in good standing.

So um so I guess with that I I I can mayor, I can either open it up to council and commission to ask questions or if or if you have an idea of where to go from here, but really it's just the one the one piece.

Yeah, thank you.

One comment I want to make is that one thing I really appreciated when we walked through this process, it had begun before I came in as mayor, and we completed the process.

And the thing I loved about it was that this isn't it isn't us against them, and so I just want to say for council, this is we are our citizens.

We all are facing the exact same challenge, and that is 389 and urban renewal.

I have to say it's hard for the city because all of our budgets have gotten tight, but um, we're all facing those same issues.

So as we go in or into our discussion, I just want to remind us it is we collectively, how do we meet the needs of our citizens?

And I just have appreciated working with Kirk through this process, and yes, it has paused for quite some time, right?

Um so we all face the same challenges, and we all also understand on the urban renewal side what that is.

Um, and we know the legislation, etc.

So uh I do have an idea of a suggestion, but I think at this point, let's open it up.

I don't I don't know how how we want to move forward.

Um councilman Bills.

Yeah, a couple of comments and and I think we're gonna need some clarification as well, Clay.

Um so when the chief is saying that we're we're down to we're down to uh a couple items we may need to turn down.

Um I I still have questions on a couple other issues.

So if we're down to one issue, and that's uh admin and urban renewal, um then I think we need to know how the other issues have been agreed upon or not, and then um as the um the sunset uh so urban renewals debt goes away in 28.

Um and so I'm not sure if you're thinking it actually doesn't hit our budgets until 32.

So it's in 32, it's when it's gonna hit our budgets, and I think the payment we've maybe there's one in 28, but I think it's a little after that.

And there are attorneys online if we need to ask her if she knows the date.

Yeah, but it hits our budget in 32.

There's the time of the actual sunset of the district, and that's why I was trying to clarify if you were talking when the debt is gone for urban renewal or when the urban renewal sunsets.

Yeah, thanks.

Uh councilman Bills.

Yeah, that was our hope is that when the debt was gone that that the fire district could be released from the urban renewal district.

Okay, that's how I was understanding, but clarification.

Yeah.

I mean, if we could be released today, that would be great.

Um, but uh understanding that the law was written that if it's uncumbered, that's not an option.

Correct.

And so our hope was is that um once that encumbrance was gone, and we knew that there's two bonds actually that we could be released from the urban renewal.

Correct.

One wraps the other.

Yep.

And so 2028's uh time frame on that.

Yeah.

Okay.

I just wanted to clarify that we were talking that date versus the 3132 date.

Yeah, and then councilman Bills.

I guess the other items um we're we're I would assume it's probably training and then station five or the other two pieces that we continue to work with the city for training.

The the 10-year uh notification we're we're good with.

Uh we believe 10 years, although when you look at replacing that type of asset, um it's it's huge.

It would be 30 to 50 million dollars to replace that facility.

Um we just know that 10 years is enough time that we can make that plan happen.

Yeah, from my side, because of the real estate lease agreement, et cetera, it would be uh good for the city to give the 10-year notice.

You can always extend an agreement, but if you don't give notice, then you don't have an end date already established, whether it's a true end date or uh have to go out, you know, a year out of time.

Sure.

Uh so that was that was my thinking on that issue was that the city should give the 10-year notice, and then it's just a matter of looking as that time goes, but it it gives uh direction to both parties.

Uh and fire admin, are we settled on that issue?

The admin space, what we're doing there.

We have it's in the works right now for contract, which would have to come back to council for approval for a lease agreement.

I think that's part of the discussion today of fire admin, and if we are if we move forward, we can bring we'll bring to council the request for distribution of the CIP from the impact funds for that amount.

At the same time, we would bring that lease agreement forward as well.

So there would be the two items.

When I say that this is the others are are still in works is would be with staff.

We have that.

We also have dispatch.

There's other items that aren't ready that I don't think there's a final from the fire, especially on dispatch of what we're prepared for.

I know they continue to have conversations.

I'll I'll let them speak to it if they want, but the hope is that when we get to in November, if we can do a staff update or bring stuff to you as a council, we're ready for it.

So it's not that these are all sign sealed delivered and done.

Um it's that those are still things that are in progress that we've gotten council's direction on uh to move forward on those pieces, but once they're finalized and ready for council approval, then we would bring them back to you.

So it seems like from my perspective to finalize everything with the district.

Uh at some point we need a workshop where everything's on top of the table.

Here's the final deal, and if there's concurrence or not, and that's we're nibbling away at it, and rather than hitting every issue and just getting it getting an agreement.

So I think this is that.

And if I could just say, so uh Kirk and I we've talked about, and I know that Clay, you've been the communication link.

We haven't given the notice, but there's the understanding that that will be given.

We need to go ahead and give that.

So um, as far as the all the items to wrap dispatch was not part of the original separation.

It's that was not part of that.

It's a somewhat of a separate issue, but it all comes together.

So really the outstanding issue, we've not given payment to fire, which was the 880,000, correct?

That has not been issued yet, and we've not begun the rent payment.

Correct.

I think so.

We've got the training facility, 10-year notice that we've discussed.

I think we're at agreement.

We recognize we're going to do that.

We need to the challenge that we've got just candidly is that um in the pausing that has happened over months and months, the building is no longer available that they had looked to move into, and there is not a building they can afford to get into.

And so that has put them in a very difficult place.

Um with the admin building.

We we continue to look.

We we are daily watching the market.

Um there had been the one building that uh was possibly within our price range.

Um right now we we're finding nothing under two million dollars that wouldn't also require um uh considerable amount of money to rehab into an office space.

Um we've looked at everything from Wahoo's appetizers to um dentist's office to uh anything that was available, and and right now really the the least expensive building is right at two million dollars, and it would um it would cost a considerable amount of money to make it usable for administrative space.

Um so we we're considering all options um whether that's new construction, whether that's um all those things are at play, and um so we are trying to be um open-minded and have vision for that.

Uh, but what we do know is is there there isn't a space in the city of Napa at $880,000 that would fit that would fit our administration.

Yeah, so can I yes?

Still a couple things, just coming on what you just said.

Um for the uh the notice given to us for train routes.

Is there uh plans for expansion for the water district in 10 years?

Well, there's there's been discussion on uh trying to have the master plan of what the city's gonna need.

The difficulty is is whether it's gonna be in 10.

Some comments have been at maybe 20 out, but from a lease point of view, uh it's better to give the 10-year notice, and then if the city doesn't have a need is to provide extension uh information as time goes on from my perspective.

Um you go down five years and then say we got a need, that 10-year mark uh turns out to be correct, and we haven't given notice, then what I no, I understand five years behind.

So I understand from that perspective.

My my feeling on this is if we do give or if there is a notice given that uh I would say that the only reason that they would be able to kick us off of that property or say remove us from that property would be for the expansion of the water district and for nothing else, right?

So my my fear, my my concern is that the city gives us notice, moves us out, and then it's given to the police or somebody other some other entity where we've put a lot of infrastructure, we've put a lot of buildings on that on that property that that fit the needs of the police or the fire department.

Um I would say that property is for the water district, right?

For future expansion, and so for the only reason we would vacate that properties for future expansion of the water district.

Well, it may be the goal right now is the water district, but in three years, five years, seven years, it may be identified uh water district activities gonna move to a different location, and that particular property is needed for another ancillary, possibly to wastewater or otherwise or roads traffic the traffic site.

So I I don't think we lock in it's for this specific use only, and the reason for the notice, the issue for the notice is 10-year notice is a substantial notice, and I believe the city needs to give that notice in order so that the parties go, okay, we have that date, and at the same time as year to year goes, the communication stays open and good between the city and the district to say we're we're out there a little ways still, but there's no hard and fast yet.

I understand your reasoning for this, but we are in this meeting because city council and some other uh leadership positions have changed over a couple times over in some cases, and we get let's say we get five years down this road, or we get further down this road, and everybody's changed over, but he's new, and then all of this information is you know somewhat lost.

And so what I'm saying is let's put some guardrails around this.

Well, the guards because the the biggest thing is when or if we do remove ourselves from that property, like Kirk said, it's gonna be 30 million, 50 million, whatever it is to build or get something similar and build to what we currently have now.

And like Mayor Mayor Clink said, she we represent the tax, you know, we are the tax people.

We are all one body.

So one way or another, it does impact our tax base.

So that's why I'm saying, you know, instead of saying let's just remove us and kick that can down the road and kick it in our court for spending more money on that.

Um I'm just saying, you know, for for our needs, I'm just saying put some guardrails around this.

Well, there's there's options that can be discussed and continue to be discussed on that issue.

It's just uh without kind of notice it's important that we're we're in that discussion.

We don't wait till year nine and then say, oh, we never gave notice.

Uh some of these other things we thought were finalized, and no, they weren't finalized.

So I'm just seeing that the two entities need to finalize all the issues and bring it to a close and continue a very strong working relationship, but then no here's the parameters, here's what's been uh agreed upon and get or done.

Councilman Griffin.

Thank you.

Uh just uh a few quick points before uh I need to hop off.

But uh number one for Doug, where does the 886,000 or whatever the exact number is come from?

What what pot of money?

I know we've talked about it multiple multiple times, but I just need definitive clarification of the fund balance and where it's coming from.

Councilman Griffin, I believe that is coming from impact fees, and I know it's coming from impact fees, and that balance uh I mean the funds are there, and it is coming from impact fees.

Thank you.

I would also uh echo David Bill's point.

Uh I uh I can appreciate wanting guardrails, and I think the tenure is the guardrail.

The city has significant needs.

So if we have to go and purchase other property for an expansion of wastewater or a fleet building or anything else when the city has property and is able to continue using that property, I uh in my position, I think the city has given significant consideration.

The 10-year notice is significant consideration, and if it is a 20-30 million dollar um fire district bond that has to be put in place to be able to purchase and build the infrastructure and facilities for a new training center, unfortunately, it's it would be the the fire district has the bond, or the city has the bond to go purchase new property to be able to build the infrastructure for the city's needs as well.

So it it's it's uh it's a situation where I wish fortunately it hadn't been hashed out uh prior to the the separation of the two entities, and now we're having to do that uh for the city's interest, and as council member that's what I'm trying to consider, not saying that the fire district isn't also considering the city's interest, we're all here to serve the taxpayers in the terms of the city's property and real estate, uh that piece of land and from discussions that we've had is something that is part of the vision in 10 years and potentially 20, and if we're going to continue out that vision, that land is essential and necessary, or we give it to the fire district, and we'll have to end up bonding to be able to purchase and acquire additional property that do the exact same thing that we're uh anticipating we'll need in 10 or 15 years.

So uh before I hop off, I echo a lot of councilman Bill's perspective, so I feel strong in uh what where he lands is likely where I would land on a lot of these things.

So if I am not here for a final vote, just consider his comments as mine.

Thank you.

And this is just so sorry for that pressure, man, councilman.

So there will be no action taken today because this isn't agendized as an action item.

I will say the intent of that property is the wastewater treatment plant because it isn't something we can go purchase someplace else, it's because of its contiguous nature.

I understand and I hear what you're saying, Nick, and I have to say I agree with you, and I think that we can put some guardrails on it, and I would recommend in an agreement that first of all um a one-year extension is gonna be really tough because you still have to gain the money, but if in five years from now, I think that there should be a recheck on where we are, because you guys are gonna have to be setting aside money and figuring this out, and it's not gonna be a quick process.

I hear what you're saying.

Don't just don't kick us out and then say, police you have this facility.

That is not our intent, and when and I know it's not your intent, and so I understand that uh what you're saying, because you're right, when new people set in these seats, if we don't accurately reflect what we're doing in writing, the institutional knowledge goes away.

And that's one reason why we need to get this done, because I was part of these early discussions, and while I have no authority as mayor to commit the council, the council is the one that makes these decisions.

There I can speak to the intent.

And uh Kirk and I we worked really hard and there was good, there was an entire team.

The intent was one of mutuality, right?

Because we all serve the same citizens, and so as I will repeat my early comments, it's we're gonna have the same challenge coming up with dollars that we are.

And so I would encourage us as a council to actually note the reason, right?

It's for expansion purposes of our wastewater treatment plant.

And just so you know, that next building over, we're doing the same thing with it.

We did an extension on that agreement, which I think is coming to a close.

We will not extend that one, I don't anticipate, because we are needing that space coming from the other direction.

And so it is long term, it is part of the master plan for the wastewater treatment plant.

It may not happen in 10 years, but I think we need to reassess it, maybe five years down the road.

We can come back and say, you know what, I think we're another five years, so at least you know you've got five years, but or whatever it is, because at the last minute, to give an extra year doesn't help you.

It would be ex virtually impossible, right?

So you're either pushing to 10 years or not.

So I think those are discussions that we can have right the right.

Mayor Clank.

Yes.

Um Kirk, could you tell me reader's digest version?

What is it you are really looking for here?

Um an agreement on funds for the purchase of a new administrative building.

And uh we're fine with the 10-year uh agreement on training.

Um I think just as I think through it, uh if the wastewater is expanding and another piece of land was purchased, either way, the the facilities that go on any piece of land for wastewater is gonna cost uh a large amount of money.

And so uh where uh councilman Griffin is correct.

Um if if we were to be if we were needing to move from our training facility, there's no saving for a new training facility.

It it is a bond.

There is no way uh with the cost of our equipment and gear that we would be able to save 30 million dollars in 10 years.

And so it is a bond or a levy override if that was to occur.

And uh and and really that's the the cost of being in service, right?

Um so what I would guess is is if the if the lease is noticed and we're given the 10-year notice, we would start educating our community that we'll be coming for a levy override soon or a bond at this time to to construct a a new training center.

Um but really today um the urgent need, right, is if if we're gonna if we're gonna be given notice at admin, um, then within within the time frame we would want to be out of of the administrative building and into our our new home.

Uh again, every dollar that we spend out of our budget um needs to be towards our our growth.

And uh and paying a lease isn't for growth in my mind, it would we would need to be using that money to purchase a new a new building.

Well, Kirk, the eight eight hundred and eighty-six thousand is what you're looking for right now.

It could be more as time goes on, is that is that right?

Um so we we understand that the the council did approve the 880 for impact fees.

I guess um what what we're relaying is there there is nowhere in the city of Napa the $880,000 will purchase um purchase administrative space for for our admin.

And so I guess the the ask today is uh to to help us think uh creatively on on how we can do this and is there opportunity whether that's through the urban renewal district, whether that's through the school contributions, um just some thoughts as to um how we can move our administrative outside of a city uh facility and have our own.

And um, I think councilman Rodriguez, that's that's the point right where we're at, is there's some emotion behind that because we still continue to contribute to a building that we're not coming back to, and so that asset stays with the city when the urban renewal sunsets and all the assets that are being paid for, and so we're contributing significant amount of money to those, and and yet we're still having to find this facility for ourselves.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Councilman Haverfield.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Chief, appreciate you and you coming today.

Actually, I appreciate the department coming and putting out the fire uh on 12th Avenue this last weekend.

It was near our home, and uh you guys did a wonderful job.

I don't know if it was three or four alarms, but there were like four or five different uh apparatus that were there.

Um question, maybe you've already answered it.

The property um as far as the location of an admin building does not have to be within the city limits, correct?

It doesn't.

Um our goal would be to try and stay central to stay connected to to you and the community.

Sure.

But it it does not have to be.

Um so consideration.

I mean, you you mentioned maybe being creative.

Uh there are six stations now.

Is there available property to be able to expand one of those locations to add an admin, kind of like what you have as far as in fire station one?

Unfortunately, currently um all of the stations we have um that are completed don't have enough property to unless we went up, I guess.

Um we do have a piece of property that's um central uh at we own the triangle between second amity and south side, so that's a three-acre parcel.

So that is one of the considerations is do we build, do we build there?

Does uh uh was there was a at one point uh consideration of a station on uh 11th Avenue North extension.

Uh do you have property out there still?

We do, we only have an acre and an acre and a half there.

Okay.

Um so a budget, if you had something in mind uh for the admin building, how much square footage would you need?

Do you know?

Um at a minimum we would need 10,000 square feet to fit the the size of team we have right now, plus expansion then.

Yeah, so we we've uh trying to think forward, we were hoping to find 15,000 square feet.

That would be um almost a lifetime size administration building for for our organization.

Um obviously, as the mayor was speaking before we started, our our borders are touching other cities already, so we don't foresee that we're going to ever get past like 10 stations.

That would be the biggest we we could see Nampifier growing, and so an administrative of uh admin building of 15,000, I think would be uh appropriate for the largest that we would get.

So um, I mean we can talk about urban renewal later with Megan online.

It's that's good, but uh budget-wise, then it would be dependent on trying to create that much square footage on a piece of property you either have or don't have at this point uh debt service as far as uh what would you be capable of of uh handling on a yearly basis as far as on a lease to own or I mean if you were able to reach out into the development community to provide a need, provide for this need, uh, what would be your potential debt service?

So you're speaking like an annual payment on uh so obviously we we can't just like the city, we can't go into debt.

Um so we can't be leasing, yeah.

We could lease um to purchase, is that right?

Um I know uh right now we have no capacity um for for that type of thing.

Uh we have money we put into a capital uh replacement plan every year, and that's right around 500,000.

Um, and that that is for the upkeep and maintenance of the facilities we currently have.

Um so I guess with planning we we would be able to increase that slightly every year.

Um we do have about two million dollars in impact fees uh that are earmarked for the growth of our administrative building.

So when we look at buildings that are at that two million, we know we have some funds that we can do um improvements or construction with.

Um but we just know that that that has to be very specific if we're gonna use impact fees.

It has to be the so the issue is this is when we gave up the building at 11th and 2nd Idol, it used to be the Idaho Power Building, and then it became fire admin, it was 7200 square feet, and that's what's on our CIP.

And unfortunately, because it's listed on our CIP.

Uh I even looked into if we don't have an administrative building anymore and just gave you back the one at that.

Could we redo our CIP and say we don't have admin space?

So can we increase our our impact fees?

And unfortunately, you can't go backwards.

And so anything that we use impact fees has to be for above that 7200 square feet.

So when we talk about that 72 to 10, we can use impact fees for those dollars.

So if we were to purchase something that was 10,000 square feet, then a percentage of it we can use impact fees, and we have up to two million in those dollars.

Okay.

I'm just kind of filling in the blanks of my question.

So yeah, that's good for us to start with anyway.

Thank you.

Yeah, this question real quick is how do how did the 880,000?

How did that number get here?

How is that calculated?

Uh calculated based on uh square footage and value of uh lease rate point of view.

Calculated based on uh square footage and value of uh lease rate point of view.

But what part I guess where where was that calculated from because you know, like like Chief said, there is we worked on it now six months ago, so uh I can't pull all the details for you.

Okay, I we were trying to solve it six months ago, and right it's it's now lingered, so um, my question when we get up to all the issues, we can get down to the details.

That's not what today's for, it sounds like so.

Well, it kinda it kind of is because we're trying us, you know, as a council here, we're trying to figure out how that dollar amount was figured because we are tied to the public safety building, right?

Which I mean, which you've put out the dollar figure of like 1.2 on an annual basis up through 2020 or 2030, depending on how or who you you talk to.

So the question is is is how did that 880, how was that contrived and given to you know, cut that number give you know presented to us um when we're looking at a different number on an annual basis that's paying for a building that you know I guess we can occupy or we can because if we're still tied to it, can we occupy are we only allowed to go back to that space?

It's a good question.

Clay, do you have the I can I can speak to that briefly?

So we did ask uh an independent individual or organization to do a comp for us.

So what we did is we looked at the estimated valuation and we did two different points in time.

We did a 2017 evaluation, we did a 2021 evaluation.

The 2021 evaluation was at 1.254 for the property that you guys are currently in, and that's based on the total square footage of the building, and then council, I believe identified the occupied space that fire admin was currently using was the first and second floor, which was about 30 or 6200 square feet out of the total square foot for the um building, and that was the the numbers that were used as council identified an 880 value.

And what about the space that we were vacated from?

Um the vacated space was uh I think the the perception or the the reality was that the space wasn't occupied by fire admin when the um annexation took place and this and the separation took place.

So it was looking at the property that was currently being occupied at that time as well as the time today.

The valuation for what could be used in impact fees was utilizing the space that was occupied by fire at the public safety building when they moved out, using a calculation rate of what was in the CIP from 2022 for the police growth, and then having that bank of dollars being available for what the council could decide to use for um a payment to fire for admin space uh minus the enhancements that were made to that property uh for the remodel to expand the space for the increased staff repeated at that time.

So we didn't there wasn't uh account for that valuation because that wasn't the space that was being occupied at the time of the um separation from the city as well as today.

Okay.

I'm just I'm trying to wrap my arms around this because I have to talk to the taxpayers as well, right?

So the piece that I have to say that the taxpayers is that the city is collecting funds, you know, from the bond that we were tied to for the public safety building on that piece, correct?

Well, in DC.

What's that?

When you're saying the city is collecting dollars through the NDC, so there are still come to the city.

So as Kirk said earlier, just to be kind of we're in the same place you are because it's unfortunate.

It is what it is.

We can't change that.

But I understand that.

Funds are being collected one way or another in the in that sense there.

Um you're talking about urban renewal.

Urban renewal.

Urban renewal stuff.

Correct.

Yeah, and then urban renewal space facilities.

Right.

And we like I said, we're still we're still tied to that building.

You know, we can't, we're we're not allowed to get out of the urban renewal, so we're still tied to that, and there's money still being collected on behalf of fire department for the public safety building there.

Okay.

From my understanding from multiple discussions that when they did look at the square footage of that particular building or whatever that bathroom space, conference room space, things like that were not taken in consideration.

It just kind of measured the office.

I'm gonna interrupt you.

The analysis that we walked back through, Clay, you could express it, fully looked at all of those issues.

We went through uh several meetings and several walks and different approaches to value that would be typical in the marketplace.

And so the common area space, the conference room space, those type issues were taken into consideration.

And the space that you're occupying and have been occupying rent-free downtown is what we then looked at and said, okay, this is the amount of space, so therefore let's concentrate there.

So and I can provide a little additional context to that.

So when we looked at the space that uh we it wasn't so much what fire was occupying at fire admin, um what was used as far as for the CIP and what those dollars could be from the impact funds was the amount of space that police added to theirs, because that's the bucket of funds that we're talking about.

So those that space was 3,900 square feet.

So the administrative office space that was being provided was 3,900 square feet.

Um that is true that there's um general space that is also or was used by others, but it wasn't an increase to that space because they already had access to it.

Anyone in the building had access.

So now so now my understanding is that 880 is what's allowable from the impact fees from police at this point.

That's how that was calculated to us.

So the available amount after the remodel deduction was 1.089.

That's what was available from impact fees based on the expansion and growth.

The the determination and looking at what was or should be allocated for uh fire admin space and whether that be office space or or be building itself or square footage for payment, the building in total, there's 2600 square feet that's basement space that's included in the valuation of the property.

Um and that space is not occupied by fire.

So the calculation was taking the valuation that was provided to the city of that 1.2-ish million, and then looking at the 60 some hundred square feet that's currently being occupied, and using that for the basis of how you went how we would go from a 1.2 to an 880 recognizing there was a floor of space that's not being used.

So trying to compensate from a value at that time of the space that the fire admin was being used or fire was using for admin space, um, not the totality of the building because that space wasn't wasn't what was being used.

So that's how the 880 came to be.

Um it is different than what the allocation or available with the CIP is, but the CIP is based on the square footage that the police department gained, not what fire wasn't using.

That's how the CIP calculation came in.

Could I ask a quick question?

I think a comment probably in a question.

Did we give the same valuation per square foot to the basement space as the other two floors?

No, no.

Okay, good.

Okay, because it wouldn't be the same valuation.

Because it's not finished, it's yeah, yeah.

You know, so as I I said and listen, the reality is we have a problem, right?

And we're trying to find a solution to the problem.

We can spend our time going through the the little uh the all the specific details, and and I don't disagree with them.

The point is we have a problem, the fire department, we the city could use the space.

We you had space, we're asking you to move out of your space, and you can't afford to get into space because you don't have the funds to do it.

And really the question is yes, we letter the law have said, okay, it's 880.

Here we go.

But that doesn't solve the problem.

And so what you're trying to do is solve the problem.

And the question is, can the city add to the 880 to help fire get out of their problem?

Do we have a responsibility to if you look at it technically, maybe not, but do we do we what do we do with that?

The other thing is, and I'll just say urban renewal, we understand, and I know Megan's on, and I'm not sure if Robinson, I don't think.

Robinson, hi Robin, how are you?

So I think you know where I'm going on this because we've talked about this maybe.

The question is could we do like one year, like 600,000 from urban renewal to help offset the costs?

I don't know if we're allowed to do that.

I know that they technically, I'm not talking about because I believe it's about 600,000 a year goes into the urban renewal district that we'd be going to fire.

That isn't gonna change because of the legislation, and we still have a bond to pay off.

It would take 600,000 away from some other project.

If they're allowed to, is that a way that we could offset or help with where you are?

Because needless to say, the building is setting in the urban renewal district.

We were in an urban renewal district.

Now the building you're purchasing may not be.

So there are some other pieces to that.

But is there a mechanism, or can the city say, okay, we're gonna go up 200,000 and then figure it out?

Because that's council we're we we spent three meetings working on these issues five, six months ago.

Okay.

Then it then it has lingered.

And now we're here, so we got to brush out some cobwebs, and we should be able to go back to so we're bringing up new ideas to try to do something when we pretty well had things uh I thought worked out, and we were waiting on fire to respond to the and worked out.

So here we're back starting to try to find new ideas for something, and I think that's a shotgun approach rather than keeping it dialed in.

Well, we had a solution that we said where we are, and so we can stay with that with city council that no, we're not gonna change.

However, they can't get out because they don't have a place to go.

Because they there isn't something available, the market is way more and we understand.

Yeah, you don't pay anything for the space.

No, uh and technically, I guess if we go back to the annexation, there was a there was a reason that building the city if we would have been in an administrative building, it would have transferred ownership to the district at the time of annexation, just like the fire stations and um so we didn't do that on that building because it had a specific reason that the city wanted to keep it, and so we agreed to to use it until another solution was found.

And I think that's where the distance part comes from is that was where we were moved to um police grew and and we were asked to leave the building, we were with the city, um, and that was the only available space.

Um if it would have been any other building, I would have assumed that it would have just been transferred ownership and we wouldn't be having this discussion because the the district would own the facility that that we are in.

And I think and I think that's where we're at today is the the A80 out of impact fees will help us move.

It's just there is there is not a uh building that we can purchase that for 880 that would work.

Um and so I guess that is uh councilman Bill is where we're at.

Yes, if if we would have needed to make a decision four months ago, it would be the same question today as it as it was then is um we need help figuring out what to do, whether that's um you know, and I joke with with Clay, but the the Hispanic Center is an option for us.

I mean, we're a we're a NAPA NAMPA taxpayer entity, and so literally we would be transferring a facility from NAMPA taxpayers to NAPA taxpayers.

Um I've checked, I've tried to get schools, I've tried I've I've tried everything.

And so we're at a point now where it's we're either gonna build or we're gonna buy, and uh the 880 that's in impact fees will be used, and we have some impact fees ourselves.

Um our reserves are are we run at about 15 to 20 percent in reserves.

Um, and those every time we dip into those, there's it's very difficult to replenish.

We're doing it at small bits at a time, um, just because that's our that's property taxes that we don't have money coming in elsewhere.

And the only reason we were able to build it to where we're at today is because of the federal grant that we're currently operating under, and and that ends in March.

So the larger amounts we've been putting in for the last three years will stop in this next budget year.

And so we literally are at a point where we need some help figuring out what to do for the city of Napa and the NAPA Citizens Fire Administration.

Um, I guess uh I could have answered uh Councilman Rodriguez's uh question with plea if we could have what we wanted, give us the building we're in.

Um and that and then it's done because that's what would have happened at annexation.

That's not what's in the city's best interest.

We we understand that we want taxpayer in that building, and then it's you know, having the fire department down there may not be part of that downtown plan.

And uh although I will tell you it's fun to be there.

We get a show every day.

Um the police come visit us often, and it is a great place to be.

Um but I guess in the end for all of us, the moving to a fire district was the best thing that we could do for this community.

We've been able to do so much, and not and when I say we have constraints, we're healthy.

We within the current budget plans, we're good.

Um we have plans to open stations in the future.

It's just this hit would extend that plan years.

It's not just one one year, it uh a couple million dollars out of our reserves would be years of delay on opening a new station.

And so I guess that's our ask is how do we creatively um lessen this impact fiscally?

We would literally just be talking about what are we gonna do with training and can we change the lease underneath station five so that we don't have to ever worry about moving from that location?

Um and that's where we would be at today.

Um so ultimately I think that's that's where we're at, and and we we hope that the city could find other options or whether that's fiscal or facility-wise to assist, but we're we are at this point where um if we're gonna have to start paying lease payments, then we need to come to the conclusion of what what we're going to do.

So that's what I I agree with you.

We have to come to an end point.

And so um, but if we would have come here four months ago, uh we would have told you 880 is not enough.

We we got to figure out what to do.

Give us the building we're in.

That that was kind of the joke is give us the building we're in, let us move back into the second floor of the public safety building and be with our friends in blue, or uh, or please help us find enough uh funds to to move out.

Chief Carpenter with the 880 and then any reserves that you have in impact fees if they're applicable.

How short are you getting into a new building?

Right now, I would say the the least amount that we've seen to be in a a use.

Well, I I think I don't know what Randy's thinking, but we're we're almost to the point.

I think it's gonna have to be built.

We can't we've looked at churches, we've looked at um education, uh, we've looked at industry, industrial.

So the cheapest building that we could have moved into uh was the Horton building.

It would have been about 3.4 million by the time we were done with remodel.

And that's that would be moving into not building, you said.

Yeah, that building's gone now.

Excuse me, six thousand six thousand square feet in office.

At least seventy-five if they're using impact fees.

At least, right?

Yeah, so any that so we can't use our impact fees for anything less than 7500.

So that's why we're looking for 10,000, a minimum of 10,000, because it's the 2500 square feet extra.

That that's where we can use our impact fees.

If it's if the building's less than 7200, I think is it 72 or 75?

Um, we can't use our impact fees for the purchase or remodel of that.

I think you said 72.

So it's whatever you can get into at 7200 square feet impact fees will do the difference.

Above above, yeah, right.

Councilman Haverfield.

I'm amazed that you're not able to find 10,000 square feet.

Um, like in a multi-tenant building.

I know the the old Macy's building is now vacant uh and is available.

We've looked.

The old xylog building is uh available.

I know that there's been some consideration for charter school there, but um would would it be necessary for you to own long term?

Yeah, because I don't want to have the public safety building happen to us again.

I mean, I would I would prefer to own just because we don't want to have to be asked to be moved again.

I'm just wondering who to reach out on your behalf.

So we did we did you I we did look at Xylog, that's a 12 million dollar building.

Um that was an option.

We even asked the county if they'd be willing to partner for like an emergency response center.

Um so we we have uh we have been trying to do those things, uh looking at partnerships and um we're testing one now at station four where we have a a clinic out of the the end of station four where we used to where code enforcement used to be.

We now have a first responder health clinic that runs out of there uh for police and fire.

Um so that's a partnership pilot that we're looking at.

So that hopefully when we do find another facility that we can um if it's if it's in collaboration or our hope would be to own and have them as a tenant partner that could help us fund the the portion of the of the payment.

Right.

Well, even like the boys and girls club, it was set up with a police substation there in it.

So uh I think there is possibilities if again if you're willing to be creative.

Yes.

But I I echo Chief's concerns.

We're in a position on two different properties right now that we could potentially be vacated from where you know millions have been invested, and that's not in the best interest of the taxpayers.

I think you're right that this is something that it had to be owned by the by the district.

Um just just so that we don't have this issue 10-15 years down the road.

It's difficult to know where to go from here.

Um I do hope that we can go ahead.

Clay, you'll be taking the lead on this.

I'd like to get the documents done on the the lease, just those two things, those are the two right now.

We'll go ahead and do the 10 year, we'll go ahead and do the lease.

I believe that's an FAA issue.

Yeah, we've been working with the airport.

The the ultimate goal is we would look we'd love to purchase the property.

Um, and the only way you can do that through our um through our uh re uh research is you have to provide an amount of money that's equal or equivalent to the lease accrual over the lifetime of the property, and so uh just in quick math, that's about a half a million dollars.

Um so our hope was is when they're getting ready to do the the new uh construction at the airport that we would go through the process of looking at at selling the piece of land.

It's set up actually for the growth of the airport.

We we built the station with the idea that someday that airport would be large enough it would need um uh aircraft fire and rescue.

So the third bay is actually designed to drive straight into uh the airfield um when it does get there.

So we we would hope that we could solidify it that it would just never leave.

Currently, and when we were with the city, the lease didn't matter, right?

It didn't matter that within the lease it said we can remove you and you have to remove the building within 90 days, but that's what's in the lease.

And so um that's the part that is is I mean, that's a that would be uh uh horrible if that happened.

But um, so yeah, just our hope is that someday to purchase that land.

Okay, so I'm not sure how we need to solidify that because you need the protection, you don't need to spend the money right now.

Yeah, would be my guess.

You need to use that money for something else.

And yes, I think we need to have an answer and an end point to that right now.

We're pretty comfortable within the lease and the current leadership here.

It would it would be what Commissioner Chan said, as the leadership starts changing at the city, um, we would like to have it solidified so that it's just like that's that's a fire station that serves the community and the airport.

So I think what I'd like to suggest on that, if it meets the approval of the council, is that you guys work on whatever language needs to be done and present that to council.

Let's just get that done, present it to council so we can wrap that up, and then also the tier year.

Those are those are the two outstanding things that need to just be done.

So, whatever that language shift needs to be, then bring it to council so that they can consider it so that the lease is solidified, right?

Because the anticipation is you're gonna stay there, you just need to know that we're not gonna make you leave.

Yeah, and that you eventually would like to purchase it at some time.

So, whatever we'll work on that.

So the last outstanding item out of everything in the transition is just this property space.

So for today, let's just know that we're gonna and Clem and have you help work on this.

Let's get the the tenure done, let's get the other piece, the lease done, to where you are you know that you've you don't have to leave and that we've got whatever language needs to be there, we'll present it to council so that then council can approve it, and that way that can be done, and it brings us back to we have one outstanding issue, and that's really what we want to get done, is just get everything wrapped up.

But this one outstanding issue is a difficult issue, and so um I guess I'm gonna I need to defer to council and to this body as to what we do on that one.

Mayor?

Yes, Chief, just a couple more questions.

How much so if you were to build a building that was at least 7200 square feet, you said it'd be about 3.4 million.

How much did you say you had an impact fees?

We have about two million dollars that are um earmarked for new administrative space for for growth and administration, so about two million.

Two million, okay, which will cover the cost from 7200 up to what you're wanting.

Yeah, okay.

Um also that 1.5 acres, I think you said off 11th.

Did you have plans for that?

Or what do you think I do?

No.

Um we're currently trying to get the landowner to increase the size of that uh parcel.

We purchased that early 2000s.

Um, and if we look at our new uh demographics, that that location doesn't work for a station, even and so that's just an asset that if we can increase it, then that might be future use for for someone else or something else in the in the department's future.

But we're actually purchasing uh property on the north side with with highway 16, it totally changed our growth pattern.

And so what we would have thought five years ago is we were gonna be building stations in southeast.

Um now is it's very evident it has to be north, and so uh Cherry Star area and then Madison Linden Linder area or where we're looking for property.

Thank you.

When it's convenient, if you can give me the parcel number or address on that piece.

Okay, so as we work on things, it's just good to know and as we uh explore with things uh in-house as well as private sector, uh if if we know whether possible tools, yeah.

Yep, that would be good.

Um the fleet building that's underway uh at what point do you guys do the impact fee transfer?

Uh at what point do you guys do the impact fee transfer?

Yeah.

So um I know Chief Adams is here, but we we just told Doug as soon as you guys start construction, yeah.

We have almost we have nearly a half a million in impact fees for the fleet building.

So is we're whenever the project starts.

Okay.

Yep.

Mayor.

Yes.

Chief, if I have my numbers correct.

So with the three, so if we're looking at three point four million, your two million impact fees are 880.

You guys are short five hundred and twenty thousand ish.

No.

Because they can't use the two million unless it's above the 7200 square feet.

So unless they may be if if it's a 10,000 square foot building and it's three million, they could use 30 percent of that could cover the three point to three million.

Yeah, so we could only use about 900,000 of the impact fees on that size of a building.

Okay, thank you.

Um that's why we've been looking at existing that was large that we could use impact fees for remodel.

Right.

Like the cultural Hispanic Center.

Well, there's I mean in reality, though when you look at you know, existing buildings versus brand new, you know, they the existing buildings per square foot is is more affordable than trying to go out and build new just because you've got the land purchase and everything.

You guys know what it costs to build a brand new building, you're gonna be you know four hundred dollars a square foot-ish, you know, versus buying something new and then doing a remodel.

Um we've yeah, I'd say these guys uh Chief Carper Jeep Adams has exhausted a lot of different uh possibilities and look at a lot of different properties, but yeah, trying to find something with that plus part.

The hard part is you can find a building, and you guys know downtown the building doesn't you would have only got four parking spots.

Yeah, and and I think it's not a it's it's really not a fit.

No, no, no, and that's that's why we're when we talked about that building.

I know in previous sessions we said that parking lot next to it isn't valuable just because it does allow that piece.

So but looking at properties within within NAMPA or at you know within our district, it's trying to find something that has that space that would allow that, allows easy access for fire trucks to come in and out because they have to come in, uh but also centrally located so that we're not pulling if somebody has to come if if a crew has to come in from their station, we're not pulling them completely to the other side of the district and back and pull them out of their response district.

So yeah, and uh I guess uh councilman bills to give you an idea.

Um if you know where Wahoos is, uh the appetizer place over there off of um Third Avenue North and is eighth, yeah, and then industrial there.

So if you're heading out to Mother Earth Brewery, there's the old Wahoos.

Um those are the type of places with Robertson supply on sixth and fourth.

We've we've looked at that.

Um, and just the but that I mean those are starting at four million, and so um we're we're open.

The Mona Lisa or whatever it was, we're like that's in the urban renewal.

Can we could we get the Mona Lisa?

It's eight thousand square feet and and do some remodel on it.

So we're we're open, like we're we we are willing to do work and look.

Um and I guess knowing uh the council is as I do, yeah.

Do you you may have a partnership that we can we can find to that makes these things possible?

We did look at Macy's.

We actually uh a long time ago um we looked at the church that was looking to purchase Macy's.

We've uh so we're we're open.

Um we we watched as star very similarly if you know the history of star fire department, they purchased a Vitan a vitamin manufacturing building um a long time ago in in collaboration with the city.

Uh so the city actually purchased the building, the fire district remodeled, and then within two years the fire district repaid the city for the purchase of the building.

Um so and now that building itself is a revenue generation for star because they started a maintenance shop for fire engines, and that's how they get a large revenue resource from it from them.

So we're open to all thoughts.

Okay.

Mayor, yes.

I'm confused about the impact fees, Chief.

So I heard oh for the urban renewal district, I heard a 1.2 million, and then I heard a 600,000.

How much is it?

So um, yeah, and this is something I learned just a few weeks ago from Steve One of Frey.

So currently, when you look at the increment tax from the fire district, it's 1.25 million goes into the urban renewal district from the fire annually.

Um as I learned more on the if you look at the when you look at the printout at the bottom it says budget increase of 700,000.

And I'm like, well, there's only a 10% cap, so I'm trying to figure that out.

Uh it turns out anything that occurred, any growth that occurred before the date of annexation, those dollars go to the city.

So the increased budget amount for the fire department is only a portion of the 1.25.

The rest will go back to the city.

And so of the 1.25, you'll you would apply a cap.

And so there's just over a million dollars in increment that would go into budgets.

700 of that would go to the fire department, the rest goes to the city at the time of sunset.

So when urban renewal is done, a portion of the increment that's currently the fire districts is going to be the cities.

So you're paying 1.2 million annually, and then once it sunsets, you're getting 700 annually back.

Yes.

So question mark, then does the fire district have the ability to do a lease to own?

We can as long as it well, we can't be in debt.

It has to have that clause, right?

Where if we don't get funded by the least doesn't we've been involved years back with lease leasing buildings to the state, and yes, we can.

I would say we'd have to obviously meet with council or our lawyers to make sure that that is.

Oh, yeah, just because we can't get ourselves the debt.

I want to I just generally wanted to know so know how to explore options in the marketplace.

So uh yes, we we uh we did that with our uh the fire engines um right before annexation, so um and we took those leases uh from the city at the time.

So we we can do lease as long as it has the clause that makes it uh um copacetic with state statute.

Like any good one, mayor, yes, mayor.

Uh this is Megan Conrad.

I just wanted to make a technical comment about what happens to the dollars at termination of a revenue allocation area if that's helpful.

Go ahead, thank you.

Thank you.

Um so at termination of a revenue allocation area, it's just in its technical sense.

A dollar doesn't flow what used to flow to the agency, doesn't turn around and start flowing back to the taxing district.

So the reality is is that these are um budget and levy based by each taxing district, so it depends on um you know taxing district's ability to increase its budget by three percent or through annexation or through new construction.

So at termination of a revenue allocation area, and this is also an impact of House Bill 389, but 80 percent of the increment value that has accrued since 2006 is placed on the new construction rule for budget capacity increases, and then 80 percent is then multiplied by the preliminary levy rate, um, which contemplates that new value coming on the tax roll, so it really tanks the levy rate.

So it is something less than I think than what we're we're discussing here.

I just wanted to make that clarification.

That's helpful, thank you.

Thank you for thank you for that.

Yeah, I appreciate that, which is candidly it's very unfortunate because our levy rate has gone down because of 389, and the urban renewal now we only take 80 percent, 20 percent we don't get to take any of us.

We need to get that corrected before it sunsets because it's it's actually devastating.

But our levy rate, thank you for explaining that, Megan.

Megan is mayor, if I can council a question real quick.

Yeah, um I I did I did believe that there was a change to the law that took urban renewal sunsets outside of the eight percent cap.

Isn't isn't that correct?

Okay, yes, thank you, Mr.

Mail, uh Adam Mayor, uh Council and Commission members.

Yes, so there is the benefit that to the extent the 80 percent that goes on the new construction rule um multiplied by the preliminary levy rate to the extent that exceeds the eight percent cap, then that is permitted.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yep, thank you.

Okay, so I feel like we're kicking something around and we're not coming to an outcome, and it's I don't know that we can today, but we need to.

So I guess I'd like to ask.

I know with the fire district, you guys would like an answer, and we need to bring this to resolution.

Council, how do we how would you like to proceed?

I think uh we still need to workshop some of the issues and our two or three team members uh on council that was working on this and continue to explore uh the options and see the math.

Okay.

Uh I don't think we're ready to agenda, you know, put something on the agenda for a vote right away, at least from my perspective.

Um I think there's a need to have a little bit of time to uh go into the marketplace and see if we can find some solutions.

I have a question.

Is the Mona Lisa at all an option?

Because sometimes it has to, it's been on the market a bit, but um also buildings move is it would take some option.

It would take some work.

Um it would take some work.

Uh if you look at the front of it, it kind of looks like a fire station.

So the parking lot.

The parking is okay um for for right now.

Um to be honest, looking far into the future, none of us will be around, but I could see it working for an admin right now, and then probably move to more of like a fire museum into the future someday.

Uh it's it is one of the oldest buildings in in the city.

Um so uh we talked about it yesterday, and if that's our option, and that's where our home is, it's central.

Um, and it would be for a while until uh I'm gonna guess until the city continues to grow and you start seeing as Randy said, but there's only there will be a point where we have to build up rather than out, and uh that would be a corner that would be pretty valuable someday as well.

So uh we wouldn't really have a concern of being able to get rid of it into the future if we needed to.

Okay.

Okay.

So yeah, and and uh again, council, we appreciate it.

We we would love the opportunity to workshop and and come up with solutions.

Um your next meeting is uh going into, we would hope that you consider that there's value that we took negotiating with the firefighters away from you.

Um so maybe that's worth some some monetary value to you.

But uh ending on a light note, uh, we do want to say thank you.

Um we we can we will and always will be continued good partners with the city.

We we uh we like being um collaborative, we love to look at things through different lenses and whether that's how we're responding to the community and how we can do better, uh that's our charge.

Um and and so we'll be good partners.

We just hope that we can come to a solution and then as you want move on to do better and more things.

So we have three uh things to do.

One uh what's the two items that we just discussed, and Kelly, we're gonna have you guys work together.

Let's come back to the council with a proposal so that we can start getting that language done, and then we'll reconvene the working group that had convened some time ago.

We haven't met for a long time, which was a couple council members.

So Clay, let's I've got to go back and see.

I know David, you were on there.

Natalie, were you on there?

I don't remember.

It was Victor.

Uh Mayor Mayor Kling, I was on there.

Okay.

So we'll look at reconvening a team and uh maybe have some discussions around that, but let's move as quickly as possible.

I would encourage us to take a serious look at that building, and if there's something if if you're interested, if it's not interested, don't but it's just a thought.

Um yeah.

So Mayor Glenn?

Uh yes, I was just gonna tell you that I'll be available.

I was on that initial committee, so I'll be available whenever.

Thank you.

And Councilman Haverfield.

Uh Megan, while we got you online, uh can you check into the uh restrictions as far as use of urban renewal dollars uh for potentially uh involvement on that building?

It's on 11th Avenue North, just on the other side of the track, so it falls within the urban renewal area that's defined.

Can you check and see what we can do from uh from an urban renewal standpoint?

Yes, thank you, Mayor, uh commissioners, council members.

Just just a quick high level peek into what that looks like, but due to the continued revisions to the urban renewal statutes, one of those resulted in Idaho Code Section 50-2905 A.

And basically what that says is TIFF combined with other public dollars cannot exceed 51% of the total project cost without triggering a vote, requiring 60% voter approval, and that would be a citywide vote.

And then the project is for construction of a municipal building.

There are exceptions.

One is that uh if the remodel is less than a million dollars, which that's a really low threshold.

Um so if the remodel is anticipated to be above a million dollars, the agency cannot participate in that without triggering the vote requirements.

There are uh, you know, and I'll also to participate, it would have to be within the boundaries of a revenue allocation area, and there is an exception for below ground type infrastructure.

So you know, to the extent there's water sewer power type needs or um improvements to perhaps the parking lot or side sidewalks adjacent.

That's kind of the space that that we're really limited to here.

So a question then follow-up question.

Uh is it permissible for the urban renewal district to purchase the property and or building and do a lease with the fire district, and within that lease, uh the fire district would do the tenant improvements at the time of sun studying the urban renewal, the building would transfer.

That would require uh I'm I'm not prepared to answer that as sitting here.

Um certainly if we're talking about yeah, if 502905A, I think the question is is the property part of the um you know construction or or remodel of this type of administrative building.

Um we can I think look at that, but remember the district does sunset um and it that date is fast approaching uh when it comes down to it.

So but happy to look into that.

Thank you.

Please do there's an option in in that idea, and we just need to walk through it, structure it, and then see if it meets uh the code.

Thank you, Councilman Bills, for that suggestion.

Okay, so I think we have our marching orders.

Um Clay, do you feel like they're clear?

Yes.

Okay, so with that, we've got some work to do.

Um, is there anything else that we needed to discuss while we were together today?

Yes, Mayor.

I'd just like to echo everything that you and Chief Carpenter have said.

Like we as this board have sat and tried to find what is best for the citizens of NAMPA, and it's unfortunate that the building that we're in was needed by the city because we wouldn't be having this discussion from five years ago, and we could have just taken care of it.

And so again, that's what we're trying to do is just figure out how can we best serve the citizens of NAMP that we've been elected to serve it, and we continue the the service that the fire district is is provided and the increase in service that we we've been able to provide since we separated, and so that is we go through all that thing.

That's all this that's what I keep coming back to.

It's just like what can we best do and what's in the best interest for this is all thank you for that comment.

You're absolutely right.

Thank you all to us trustees or commissioners.

Thank you for your willingness to run to be there to really to work through this process with the new fire district.

That's it been a heavy lift, Cleo.

You've been at it for a bit.

Just a bit.

I want to say thank you.

Thank you so much for one and staying with it.

Um, because it's important.

I think the greatest concern in Kirk and I have talked about it a lot, is is when the institutional knowledge is gone, and that's where the documents come in.

We have to make sure that we're what we have written down actually memorializes what the intent was and where we're going.

And so I appreciate the uh this group's willingness to collaborate together because it is us, it's our citizens, it's we, and uh, this has not been an easy process.

This is the end of it, and we do need to wrap it up and get it done and do it well really for our citizens because that's who we're here to serve.

And so thank you for your comments, Paul.

Appreciate it.

Okay, if there isn't yes, like I think it might just be worth adding.

I know we've had a lot of conversation on the urban renewal district, recognizing the good things that have come from that, that it's not just you know, everyone against that entity, if you will.

Um, I know we've got the team here that to work with that, but um, there's a lot of good that has come, and I know there's some struggles and challenges because of it, um, but very appreciative for the impact it has made on the community and and what it has brought to to that that area.

So I just think it's worth adding that.

Thank you.

So with that, I think that we've concluded this portion of our meeting, and we are going to be adjourning into executive session.

So why don't we go ahead?

I would stand for a motion to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 742061j, and this is to consider labor contract matters authorized under section 74206A 1A and B Idaho Code.

Actually, J2, yes.

So moved.

Second, it's been moved and seconded.

Roll call.

Roderick.

Rodriguez, I think yeah, yes.

Okay.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Bills?

Yes.

Angula?

Yes.

Reynolds.

Haverfeld?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.