All right, right.

Test test.

Good evening.

Good evening.

How is everyone tonight?

Good.

Thank you for joining us at the City Council meeting this evening.

I think we're ready to get started.

So um, you know what?

We have a wonderful tradition that we do, and that is we open our council meetings in prayer.

And uh, Pastor Johnny Moore, Eagle Christian.

Thank you so much, West Valley Campus.

I should say thank you so much for being here.

We appreciate it.

Thank you.

Before you go on, let's make sure your mic is on.

I'm not sure if it is.

Test, test.

There we go.

Okay, thank you.

Will you join me in prayer?

Lord Jesus, we praise you for who you are and your grace and mercy you offer each one of us.

I ask that you would be with the mayor and the city council tonight as they walk through easy and I'm sure very difficult things to discuss.

That your grace would abound, giving them the wisdom to deal with the opportunities and challenges that impacts the welfare of this community.

Lord, this is a huge position that each one of these people hold.

You say in your word, you require of each of us, and I think it's even heavier for those of us that are in leadership that we are to act justly to love mercy and to walk humbly with you, God.

May that be the presence of our heart, Lord.

It's even on the wall in this room.

I pray that this council will always work together to seek truth, that they would understand that each person is made in your image, and then each one would strive to be a servant leader.

God, thank you for who you are in each one of our lives, God.

God, thank you.

Your son's holy and precious name.

Amen.

Amen.

Will you join me in the pledge?

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

Indivisible for the delivery and justice for all.

Thank you.

Thank you for praying.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, roll call.

Rodriguez.

Here.

Jingula.

Bills.

Here.

Reynolds.

Hammerfield.

Here.

Griffin.

All present.

So regarding proposed amendments to the agenda, I see that items 5-4 and 5.5 have been withdrawn.

Are there any other proposed amendments?

Uh amendments to the amendment to the agenda.

Madam Mayor.

I'm sorry, there was an error on my part.

It's actually items 5-3 and 5-4.

So items 5-3 and 5-4 are being withdrawn.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

If there are no other proposed amendments to the agenda, I would stand for a motion to approve the agenda adopted agenda as stated.

So moved.

All in favor?

Any opposed.

Thank you.

And I would stand for a motion to approve the consent agenda as submitted.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

I know.

Any opposed.

Thank you.

Okay, we don't have any agency or commission reports this evening, but we do have staff communications.

And so let's start with our public works staff communications.

So who's speaking on?

Oh, there we go.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

I am able to there we go.

I'm glad.

Thank you.

Glad it worked.

Mayor, City Council.

Um, I'm here for some staff communications.

Um I want to bring uh some of the accomplishments that the water and irrigation division uh have achieved over the last year.

We just completed the uh irrigation season.

Um, so I thought I'd bring forward some of those accomplishments.

And I'm John Spencer, Director of Public Works.

Uh Director of Water Resources.

I'll get it straight.

Hey, it's just nice when it's somebody besides me.

You're good.

Okay.

So this is our team, although it's uh a little outdated.

We do have a very uh somewhat lean staff.

However, uh we appreciate that in last year we were uh allowed to post for eight new additional staff members working on water quality, water stewardship, and uh water customer service.

Um we manage two billion in infrastructure.

There's 115 wells and pump stations, those are both irrigation and domestic.

Um we're up to 1200 miles of water and irrigation pipe that are maintained.

Um this year, the 1.5 million gallon uh water tank was complete and is fully operational at this time.

Some of the FY25 projects.

This year we had 4.5 miles of replacement pipe either completed or still under contract.

I believe this is the most we've had in any given fiscal year.

A lot of this has to do with the ARPA funding that we've received, and it's finally coming to fruition and putting the pipe in the ground and getting that replaced.

So some of the the big numbers that uh we we serve every year, we delivered 3.3 billion gallons of domestic water in FY25.

So that uh based on the estimated uh capita, that was 27,000 gallons per capita in 25.

And that's in a 12-month period.

In the six-month period of the irrigation season, we deliver 9.3 billion gallons of irrigation water.

So that's equivalent to 20,000 29,000 acre feet.

Um I did a little research.

It looks like the city of Nampa city limits are about 21,000 acres, which means more than the city of NAMPA in the city limits.

There was we put down more than one, but we put a one foot of water over the entire surface of the city limits and beyond in irrigation season.

Um so that estimate is uh 76,200 gallons per capita.

So based on those estimated uh per capita numbers, we did see a reduction of 5.4 percent per capita domestic use and 2.7 percent reduction per capita in irrigation use.

Um this year, our water division we received two 2,927 customer calls.

Um those included uh 1,205 breaks and leaks, 80 water quality calls, and 1,642 service calls, which means that our staff went out to every single one of these calls during their work on top of all the the general maintenance that they're required to do.

Um within those calls, 296 are emergency breaks.

So we consider anything an emergency is it if anyone is out of domestic water.

So I did a little comparison to see where we were over the last three years.

Um primarily we're in line.

The customer calls have have slowly grown uh over the years, kind of an expect an expected uh uh thing when when you have an increase in population.

Um, breaks and leaks are they have slowly climbed, they've kind of hovered around the same numbers, um, but it's still a significant number, and a lot of that has to do with the aging infrastructure that we do have.

Uh emergent the emergency repairs also have kind of hovered around the same in FY23.

That numbers is a little lower because of how we were calculating what emergency brakes were, and so I don't have all the all the numbers in there, but it was the best number I had for comparison at this time.

So just for uh a general idea.

If a contractor comes in and has to repair one of our service lines for us, um, which they did this year, it was at a cost of six thousand one hundred and twenty-five dollars.

NAMPA staff does it for 11 uh 1,120 dollars.

When we replace water lines, and we have a contractor who comes in and place water mains and we replace service lines during that that time, that's a full replacement of service lines, meter uh meter tubs, and setters will typically get a brand new service for $2,000.

So it you can see that the value really is in getting those replacement of our older infrastructure.

So with that, um, I just want to say that our water and irrigation staff does an outstanding job every year, and once again they have um they're exceptional at what they do.

They have a lot of they do a lot of very challenging work in challenging circumstances, cold, heat, always wet.

So we're they should be applauded for the the work they do, and these accomplishments really kind of drive that home.

So thank you.

Absolutely.

Council, do you have any questions?

No, but thank you so much.

And you know what?

I believe the city of Napa is the only city that has the pressurized irrigation.

Is that correct?

I mean to this extent.

To that extent, right?

Caldwell has some and Kena has some.

Cuna has some.

Yes.

Thank you so much.

Great work.

Thank you.

We appreciate it.

Thank you.

Okay, planning and zoning.

Rodney.

Do we have anything else?

Oh, Crystal.

Tom's gonna go first.

Tom, okay.

Thank you.

So, mayor council, some of you have already heard this in also at the state of the city, but I wanted to just make sure we got in the public record and some public heard about it and acknowledge the team on this reuse award that we won at the Pacific Northwest uh reuse conference.

So this is Idaho and uh what Oregon and Washington, and so we we competed with some pretty big sewer districts and in one in our reuse project for class A one over some pretty big players in King County and over there in uh Portland area.

So it's we're pretty proud of this.

I'm gonna pass it around and you can look at it.

Oh that's going around, and I'll just talk about a couple things.

So this was definitely a team effort to get this done.

It was a 10-year effort to get to get the reuse project up and running.

It all started back with partnerships with irrigation districts, finding the funding.

And we're if you recall, we had a bond vote, and then uh we had some water rights we had to work through, and then we also had um a lot of discussions about water as the US and this connection of that.

And then the next phase of it, we did we needed to figure out how to deliver the project.

So we did the first largest in a state progressive design build, which turned out really great for us.

It saved us some uh money from some severe inflationary times.

Um, and then we also, as we're getting this up and running, we had special interest groups who were asking about this and asking not to do this projects.

We worked through all that with all of our data.

Uh, and now we're doing public education.

So I would I want to recognize and thank Jacobs as well.

They're not here today, but they were a key player in this design build.

Uh, I really appreciated the safety record.

Uh they were able to get this project done on time and in budget with no change orders.

So again, this is just I wanted just a couple quick notes to thank the team.

It was a huge team effort, and I want to thank the council too, because we wouldn't be able to do this without your support for the bond vote and the the funding, and there were some hard decisions along the way that you were very supportive of.

So I want to thank you for that.

Any questions?

No questions, but Tom, thank you.

Great, great work.

Yeah, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Crystal Craig, Director of Transportation.

I know public works has taken quite a bit of staff com.

So I will try and be brief.

Um, I do have a bit of information to go over, so if there are any additional questions, please feel free to reach out.

I'm happy to go through this and deep dive uh one-on-one at different times.

I wanted to talk to you about excuse me, an intersection that has been of concern.

I've received maybe a little bit more than 20 um citizen calls on this intersection in the last three months or so.

So I wanted to let you know that we've received an uptick in calls that I am monitoring it, and then what we're gonna do about it.

So the location right here, um, it's off of 10 lane and Carcher, it's just to the west of amalgamated sugar, just to the east of marketplace, Costco, Carcher Boulevard, that entire area right here.

Um the circle also encompasses just to the west, it's just a south south road.

Um, it's called Courtland Lane.

Um, so both of those I'm gonna talk about in conjunction today.

So this intersection in the last five years has seen 35 reported crashes, which is a fairly high number when you first look at things.

I will note that when we typically look at crashes, we exclude the current year's data.

That's because the data has not been massaged and put in place and really vetted appropriately.

So we typically don't even look at this year, but I do want to talk about this year specifically.

So of those crashes, um, the bulk of them, 16 of them have happened this year.

Um I'm gonna give you a pretty plausible why that we saw the uptick in that in just a moment.

Of those, most of them, um 25 of them were property only damages, so they're not severe crashes, um, which we would really be tracking the the type A accidents and the fatalities of the 35, 28 were angle turning, so somebody turning from 10 lane onto Carcher Boulevard.

So the crash data, like I said, one of them is at Cortland, the rest are at 10 lane.

Um, and that was those were based on the dots in that first picture that I showed you.

Um typically those 16 we would not even look at as an engineer because they have not been looked at in the first three to four months.

Once they go on to the report, they really do get moved around.

So right now I'm gonna anticipate that one is really at Cortland, but I will say some of the dots could move directly to the west to that other access point right there.

Um I said before, most of them are angle turning crashes.

Most of the crashes are happening afternoon when the highest volumes are in that area right there.

And then 24 of the angle crashes occurred between that side street and the Carcher bypass.

So the why.

This is this is the problem right here.

Um we had North Side and Cherry in conjunction with Nampa Highway District shut down between February 10th and about till the end of September.

So we saw an increased amount of traffic through this.

I'm gonna say those crash numbers are artificially bloated.

This is not something that we would typically see, and it's not something that I anticipate continuing on.

The intersection is open.

We did not detour traffic down 10 lane.

Let me be very clear about that.

The posted detours were on Midland, Franklin, and Madison.

Um, however, traffic will go wherever they want to go, shortest path possible, typically, and they don't necessarily always follow it.

So some options we could access restrict at 10 lane.

That's not a great option.

There's a lot of agricultural traffic that needs to turn left out there.

If we restricted those trucks from doing that, um, they would divert and go over onto marketplace uh in front of Costco, which we don't need any more traffic along that road.

But it's a possibility.

We could access restricted Cortland, which that would remove a conflict point.

But I showed you the data, there's one accident at Cortland, the rest is just at 10 lane.

So we could, but I don't think it's it's a good option because of that.

We could put out additional signage, which we likely will be doing, letting people know hey, there's trucks entering the highway, there's an intersection ahead to give additional signage.

Again, not always the best option because people can ignore signs.

Um what we really need to do to fix it, and what we are doing, and I'm committing to you guys right now is a roadside safety audit.

This will look at the proper way to fix the intersection, whether it needs to be a signal, access control in some way, some widening, it gives us different options.

We are currently in the process.

We just finished up this week actually.

The application for the roadside safety audit, it's due in two weeks.

Um I will say we have construction planned directly to the east of this very very soon.

So again, likely we don't like to collect data when there's construction traffic going through because it's not the typical patterns that we see.

But I wanted to bring this to your guys' attention because citizens are talking about it.

It is very important to me.

I am very responsive to the citizens.

We take the calls and we answer every single question.

Um, so we're look we're working on it, we're monitoring it, um, and we're on it, is basically what I'm here to tell you.

And with that, do you guys have any questions for me?

Crystal, thank you.

Thank you for being so succinct and straightforward, and thank you for being on it.

I have no question that you are, so thank you very much.

Yes, Councilman Bills.

So just a clarification on timing for as uh the Karcher and North Side Intersection.

What's yeah, um Mayor Councilman Bills, we are entering final design right now and starting to procure the the right-of-way.

I'm anticipating that that project will go out to bid in January and it'll start breaking ground early spring.

We are planning to leave it open though, so it will be open with one lane in each direction for the duration of the project.

Cherry lane be completed before that one starts.

That's correct.

Cherry Lane is currently completed.

We need to maybe put some artwork out there, but uh it won't require road closures.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

Yes, Councilman Haverfield.

So I had never went down 10 mile or 10 lane until um the uh roundabout was being created there.

Uh obviously eastbound, uh leaving Costco to try to get back to Carcher.

Um yeah, a long line of cars, but there was um you couldn't continue on, so you were diverted back to 10 lane.

So uh you said that's not gonna be the case anymore going forward.

Is the roundabout done?

Uh Mayor Councilman Haverfield, yes.

The roundabout opened at the end of September, so it is open and operational.

Right.

That I know that that'll relieve the stress on 10 lane itself.

That's the hope.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Rodney, now it's your turn.

Thank you.

Mayor and council.

Um, just wanted to give you a quick report on our comprehensive plan and where we're at.

I I told you I would come regularly and update you on that.

We're wrapping up the first phase of the public outreach that we've done.

So we had a significant questionnaire that we have been distributing and trying to get everybody to participate in.

That will be closing on Monday, uh, November 17th.

And as of last Wednesday, we had over 800 responses, which is which is pretty good for a questionnaire on land use, I have to say.

After uh we finalize all the public outreach, this first phase, I will be reporting back to you about the the findings of that uh public outreach, what we what we found.

Um I but just a quick view of what I've seen so far is that we've done a really good job of getting a diversity of demographics and um diversity of people throughout the community, not just in one specific area.

So I thought that was a success I should report on.

And then next thing is just a report on planning and zoning commission decisions uh at their last hearing on October 28th.

The first uh item was uh a final plat for Silver Silverland Park, that's a commercial development.

That one was approved.

Um the next one was uh final plat for Magnolia Gardens, and that was uh single family development.

That one was approved as well.

And then the last one was an extension for the final plat on Haltham Heritage.

So this is the first extension that they have requested, and that was approved for one more year.

Um then public hearings we had Prescott Creek.

This is uh off of Prescott Lane, and in between Prescott and 11th, and this was uh just north of a little ways north of Eustach.

Um this was for some townhouses and multifamily units, and they did a comp plan uh amendment for the specific area plan map, which changed it from eight to twelve dwelling units per acre to eight to fifteen in this specific area.

Um, and that was approved by planning and zoning, and that will come before you in January on January 20th for your consideration.

Uh next is uh comprehensive plan map amendment uh from medium density residential to industrial for eight industrial properties.

Um these are already multiple of many of the properties already are um uh land uses that are industrial, and so they're just basically correcting the map in this location and expanding it a little bit where some medium density was.

They are hoping to do industrial as well.

So that one was recommended for approval, and that will come before you in December on December 15th.

Uh the next one is a comprehensive plan map amendment, uh, annexation and zoning and zoning map amendment and preliminary preliminary plat for crosswoods estates.

And um, this is one that's north of Greenhurst on South Side, and it's essentially taking it from medium density to a low density development.

Um for 25 single family detached dwelling lots, and that one was recommended for approval, and that will also come before you on December 15th.

And then the final one was just a conditional use permit for a home occupation daycare for up to 12 children, and that one was approved.

That's all I have.

So, Rodney, I noticed that we had third quarter application density reports.

Did I miss that?

Um, I missed that.

Uh that was that was my fault.

Um, I'll bring it next time.

Yeah, I can.

That'd be great.

Do you got a I I just did it for planning and zoning, so I can I can absolutely um redo it.

It's in the packet, too.

That's great.

My team's great.

Thank you.

That's awesome.

Um so not too much to report here.

We we didn't have any short plats at all.

So preliminary plates um, of course, are the longer term, right?

You're setting us um an approval in place so that over the next five, six, seven years, you can have final plats come in and get approved.

So these are the preliminary plats uh throughout the city, a little closer view here.

Uh this is the northern section, so you see those in there.

Um, and some of these are I mean, Breckenwood is one of those that was just uh denied, and so that one wouldn't be on there in the future.

Um to the south, these are the ones there for preliminary plats, and Lakeview neighborhood is on the agenda for tonight.

And here's the list of uh single family units that they're providing there.

If they were all to be approved again, you have to remember that this was produced before the um Breckenwood was denied, and um again if Lakeview neighborhood uh we'll see what happens there.

So final plates um kind of the same locations we've been seeing, some to the west to the north, and to the southeast, and a little bit in the middle, right?

In these infill projects here and there, love to see those.

Um that just helps the city, and um, it's more cost beneficial to everybody.

So northern section, southern section, and here's the list of all the developments and multifamily units.

Christy, can you tell us what that seven is it 72?

72 uh multifamily units over all those uh final plats, and then there's of course 444 single family units, and that is it pre quick.

Council, do you have any questions for Rodney?

Just uh quick one, Mayor.

Rodney, it would appear looking at the preliminary plats that have been approved, uh that we're going to see a somewhat of a elongation of when final plats are gonna build out.

There's gonna be a numbers drop, is what it seems like when I was looking at charts that we're we're gonna lean out on some of our growth.

Um so do you mean because of the number the the smaller number of preliminary plats?

Correct.

Yes, uh that is exactly right.

That's uh that's something I something I noticed as well.

Um less preliminary plots than we've seen in previous years.

In fact, the total number of of uh single family uh dwellings, 684, that's pretty small compared to what we've we've seen in the past.

So, and even some of those were not even uh not even approved.

Actually, if you take Breckham would be 352 of those, not even so yeah, very very small numbers there compared to what we've seen in the past, yeah.

Only 350, roughly.

Yeah, which is a major drop.

So, in terms of the comments of you know, we got a slow growth and so forth.

Growth has slowed.

Yep.

In terms of approval side, there's still the projects pre-approved the last three to five years that are continue to get built out, but new stuff has taken a considerable step back.

That that is absolutely correct.

And if you look at this map, these are the final plates, and um, you know, these are the ones that you're gonna see, you know, they have approval to move forward with their plates.

Um so these are the ones that you might see developing, however, even some of those, as you heard me report on tonight, some of those are requesting extensions because of the market um just changes in the market.

So, yeah, I I these things ebb ebb and flow um over time, but right now we're certainly seeing less interest in developing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rodney.

Appreciate that.

I think I'm gonna do a quick change in our agenda order, and I see our team with BFW here tonight, and I was thinking I would like to go ahead and do our proclamation so that you guys don't have to sit through all of our new business.

That way you can go home if you want to.

And so I would love, so is Dawn gonna come up or is everybody gonna come up?

You'll come up.

Okay, I'm gonna I'll read this and you can stand there and then we would love for you to share with us for just a minute.

Oh no, sure, I got turned down.

But okay.

I'll go ahead and read.

So whereas the annual distribution of buddy poppies by the V Veterans of Foreign Affairs of the United States has been officially recognized and endorsed by governmental leaders since 1922.

And whereas the VFW Bubby Buddy Poppies, if I can say that right, are assembled by disabled veterans, and the proceeds of this worthy fundraising campaign are used exclusively for the benefit of disabled and veterans in need and the widows and orphans of deceased veterans.

Whereas the basic purpose of the annual distribution of buddy poppies by the veterans of foreign affairs is eloquently reflected in their desire to honor the dead by helping the living.

And whereas I urge the citizens of this community to recognize the merits of this cause and support their efforts to recognize the sacrifices of their honored dead.

Now, therefore, I Debbie Kling Mayor of the City of Napa, Idaho, do hereby proclaim the days of November 13, 14, and 15 of 2025 in the city of Napa as VFW Buddy Poppy Days.

Furthermore, I urge citizens to support the VFW and to go visit them at DMB Supply in Napa and Albertson's at 12th and Greenhurst.

Thank you so much for being there each year.

Thank you for what you do.

And thank you for coming forward.

Thank you, Mayor.

Would you like to say anything?

Uh yeah, I am the commander of the post here in NAPA.

And go ahead and grab that mic and get it right in your so people online can hear you.

Can you get it?

Perfect.

I'm the commander, Don Tobias of the post here in Napa, post 3465.

All the money that we do collect on these buddy poppies goes to people in our own area, right here in Napa for our disabled veterans, homeless veterans.

Anybody that needs help, but they're passing through.

We've given gas cards, whatever we can do to help.

So all the money that we do take in goes to them individuals.

Brian Hobbs over here, he's my junior commander.

And John down here and his wife are auxiliary people as well as secretary for the Auxerre.

And we have a regular member here is a good man, works hard for us.

And we would encourage you folks, if you'd like to donate tonight.

I'll have Brian and Rich go around and collect it if you would like.

Other than that, Mayor, we do have something for you too.

We'd like to present to you a certificate of appreciation, acknowledging the contributions made by Mayor Debbie King of Napa, Idaho, in recognition of her service as mayor from January 2018 to December 2025 in support of the veterans of foreign wars in the United States post 3465.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Come on forward.

Thank you so much.

That is so kind of you.

Okay, so here's yours.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's take a picture.

Come on up here.

Let's get a picture of all of you guys.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

That is so kind of you.

That was so sweet.

I'm going to put that in these.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you all for what you do.

Thank you for that kind gesture, and thank you so much for the work and looking out for others.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

How are you?

It's good to see you.

Thank you.

I don't remember Lou Randolph every year.

As he was just saying that Lou is usually here.

And uh we appreciated her.

Thank you so much.

So I forgot to bring my cash.

I'll see you at Albertson's.

Anybody over here?

Thank you.

Thank you.

So while they are doing that, we're gonna go ahead and move into new business 5.1 action item.

This is to authorize the allocation of 164,000 and community development block grant funding to the parks and rec department to be used for park improvements at Optimus Park Playground with the remaining 27,863 to be used for Lions Park and Hunters Park facility improvements.

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Ingula.

Bills.

Yes.

Hammerfield.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor.

Motion carries.

5.2 is an action item.

This is to authorize the mayor and the senior director of public works to sign a work package, number one amendment to the construction manager general contractor agreement with MCO KRC, joint venture LLC for the Pertham Sewer Trunk Project Extension.

This is work package one, tree line avenue to Prescott Lane in the amount not to exceed 19 million forty-seven thousand nine hundred forty-seven dollars and twenty-one cents.

So moved second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

I have a question, Mayor.

Yes.

Um it looks like in 25 we did allot 1.6 million in foregone taxes.

And approved and I thought that half of that was going to go to the police department, but it shows here that all of it's going to to that uh per nine.

What what what's up with that?

Doug, I'll let you go ahead and explain it.

So the original foregone was composed of two elements.

The capital portion of approximately 1.21.3 million and an operational portion of approximately 400,000 dollars.

The first year, both elements went to this to the um streets department belief for the urban urban renewal for the um not river for the um the sewer department.

For the project specifically in 26, we pulled back the one percent operational, and that came into the in the general gov and was used in in funding police operations.

And just for clarity, the million two that is only one-time use, and it gets retired and does not stay in the tax site.

But this here shows that it wasn't used at all then uh what the 1.6 was not used in 25, it's not gonna be used in 26.

It could have been used in 25.

John, when did we use the do you know when we used the foregone million two in the budget?

I don't know when we had that in the budget.

I believe a lot of the costs were originally budgeted in 25, but will be spent in 26.

Okay, physical work.

Right.

It's waiting on the physical work to be right, exactly.

Thank you.

Okay, we had a motion and a second.

Is there any further discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Five in favor, one opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on in new business.

5.3 and 5.4 as noted were withdrawn from the agenda, so we're going to move on to 5.5.

5.5 is an action item, and this is to make a declaration via resolution to preemptively cure alleged violations during specified executive sessions and accompanying motions and minutes declaring certain actions void and the commitment to ensure compliance.

Um how would we like to start on that?

Would you like to uh President go ahead and begin our discussion and then we'll give opportunity for any council members to make any comments?

Yes, Mayor, I'd be happy to do that.

Um item 55 is for um as stated here, preemptive action by the council.

Um the city received a courtesy letter um uh the County County prosecutor of some alleged technical violations on some minor technicalities potentially, and so in an abundance of caution, um, what's in your packet is a resolution to cure um any alleged technical violation that may or may not have occurred.

Thank you.

So I there may be council members that want to make a comment.

I think if we if there are any com I think I'd like to start and go from Victor on down and would just give people the opportunity to make any comments if they would like to.

And so Victor, we'll start with you.

Okay, thank you.

I I I think uh one of the most important is to remember is that there is the obligation to the community for transparency and truthfulness and honor toward our community.

One of the things that I have issue with on several modes on several topics, one is I think in order to uh uh apply our presentation to the community is not as much don't hold as many uh executive sessions when it and when it involves property owned by the prop by the taxpayers.

Uh I realize that's one avenue and one alternative that we need to do, but uh I think when it comes to the direction that we're gonna be going, uh it would be fruitful for us to be totally transparent on that issue.

The second thing is in order to be transparent uh is to record or document what was stated in the executive sessions and make those viable to the community as well, so that they all know what we're discussing and what direction that we will be going to.

So I think that's the beginning, Mayor.

I don't know that I should go on and on and on, but for the most part that's what it is.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mayor?

Yes, I guess in the spirit of transparency, because there was an a uh alleged violation that was brought forward in the concern.

Councilmember Rodriguez said that he was the person that went, one of the two that did so, since we don't have the complaint, can you tell us what the complaint said?

Because I'm being asked to tie my integrity to something that I have not seen.

I'd like to show you that, but we don't have it.

Um if I could get a copy of that from uh it was in my computer and it died.

So your complaint?

Uh yes, I will give you a copy of that when I locate it in here somewhere.

Could you tell us what roughly what it was?

Oh, sure.

One of the one of the complaints that I had was just that having having a directions, discussions of issues regarding the direction for the Ford Idol Center.

Some of the some of the discussions were going toward not necessarily listening to the community, but making it making a uh having several having several councilmen, Bills and Reynolds involved in the in in the the in the negotiations with CWI, prior to my knowledge.

That's not transparent.

What that was is another is a direction that they decided that that would be the best thing to do.

Unbeknownst to us and to the community.

I thought that was wrong.

I still think it's wrong.

And actually, if you want to know the truth, you probably shouldn't be able to vote on this for a conflict of interest.

To show full transparency and a better direction.

That was one.

The other one was this.

When we are, and I have, when we are in it in executive sessions, we don't make decisions.

But what we do do is make a direction of intent, intentions of direction, what we're gonna do, either a thumbs up, thumbs down, what do you think, where are we gonna go, who's in a who's in uh compliance, who's who wants to vote for yes, who who wants to make this go further.

The other thing was is when we make a direction on a plan, we sign, we forward contracts, that's decision making, and that never once was applied to the community as to what we were doing.

So in that sense, if uh I several months ago, back in June, I made a motion.

I I told the council, the thing that we need to do, according to the executive session statutes, stop making I'm not gonna call them votes.

Well, maybe they are, but directional where we intend to do.

Thumbs up, thumbs down.

What do you think?

And even at one time, I told the council and the mayor, we need to stop doing that.

We can't be making a directive intention where we're gonna go with this when all of a sudden uh we we are already planning, and you the count you, the community, thinking that you have a thinking that you have a decision in this, and fact is you never did have a decision in this.

We tried to have open meetings with the community, but according to this to the statutes, we couldn't do it because it involved 150 million dollar property.

Well, how fair is that?

That's not fair at all.

Because you own that property.

I kept asking when are you going to bring this before the before the community?

When are you going to inform the community of this direction?

Because I think it's since it's your property, you know, all the one to decide.

On one occasion, on one occasion, I asked the council, because we were going to have a public hearing on the Fort Idaho Center.

And what we did is had the executive session before the Fort Idaho Center open hearing.

How does that work?

And I told the council before we went into public hearing.

This is not transparent.

You're already deciding what we're going to say, what we're going to do by Preston Rutter, our attorney, who knows better, not shouldn't be, shouldn't be allowing us to do this.

And then we go into, and then we go into the public hearing thinking that you have a have a say so in this.

And we just had a we just had a closed session about what we were going to do.

You can call that a decision, you can call that a direction.

I don't care what you call it.

Common sensibly speaking.

And we could not be having hearings before.

Oh, sure, Preston Rutter is going to say that it was a matter of following direction and it was according to the statute, so we needed to follow this and this and this.

The bottom line is, folks, I made them, I I I came out and said, Stop.

We can't be doing this because the community thinks they have a they have a say some of this, and they don't.

So Victor, I'm gonna pause you right now.

No, and I'm not done yet.

So the other thing was that Natalie asked, well, I'm gonna give it to you, whether you want to hear it or not.

The other thing is, on one occasion, Mayor Kling.

Mayor, point of order.

If you do want to pause any council member from speaking, that is your prerogative, and council members, she does control that as the executive presiding authority.

Sure, because you don't want to hear what I have to say, Preston.

Uh point of order, Mayor.

Um Councilman Rodriguez, you had asked the question about how can we do this?

Mayor, I'd be more than happy to explain objective.

Okay, just a moment the law says on the.

No, no, just a moment.

Where you're trying to interrupt me again, and I don't think you should.

I'm telling you what's in the report.

And now you're trying to shut me up.

They're about to do that.

Yeah, I don't think it's gonna work.

Let the record reflect the point of order.

So Madam Mayor, uh, I say let him finish.

Thank you.

We'll have our turn.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

That'll be fantastic.

Thank you.

So at one time, in the executive executive session, we were figuring out which who was going to who was in favor of the Port Auto Center conveyance and who was not.

Well, the mayor decided to take a look, a direction of who is who.

Well, it ended up being three-three.

And mayor cling, you said three-three, then I'll break the tie in favor.

How right was that?

I don't think that was correct.

I will say and I've got several agreeing with me, because we do not vote in executive.

Oh, I know that, Mayor, and I told you that.

I said you can't do that.

So, look, if y'all want if y'all didn't want to hear me, should have brought it up.

But that's in the report.

That's in the statement.

So the thing is is that I also alleged that in these actions going forward, since they weren't recorded and since they weren't documented, that our attorney, Rudder, should have called out when we were in violation and said, stop.

We can't be continuing to do this.

He never once said that.

But he honestly went ahead and allowed it to happen.

Or I had to call it out and say no, you can't do this.

So that's in a nutshell, you all can say what you want to say.

I'm the one that brought it up, and I'll stand by it.

So let me have it.

Natalie, I'll I'll let Preston answer that and then I'll come back.

Okay, we also address what he was gonna say.

Yeah, mayor, I think it'd be appropriate here to uh set the record straight and just uh no in certain terms explain why we have executive sessions and what the law says and doesn't say about it.

Um executive sessions are authorized under uh Idaho statute.

Our legislature understands that the public's business is to be done in the public, however, it has authorized under certain rationale that certain matters can and need to be discussed in confidentiality.

Um there's many examples.

If you walk through the list in Idaho chapter uh two, title 74, it walks through those.

Um just for example, when we are trying to acquire an interest in real property for us on the stand to discuss purchase price, all but the negates a negotiation leverage points.

We are as a city have a steward over the funds.

The Idaho legislature has seen there's a reason for that.

We can walk down the list when there is pending litigation or foreseeable litigation for the city to flesh out here its legal strategy, the strengths and uh weaknesses of a case.

Um the list goes on.

Idle legislature has said that we are to narrowly construe the reasons we go into executive session.

Um I am very impressed with the city uh that I started here in January and how they enter into executive sessions.

Um believe it or not, there's a lot of jurisdictions that don't keep minutes, uh start and stop point like we do.

Um our good clerk does that.

So the public is aware of how long they've been in executive session.

We not only state the subsection, we read it out for the convenience and awareness of the public.

Um there is many, many instances uh where executive session can be challenged.

People do it, they believe that every ounce and every minute detail of government needs to be done in the public.

Now, the general rule is yes, that's the case, but our Idaho Supreme Court has ruled again and affirmed again that executive sessions are authorized for the benefit of the public.

And so that needs to be understood here.

And the direction that we've gone under executive session has been done so in good faith and with an informed decision.

Now, some people have disagreed about the basis and rationale of going in there or the legality of it, and rather than uh litigate that out here, um, what is proposed tonight is just cleaning up an alleged technical procedural irregularity if one even exists, and that's that's why we're here tonight.

Um and mayor and council members, including Councilman Rodriguez, um we're here to try to follow the law and be transparent, and we are doing that exactly right now.

And I'd admonish this council to keep it above the fray.

Um this is not a time for name calling, and certainly we're here to educate one another as we conduct the business in the public.

And so there may be more comments, Mayor, but those are just initial thoughts before now uh councilman Jangula proceeds with their comments.

Thank you.

Mayor, just for clarification on those points, has the city of NAMPA received by the legal method procedure, received a formal complaint other than the courtesy letter from the Canyon County prosecutor's office.

Mayor uh councilman Griffin, no, we have not.

Uh all we received is a courtesy letter.

It's not a formal complaint, it hasn't been filed.

Um it is just that it's just a preliminary observation that we received, and no formal complaint has been received.

Has there been any kind of correspondence or discussion that there's one coming down the pike?

Mayor uh councilman Griffin.

I have talked with the uh county prosecutor who was conflicted out on this, uh, Grant Loebs.

Um I visited by phone, and um he's indicated to me that the proposed cure that's here tonight before you would as a matter of law cure any alleged technical violation.

Um Grant Loeb said that.

Yes.

Okay.

It does not answer.

So is there a formal complaint coming or is there not a formal?

I understand that this would cure any possibility of a formal complaint to come.

Is there one that we should expect to receive?

Has Twin Falls I heard is going to be presiding over it, the issue.

Have we been in contact with them?

Have we had any information that they're planning to serve us a notice of uh formal findings in a complaint?

Well, as I mentioned, I had I have spoken with them, and it's been in their uh jurisdiction since uh Canning County prosecutor conflicted it out to them weeks ago.

So it's a grant from Canyon County or Twin Falls from Twin Falls.

Okay, yeah, thank you.

And whether there would be any um anything come down the pike.

I am not the one that enforces, I'm not the prosecuting attorney that investigates the case.

Um, in my conversations with them though, what is before you tonight would cure any technical violation that may or may not have occurred, and as a matter of law, um deem prior actions null and reset the reset the board.

Councilman Reynolds, yes.

Uh I just was gonna say uh if we could stay on track with councilwoman Jangula come down the line, and then uh when we're all done, we can go back and discuss a potential motion and what's involved with that.

Thank you, Councilman.

Uh thank you, Preston, for the clarification.

Yeah, I recognize that this would cure that.

However, the reason for the project is it says in our packet, it says acknowledging uh alleged violations of Idaho open meeting law, self-recognizing violations during executive sessions held on such and such date.

I have issue with that because I haven't witnessed any of my council members in violation of anything.

We've had integrity, and just because there's opinions whether or not that we have, I in good faith know that we have not, and we don't have a formal allegation.

How can we make a decision on something that we have not seen?

This just feels like it's political weaponization, in my opinion.

I feel like there's something bigger up the pipe right now that we've heard that there's possible legislation that could be coming forward, and that to me feels like it's a very slimy politics.

So I am not in favor of this for that purpose.

If somebody wants to make a formal complaint, they can come before us, make one, and then we will let legal look at that and see if there's anything that we can do moving forward from there.

But our 30 days ends on Wednesday, so that would mean that the uh prosecuting attorney for Twin Falls has to give us those reasonings, those facts finding findings on Wednesday.

We could hold a special counsel on Friday, and then we would still have enough time to make a decision and move forward that way, but it's really hard for me to make a decision when I cannot see what the actual allegation is.

And again, we are in we are a governing body that does do transparency, and I have a very, very, very difficult time with this because I will not throw my council members, Shar, who does a phenomenal job, Preston mayor under the bus because of a possible allegation.

We're chasing ghosts.

I'm not in favor of it.

Councilman Bills, do you have any comments?

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Victor, I need clarification on a couple of things.

I asked you many weeks ago.

Uh you voted in favor of the transfer of the fire apparatus and all of the fire stations to go to fire district.

You were in favor of that.

You recall the answer you gave me.

Yeah, yes.

You mind restating the answer.

Did you vote in favor of it or not in favor?

I voted in favor of it.

You told me you voted no.

Okay.

You were emphatic that you voted no.

Okay.

Tonight you you're now acknowledging that you voted yes.

The reason I bring it up is because you've made an allegation that I've negotiated with CWI.

It was your idea.

It was my idea to explore putting a second rec center on the north side of town to potentially put it on the Ford Idaho Center property.

The brainstorming discussion thereafter led to possibly if something else, maybe CWI would trade drown or do something.

That was all brainstorming discussion.

That was not executive discussion.

And so you're falsely accusing of doing something.

The other part is publicly no, no, not in this just a minute.

No negotiation, mediation with C D before you came to the council.

No, let us know.

No.

No.

It's the first time I've heard anything.

The first time I met Gordon Jones, I believe, was when we had a workshop session.

Uh and I believe that was the first time that I had met him, or possibly uh a week prior to that workshop.

But I haven't done any in I have done no real estate work.

I've done no work on behalf of the city of Nantha ahead of any of the discussions that came forward.

Everything that I've explored has been that the city of Napa could use a rec center on the north side.

Back when I was on council 12 years ago, there was discussion about one day we're gonna need a substation for the police department on the north side when the north side grows.

And then the discussion began to move towards what would happen if we could connect with CWI.

When that discussion, that brainstorm began, all council was involved in that discussion.

And you were a part of that discussion.

So to say that we've done something out ahead or otherwise is an absolute false good.

I don't appreciate being accused of doing wrong when I didn't do wrong.

I've sat in executive sessions 12 years ago to negotiate property.

You don't typically negotiate stuff in the public.

Well, if you go out there and say, here's what we're able to do, the price changes, and the negotiations never take place, which is what has happened this past year.

So when you said we took a vote, well, it's proper to have the leadership, whether it be the mayor or the council leader, ask the question, what's council's thinking on this in an executive session?

Should we pursue this 40-acre piece for parks or not?

Do we go forward and think about some other exchange or not?

And Mr.

Rodriguez, you've been a part of that discussion.

And so when there was discussion on the Fort Idaho Center that said you're calling votes, it was simply what are each of you thinking, so there's a known direction, but there was no votes, and that's not improper to take an idea of direction to so staff knows do they continue to work on it or not work on it.

And you don't negotiate real estate in the public.

And you can go to multiple jurisdictions, you can go to multiple deals and contracts, and they're often negotiated through an executive session.

That's why I believe the legislature has provided that provision.

If something was being done nefarious, I believe our legislature who keeps an eye on the city would be bringing those issues up and saying, gee, we think you guys are operating outside of the bounds of what the legislature has put together.

So I really strongly uh find that uh you're you've taken things and you've uh made assertions, but your assertions are not correct, and and I believe uh it's inappropriate on uh going out of executive session and and taking things outside uh for political purposes.

I think that's unfortunate.

That was your decision, certainly not my decision, but now we're here tonight, and we have a project that we need still need to deal with.

We need to still be able to deal with things, and uh finally I'll say why we're at this stage of the deal.

I think uh the police negotiations, you should be removed from negotiating any further with the police.

And I don't think we should uh have that uh we're gonna need to take that issue up.

Okay, we'll move on from there.

Councilman Reynolds.

I'm going to respond to each and every one of you when I'm done.

You can when we're done.

Okay.

Councilman Reynolds.

Well, I will say, I'm just gonna say one thing.

I was gonna let the council I'll just come and say uh the city of Nampa, our intent is to always act in good faith, and we intend to always follow the state statute.

There is never an intent to make a mistake.

We make the best decisions we can.

There is a reason why you go into executive session.

And I'll just be really candid.

Initially, the this began with the Ford Idaho Center being in competition with other properties in the Treasure Valley.

And it began when we're trying to decide do we renegotiate a contract?

Do we what do we do at the amphitheater when we are in competition in this market?

We're also in competition from a commerce side in a much broader area with the top national people that are bringing in concerts because we compete to get those concerts into this area.

That competition is what caused us to go into executive session.

And we thought that it was okay to be an executive session under that item.

We actually have much stronger rules guiding the city than the state does.

Because the state can actually caucus, they can go talk about things.

We're not allowed to at the city level.

And so it's even harder here at the city to figure out how do you have a discussion.

When we're talking about what to do and where this all began, it had to do with renegotiating a contract and what to do with that contract, because we were in competition, and we didn't want to publicly talk about the competition in the local market, which was very, very challenging to have a discussion that evolved into what is the role of the city as it relates to the entertainment district that we have.

But it really started with being in competition with other in the area of commerce with other entities and how to move forward.

So the intent, it's a good faith effort.

We listened to our legal council, and it wasn't at this conversation began before our current legal council was here, so it didn't begin there.

Um this is uh not quite black and white with what we were trying to figure out, and the intent was not that initially we were going to convey, but before you decide that you're gonna do anything, you got to figure out if it's even worthy of doing, and that was the process we were in.

So I will say uh councilman Rodriguez, you voted to go always in favor to go into executive session.

You never voted not to go into executive session.

Um and this did not come out until right now, which is very politically advantageous uh during election cycle, and that's extremely unfortunate because nothing was said to me directly, nothing was said to legal, nothing was said to the council president, and actually you said you alluded to it and made a couple comments, but there was never a request to come to us to say that.

It was casually commented, well, we can't vote.

Well, no, we're not voting.

We never vote in executive session, and we're very careful not to tread on that line.

Councilman Reynolds.

Thank you, Mayor.

So uh Victor, I just want to address the uh comment as Councilman Bills did about uh him and I being involved with CWI before executive sessions uh and discussion about CWI.

That's not the case at all.

We didn't have any of those discussions, these discussions were brought up internally with uh executive session with the full council.

Um so that's absolutely false.

Um we have never voted in executive session on anything.

And um we have discussion that should not leave executive session, it shouldn't even go to your spouse.

And if you leave executive session and you go home and tell your wife you've just violated executive session.

So as a as an individual that has kept national secrets for years, I know these things, and I don't talk about them with anybody, and that is not acceptable what has been done with the integrity of our council and letting these these items out the uh I'm not sure why you say we should recuse ourselves.

There's some kind of a conflict of interest.

I'm gonna let you answer that and I'll respond to it.

Um but uh there is no conflict of interest with myself or councilman Bills that I know of, unless he's uh owner of CWI.

Um never said anything about a vote in executive session or ever that she would break a tie in executive session.

Um I read a piece yesterday or day before talking about uh how councilman uh Griffin um had made up his mind before he got here, and how the mayor had a smug smile on her face and knew that he was gonna vote a certain way.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that Councilman Griffin never one time alluded to anything in any executive session about how he was gonna vote.

No clue, no clue at all.

If I had to guess how he was going to vote, I was gonna say that he was probably gonna vote no, just by the comments that I had heard come from him.

But Councilman Griffin's integrity was in check the whole entire time.

I was very proud of that for him.

And um that is exactly where the rest of the council stood as well.

And uh a question about the political motivation for this, it's really sad to me.

We've had a council that has accomplished a lot for the city of NAMPA.

We have um kept our our public safety up, we've taken care of our budgets, we've been conservative about things well, trying to manage growth, and then to be attacked for political gain, it's just unacceptable, and it's really sad when you look at the the state of um affairs for that.

Um, just because you don't agree, you don't you don't lie or spread rumors or use it for political gain.

Um I come from an era when you had conversations, even though they might be hard, you reach out and you talk to somebody.

There's been a lot of times in this council we haven't agreed on things, but at the end of the night, you know what?

I get up and shake their hand anyway, because that's the way it's supposed to be done, and that's the way politics used to be done in this state until we've seen the influx of growth and we see the influx of people that come in with dissenting opinions.

And so I would encourage everybody to take a look in the mirror.

Councilman Haverfill.

Thank you.

Um Mayor, this has been a topic when I saw it uh come forward that uh I thought was quite interesting because to preemptively cure an alleged violation or declare certain actions void.

I've tried that at home a few times.

My wife doesn't let me get away with that.

It's like no way.

Um so I did my research and basically a couple of questions.

I'll let uh Preston answer, but there were two items in the um the letter that we received from Chris Boyd.

The first was how we went into executive sessions, how that was handled, and then the second, which I thought this is a pretty big deal, because it says that the topic, in his opinion, did not fit any authorized category, likely uh further violating the open meetings act.

So when I looked into that further, um I tried to come up with well, basically what was stated was Title 74 of the open meetings law item E, which is the one that's referenced by Preston in the uh report, says to consider preliminary negotiations involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body, which would be us, is in competition with other governing bodies and other states or nations.

I don't see how that fits.

So again, I I need some clarification on that.

Uh in looking at you had already answered the question that you've talked to Grant Loebs, but not that not any nothing has been actually communicated in a form that's in written form.

Is that correct?

Well, I'll let you answer that after I'm done.

Um so basically what I looked at was again a reference that was made to Title 74-208, where it talked about the violation may be cured by a public agency.

It states that um there's nothing in there that talks about pre-preemptively curing an alleged violation.

I don't see that language at all in here.

So if you can point that out to me, that'd be great.

I just don't see it.

Um, but it does say, or what uh Mr.

Boyd had indicated is that when he talked to you, you had indicated that you had not uh sent anything in his uh own writing.

Uh no, Preston did not write a written response.

He indicated at the time NAMPA would not be willing to take any voluntary actions to cure.

That resolved my question, and I simply I accordingly simply forwarded the matter to a conflict prosecutor for further consideration.

So that's who Grant Loebs is.

So if you haven't communicated directly with him, according to that same state statute, it states that that is considered um, I've got too much paper sitting in front of me.

I've got more questions than I have answers, and because of that, it seems a little bit awkward to me that we're even having this conversation at this time.

Uh the next item is to convey the um or basically declare the Fort Idaho Center underutilized, but we haven't even addressed these allegations to the point where we're accepting, we're basically saying we're self-recognizing, but we're not taking any accountability.

So I've tried that at home.

My wife doesn't let me get away with it.

I'm not sure why the citizens of NAMPA would allow us to have that kind of a self-recognition and say that we're gonna go back and say everything that's happened didn't happen because it did, because you've already got the documentation for the underutilization to be uh set before us, so that means that didn't go away.

We didn't go back to the point of default uh to the point where everything is okay, we're not using any of that.

We're basically saying then that the town halls happened, but it was with information that shouldn't have been used.

So, anyway, all that to say, you point out to me, if you would please, uh, where it states that we can preemptively cure an allegation.

Uh, and then just one last thing as far as to I'm not trying to side with anybody one way or the other, but when I received a call from the prosecutor's office asking me if we have ever had any votes in executive session, and I said no, nothing formal, but there are straw votes all the time, head nods, whatever it might be.

We see those all the time, and that's even in talking to Rick uh Hogaboom about it, he understands that that's normal process, but uh it's not formal, so there's no formal motions in executive session, but there are quite often uh straw votes that take place.

Mayor, do you want me to address some of those questions?

Yes, and I do.

I guess I'm sitting here, it sounds like you have information that we don't have because you've had communications outside of uh with the Candy County prosecutor, it sounds like no, all I did was after we got the letter, um, and that's why I asked at our last conference or council meeting if we could have some determination for tonight.

Uh that's when I asked that question, then I followed up uh with a question to Mr.

Boyd.

Um, if I was concerned about how uh how drastic this really is.

I mean, if if we need to be stake taking a step back and really considering the position we're putting the city in, I mean, if it's a civil case, if we have mishandled something, we need to take a step back and cure it properly, and that means we take accountability, but not all um, I I found this as well.

Not all forms of misconduct, if we're it's considered that, uh, can be cured.

So if we haven't been able to determine yet what we're accepting that we did wrong, or at least saying we're we might have done something wrong, which my wife doesn't allow, um, and we're saying it can be cured, but maybe it can't be cured, and when the special prosecutor comes in and he says, you guys really screwed up.

So um, and and Preston, I'll just say a couple of months ago I asked you, and I'm not trying to load up on you, but I asked you about the potential for an abuse of discretion, uh, because that was a term that was being bantered around about us and our involvement as far as in these type of decisions without really uh informing the public property and then or properly, and then an abuse of authority that was uh launched on counsel councilwoman Jangula and Bills.

Um those things is more of a perception by the community.

When I asked you about that, you said no, that's not that bars Olympic level.

Remember that, and I said I know a guide that could probably clear that because I got his autograph.

Um all that to say, you know, I've been trying to re raise the red flag a few times just to make sure that we're doing things right, and I'm not sure that we have, or maybe we have, but we don't know that because we haven't heard back from the special prosecutor.

He might come in with even more allegations.

So that's the other concern I have.

Uh mayor councilman Haverfield, I'm just glad you were listening and remember what I said.

Thank you.

Yeah, it's good to know.

Dick Fosbery if the yeah, um a lot, maybe a lot to unpack there.

I'll do my best.

I think what this comes down to are two things process and proportionality.

So, really, what this is this has kind of been blown out of proportion.

If there is an actual technical violation, it would be just that extremely technical, minute, and procedural.

That's it.

Um, there's not a discret, there's not a case here that we exceeded our authority.

Um, you had brought up a good point about abuse of discretion.

This is a good educational point.

Abuse of discretion is the substance, not the procedure.

We're here on a procedural technical matter that arguably may not even have legs to stand on.

But nonetheless, we are here.

We received the letter rather than disregarding it, scuffing it off, we took it seriously.

That's what we do here.

We take every process seriously.

The process is very, very important.

And what we have here is a left field allegation.

In my opinion, it's extremely minor.

The cure is usually intended for pretty weighty violations of open meetings law.

It is way it is way more overweight than what the alleged violation is.

And so the smallest we can do of a cure, which by the way, um the citation for it is 74 2087a Romanet I.

That a violation may be cured by public agency upon the agency's self-recognition of a violation.

That is the definition of preemptive.

We are self-recognizing.

So that that much is not a concern to me.

Um you had mentioned about written form between uh Grant Loebs.

Um our communications have been primarily um over phone, um, some minor emails among attorneys.

Um, but this really comes down to process that there is accountability on the city.

The fact that we're here putting this out on the table, I think demonstrates immense accountability, uh, that we're willing to go to this length to ensure the process remains intact.

I think any decision, wouldn't you agree of this council, you would want to know is on solid ground moving forward.

The last thing you want to do for this council in the city is have something undone.

And so, of course, we're going to take this courtesy letter seriously, and it falls uh short of a formal complaint, but we're not going to disregard it, not on the public's time or time.

And so that's why we're here tonight.

Um, and I've had proactive communications with this prosecutor.

Um he's given me his thoughts on it.

Um, and he has indicated that this cure tonight, if we take a vote on it, um, would level set everything, allow the city to proceed forward.

So did did he say anything?

I'm sorry, Mayor, uh, as far as an inappropriate topic, which is that second item.

Did he say anything along the lines of the topic itself being considered in executive session being even legal?

He hasn't said anything in writing.

Uh our conversations just touched on it.

Um I shared my opinion of it, that I don't think there is a lot of weight to stand on there.

Um it's vague, um, it's subject to multiple interpretations.

Uh based upon that uh statute.

Yeah, subsection E.

I think the understanding is is that even if we had the discussion, which we had we discussed the Fort Idaho Center, we discussed the conveyance, we didn't make any decisions, and we went public and we've held held all these meetings.

If we had gone forward with a vote, said we're doing it without all the meetings.

I mean, it was evident even on our last council meeting, we had not agreed on any contract terms.

We we couldn't even get to a contract because we were still discussing the terms of a conveyance, even at the last council meeting.

We've had multiple public meetings, we've had a lot of discussion around this, and so nothing's been tried.

We've not tried to do anything, hide anything.

It rolled out awkwardly, just because a lack of, I mean, it just was rolled out.

We didn't get to roll it out the way we should have rolled it out.

So can't go back and fix that.

But it goes back to the intentionality.

There was never an intention to do anything.

We always had talked about going to the public and giving the public the opportunity to discuss it.

We just had to decide are we gonna do it?

Is it even worthy of consideration or not worthy of consideration?

That said, um, that particular issue, um, because we are public, at least based on what I've uh listened with Preston, because we publicly have acknowledged it, we public we went public with all the discussions.

I've never seen anything with contracts out on a website for everybody to get to review.

We've put everything out there, and then when they get updated, they're out there again.

So when he says this is a cure, preemptive cure, it's because we've already been very transparent, and um it's very difficult to, I think for many here to say yes, we're going to go ahead and move forward with this, because it's almost admitting we did something wrong and we never intentionally did anything wrong.

So that's that that would be the point.

Well, the term there is intentionally correct.

So whether we did something wrong or not, we haven't acknowledged that we've done something wrong, which has led to the uh appointment of a special prosecutor.

Well the term there is intentionally correct so whether we did something wrong or not we haven't acknowledged that we've done something wrong which has led to the uh appointment of a special prosecutor is that correct no I don't you're saying that because we didn't acknowledge we did something wrong it was led to that no it the accusation led to that just having an accusation led to the appointment he had to conflict it out okay so it has nothing to do with whether we have acknowledge or don't acknowledge it went to that so regardless there are there's some legs behind this thing as far as moving it forward it just happens to be in twin falls not in Caldwell because Caldwell has a conflict of interest no Caldwell does I know that right so the uh the prosecutor especially the appointment of that special prosecutor moving this thing forward all I wanted to ask was have we received any correspondence from the special prosecutor appointed to investigate these allegations and we haven't seen anything in writing it sounds like it's only been over a phone call correct with the exception of asking what our proposed resolution that's before you tonight uh would that remove the investigation and call it off and close the case you said your resolution is satisfactory I'd like to see that in writing um all that to say because it does say in that same statute failure to respond shall be treated as a denial and when we're saying we're not we're not accepting the fact that we did something wrong that's basically stating that we're it's a can be construed as a failure to all I want to make sure is that they can't come back later then under the same statute and say uh all enforcement actions shall be stayed and and during the response cure period but may re recommence at the discretion of the complaint and after the cure period has expired so this isn't a done deal yet and I'm not sure I've heard from one person that there might even be another allegation coming forward and I hate to hear hear that because it just keeps dragging this down I've got plenty of other things to do with my time than this so uh but I want to make sure that we're doing the right thing this is not politically motivated by any means okay so do you have anything else maybe just go ahead and then one clarifying comment before we get to Councilman Griffin the legal effect of a cure is that prior action is null and void and that would in this case would be the September 15th finding of under utilization and October 6th decision to convey to CWI.

That rectifies that cures I mean the word itself implies what it does it cures any possible violation even a minute technicality that's being alleged here.

So what about the documentation that's been prepared during that time frame is that considered fruit of the poisonous tree or not that's usually used in a criminal evidence setting um what documentation are you referencing?

Conveyance agreement I mean there's been several renditions of it this uh resolution as far as on the underutilization I mean that's all been developed does it go away and we start over again I mean do we go back to the point of beginning it's a it's a fair question what it says is that the the the action is deemed null not the process not everything leading up to it but that event of the action is deemed null so everything remains intact it's not I'll use your term fruit of the poisonous tree the whole thing isn't washed clean we're back to square one all the proceedings leading up to it are still intact but that final act is now null and then you can redo the process should you choose to do so which is proposed now.

Mayor at the end of all this conversation I'm sorry I've taken more time but I'd just like to see something from that prosecutor that says it was an appropriate topic to be discussed in executive session because if it was not that's a big deal to me and I think to the to the citizens in general that weren't a part of the conversation when they should have been a part of the conversation because if it was allowed or not allowed in executive session that's a big deal.

At this point to find that out you would have to wait to see if a formal complaint would be filed.

At this point this the very prosecutor who would make that determination has said if you take this course of action it's a level set on everything on everything on that action and it cures if there were any violation it would cure it that would be the legal effect.

So we're gonna get something from him one way or the other if we cure tonight then there's no need he will not proceed with the further investigation.

When do we get that letter if there isn't a further investigation.

If there is a further investigation if there's no now remember this is if there is no cure tonight for whatever reason it doesn't pass or it's continued I know a statute says that there's 30 days from the date of the action if an enforcing agency is the commence its action of undermining what we did or if there's facts sufficient to file a complaint that would be um Wednesday the fifth that would be 30 the 30th day to date we haven't received anything which I think says something.

That would be 30, the 30th day.

Today, we haven't received anything, which I think says something.

Okay.

Councilman Griffin.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'm going to try and avoid him and Han through this one for a second.

I think rather than jumping on the dog pile, I'm just going to take my time because I think there's things I agree with from everybody and things I disagree with on a number of issues as well.

When I came on council, now I'm going to give you the big speech.

So fall asleep if you'd like.

Five that I heard from, we've never taken a vote in executive session.

A formal vote.

What's the idea?

We're not going to have staff keep searching out if we're not interested in moving forward at this point.

I know for me personally, and I've heard it from a number of council members.

They say I'm okay to move forward, but I reserve my right for a vote when it comes to public hearing.

This issue specifically, I said it multiple times.

And as you heard, I never made a decision before I got the council.

And some people say, well, Sebastian needs to put a clown nose on because his circus act was pretty good.

His word means nothing.

That's public perception.

This whole process, I think, has diminished public trust in government, which is very unfortunate to me.

If you do trust my word, and I hope some of you do, because I know a very big majority of y'all, you might not agree with me politically, you might not agree with how I approach things, my age, my speech, however I go about it.

I think you can trust my word that this council did not do anything with the intent, and that could be a key word, or knowingly that we were violating.

We were not taking votes to try and be deceptive.

We were not taking votes, period.

When we tested the waters, you could say we tested the waters.

It was to know what direction do we want to go.

Are we interested in continuing negotiations on this or this item?

Dispatch fees.

No, let's just end it.

Or yes, let's continue, but I reserve my right to a vote.

That's been the process the whole time.

I am leaning into the campus well that I don't I tonight.

I don't know that there's anything to vote on because we do have the option, and it was stated and it is in code that we can be self-reflective on an issue.

I'd prefer to wait till Wednesday.

I would like to see something in writing that says this is what you're alleged to have done, this is your procedure to cure it.

And then we can go from there.

Because right now, I think this just adds more logs to the distrust fire, and that's unfortunate.

I know the integrity of every council member, and I speak for every council member all the way down.

Their integrity is in check.

They all are trying to do what's best for y'all.

They're all trying to do what's best for the electorate at large in NAMPA, the frequent flyers and those that never show up ever, and say, How should I be voting on this issue?

So I at the end of the night, once again, I always feel like I'm on a soapbox.

It's just have grace for the process.

I can understand as well why there's distrust in this, and that's unfortunate.

I think we really tried our best to make this a transparent and open process.

I've had phone calls directly with many of you about uneasiness on it, and just at the end of the day, try and state this is going to be fleshed out.

That's why we didn't agree on contract terms last week, because we didn't feel it was best for the com the community, and that was a 6-0.

So I think this is hyper focused.

I hope that after this process and whatever action we take tonight, you know that we're trying to do what's in the best interest of the citizens of Napa from this seat to lower taxes and uh make our routes a little smoother.

I and we all have our things that we get hung up on.

So I'll I'll stop there.

I think just at the end of the day, um public perception is what I think is most important.

So if the route is the cure tonight, then so be it.

I don't think that actually helps public perception.

I think it just uh strengthens an argument that we did something wrong, and I don't feel that we did, and when we are proven to have done so, then we can correct it because I know that's the eagerness of this council.

If we did something wrong, let's go back through the process.

Councilman Reynolds.

Did you want to did you want to be last and say something?

Madam Mayor, I was gonna let Victor um answer my question about why he thinks we need to recuse ourselves, Councilman Bills and I, and then I would like to respond to that.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Rodriguez.

Okay.

I have a lot of notes here, so I hope you can yell in touch with me.

You know, um, ladies and gentlemen, when from from the get go of this council, uh going through the whole process of what to do with the Fort Idaho Center.

I've always said that it should have been gone through, it should have been checked with you.

Always have I said that.

And after all the back and forth and all the decisions that that have been made and then backtracked, for example, I asked for an appraisal, and 30 days later it's over because no one applied for that.

And they were supposed to go to uh Oakview Group.

Well, that's the kind of stuff that I'm referring to.

And David, maybe you forgot that when Mayor Clayton was asking for a thumbs up or a thumbs down that you were told this is an election year, and you better you better think about it before you decide which way you're going.

I think you forgot about that.

Who said that?

You're saying I said that.

No, no, no, you didn't say that.

You were told that.

You were you you were directed that by another council member.

Did you did you forget that?

Can you state which council member?

Because out of all the ones that didn't want to jump on the dog pile, I'm about to, because I don't believe that was said.

Randy Haberfield told you, told you you remember this is the this is an election year, and you better think about it.

You did you response?

I don't remember what your response was.

Could you sat there looking at it?

I don't even remember.

That's when the mayor said, well, this is three, so you're a negative.

You're a no.

So I'll just did you forget that.

Here's the thing, ladies and gentlemen.

Yo, it's it's okay.

It's been it's yeah.

It's been said that it's been that it was a political thing.

It's never been political with me.

I haven't said that.

I what I said a long time ago was back in January, February, and March and April.

That's when I started bringing up these issues, and I had brought these issues up several times, and I even at one time kicked out the the employees and just let the mayor and and and and the council in there with me.

And I said, you have to stop doing this.

No more thumbs up, no more thumbs down, no more direction as to how you're gonna go with this.

And even before, as I said, even before we had a uh a public hearing on it, that they would have we had an executive session on how to vote.

I mean, not how to vote, how what direction to go to because of legal statutes.

All right, well, you know what?

Maybe a directed where we should go is okay, maybe that's signed.

But but you know what?

Here's the thing.

If if Dale, did you not say in in the executive saying that you were going to go talk with Trump President Trump of BSU about a piece of land that I the CWI had?

Did you not say that?

I mean, not the real Trump, that president.

Well, I'm sorry, uh President Trump, not Trump.

From BSU, because you wanted that property, and I and it you know, let the process go through, let the process finish itself.

Chris Boyd wrote the letter that says that he thought his direction was better just to have it cleared by perception of the community.

That's why there is another uh that's why he he he thought it was best to to send a letter to the city, and then once he sent the letter to the city, he said cure it.

Now we're here, we're not cuing anything.

All you do is just saying to the committee, it's all political.

Well, that's not political.

It's always been like that with me as as far as my direction.

So neither one of you, neither one of you remember when I said three times to the council you have to stop doing this.

You have to stop thumbs up, thumbs down, and you have to stop telling you what how you're gonna go with this.

And at one time, and I'll tell you again, neither one of you said right before we we were gonna come out and have a Ford Idaho Center that the that we had an executive session and discussed what legalities there was and what direction.

Neither one of you said that.

All you're saying, oh no, that didn't happen.

Well Victor, you know what?

I'm not done yet.

So if you you if you're thinking that my perception is different than yours, it really isn't.

It's the same.

It's just that I call out when I think it's wrong.

If it's if it's if the direction is wrong, the perception is wrong by the community, then we gotta do something about it.

Let the let the community see what we did, what we have here, and they decide for that.

Victor, that might be your perception, but we just heard from legal and all of us exactly what is legal to do, and that that has to take place in those meetings for us to make decisions to be able to move forward.

It's not a vote, it's to be able to move forward.

We just all talked about it.

So that could be your perception, but that doesn't mean that we're doing anything wrong.

So I I guess I'm gonna pause right here.

It is late.

It's 6 45.

We have not started our public hearings yet.

And um so I'm not sure how long to keep this going on.

So councilman mayor Haverfield, yes.

Okay, you have an opportunity to respond, and then we're gonna pause and we're gonna figure out how to stop because we could go on all night on this because obviously we don't agree.

And there we go.

We don't agree.

And I am gonna say one thing just because you don't like a decision does not mean someone did something wrong.

And that's the problem here.

If we think that you don't like a decision or someone doesn't like a decision, then the next step is we get to accuse you of doing something wrong.

That's not who we used to be.

You used to own it.

You know what?

If the majority vote was there, that doesn't mean you did something wrong, just because you don't like the answer.

But councilman Haverfield.

Thank you, Mayor.

Victor, I'm not sure what conversation you heard or overheard, if it was an executive session or out in the parking lot.

When I've talked to David in the past about running for re-election, uh, there were certain items that I told him that would be hot topics and to be prepared for.

One of them was the Ford Idaho Center.

If that's in the context that you heard, um I could understand that.

I would there's I'm not sure what your even reasoning was for uh saying what you said about what David did that was an executive session, Randy.

Pardon me.

That was in an executive session.

And again, we we're not supposed to be talking about what goes on in executive session, but yes, there are uh there have been conversations that we've had in the past about topics that would be agenda topics coming forward.

Now he's the lucky one not having an umybody running against him.

I've got half a nappa running against me, so and you're one of them.

So I hope that you were not politically motivated in making the statement that you made, but uh the reality behind this is uh we agree to disagree.

There are there are times.

Um we've we've agreed to disagree quite a bit.

So all that to say um any direction that I would have or anything I would have stated to David would not have been to try to persuade him one way or the other, it would only be to alert him that that would have been early on in the process, a topic that would be up for consideration and a hot topic.

So I think at this point we need to make a decision if we want to postpone a vote, what we want to do, Councilman Reynolds.

Madam Mayor, um I have a couple things I would like to say to Victor.

Uh I don't know if it's really worth my time, but uh I would also like to make a motion.

Um I addressed one issue.

Short, I promise.

It's a statement.

Um the mayor and I did have a meeting with Dr.

Trump uh at Boise State, and it was before CBI ever even came up.

And what it was about was we were looking for a place for a substation for our PD.

Boise State owns 50 acres out here by our property, Fort Idaho Center.

We thought that would make a great substation.

And so we went and talked to President Trump about possibly having Boise State let us either buy that or give that to the city of Nampa.

That was a discussion we had.

Boysy State had been talking about getting rid of that property for a while, and Dr.

Trump had moved on.

So that's exactly what happened with that.

It wasn't an executive session.

Mayor and I went over there together and had a meeting with her.

So just to clear that up.

So I would like to make a motion to continue this item to a date certain of 11.7, which is Friday.

Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded to continue this action item 5.5, the declaration to Friday 11.7.

Probably.

I would include 5-6 as well.

Okay.

So the motion is to move 55 and 5.6 to date certain of Friday 11.7 question.

Um that would be a special city council meeting that would be um on that date.

And that's a lot, pardon me.

That'd be allowing Twin Falls attorney a chance to reach out to us.

So you think you would have enough information and is the public okay with that, I guess as well.

I'm just wondering why we wouldn't just postpone to our next council meeting.

So that it's an evening type meeting, unless you're thinking that this would be an evening meeting.

I would this is probably an early morning meeting.

That's usually when we're most available.

Uh is first thing in the morning.

Does that work?

So early morning, 117.

Okay.

So I'm seeing it does.

Okay.

So an early morning meeting of 117.

So we have a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Ingula.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Make it eight o'clock.

Do you want seven?

6 30.

No.

I see.

I see eight here and seven there.

7 30.

7 30.

Okay, meet in the middle, 7 30 a.m.

on 11-7.

That's lunch time.

Okay.

At this time, um, we are gonna move into public hearings.

So those of you that were here for this discussion, if you don't want to stay, you don't have to, we are going to move into public hearings at this time.

We will finish our new business after public hearings.

So our first public hearing is 8.1.

8.1 is an action item.

This was continued from September 15th.

I look forward to staff um briefing us on this particular item.

I understand the public hearing is still open.

Um, this is an action item.

This is annexation and zoning to RS7, RS 8.5, RS12, RS22, single family residential zoning districts, and a potential development agreement at subdivision preliminary plat for Lakeview neighborhood on a total of 57.16 acres at 12529 Midway Road and Zero Iowa Avenue.

For the Conger group representing Karen and Bob Anderson, the original concept is the development of 14.86 acres for I RS 22, 29.08 acres for RS12, 9.94 acres at RS 8.5, 23.4 acres for RS 7 with a combined 131 detached single family lots, which includes one with a current detached single family residence and 19 common lots.

Again, this was continued from September 15th.

The public hearing is still open.

And I have watched, I was not here on 9.15.

I have watched the public hearing, so I am familiar with uh the discussions that took place that were held.

Um per staff.

I'm just reading what's on here.

The applicant will be presenting a slightly altered concept plan based on comments heard from council and the public.

Is that correct?

Yes, okay.

Public testimony, because the public hearing is open, needs to be responsive to the changes.

So our typical public hearing is, and I think most are aware of that, the applicant has the opportunity to present.

So you will present first the changes and what you've done.

Then staff will follow up with comments.

After that, when the public hearing begins, the comments need to be based on what was presented by the applicant.

It should not be a repeat of comments that are already stated on the record, it should be directly related to the changes that have taken place.

So we will begin today with our applicant, and thank you for coming forward and giving us your name and address, and here we go.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh Heath Clark, 251 East Front Street representing the applicant.

So as you'll recall, when we were back here in September, we presented an application that took into account some of the comments that we'd heard about a year and a half prior.

And what we had done is we had reduced our density density, easy for me to say, significantly.

And we had used a buffer of 150 feet on the west side to try to match density on the east that's medium density residential against against uh Carriage Hill, and then a much less dense area where the county lots are on the west.

So as we had the conversation on September 15th, we uh heard some additional requests.

So these included making lot one block five, which is that area in the north, yep, right there, a a uh open space lot.

We also heard that we would like to explore making taking the sport court that's currently on the south, there you go, on the southeast and moving it to the central area, and in doing so, we would remove those two lots and then where the sport court used to be, put one more lot there.

So it's a net loss of two lots.

So overall, what you see is we had previously removed 25 lots.

Now that we're now with this change, we're up to 27 total lots removed.

So that ends up being the same number that Cheryl had asked for uh uh previously.

Um we've dramatic dramatically increased our open space from our original application, and now we're all the way above 25% open space.

Uh and we still have that massive buffer on the west side.

Uh we think that we've done everything that's been asked of us.

We have an excellent mix of of lot sizes as you as we discussed at the last hearing, as we also discussed at the last hearing, traffic's been studied, water and sewer immediately available at the site.

So we feel like this is a a good change.

We appreciated the comments primarily from council member bills, and so we would ask for uh the city council's approval.

Thank you.

Okay, council.

Do you have any questions for our applicant?

Mayor, I apologize.

Just procedurally, were we supposed to allow public form the five individuals prior to hearing this action item, or we were just going to go after it just dawned on me now.

So thank you, Shar.

Never mind.

No questions.

Standard public hearing process with the applicant followed by oh, public form.

I'm sorry, I forgot public form.

So did I.

We'll circle back.

Thank you.

I'm so sorry.

That's what I would.

That's what I was meaning.

Thank you.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

Thank you.

I totally forgot.

So at this point, we're going to continue to move forward with public hearing.

Excuse us.

Not a problem.

Thank you.

Okay.

So with that, do we have any questions from counsel for the applicant?

And this is not the time that we get into the discussions about what we think.

It's do we have any questions before the staff comes?

I don't see any questions.

As you know, we will have you back.

Thank you, ma'am.

And so you can listen, take notes, and we'll have you back as we close public hearing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Christy.

All right.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Christie Watkins, principal planner for the city of Nampa.

Um he stated what all the changes were and what we're here to talk about tonight.

So I'm just going to kind of go over a little bit of history.

Um in September, after the public hearing was closed, um, council made a motion to approve the project.

The result was three to three.

Um council at that time then determined that they would not be able to come to a decision, and they did not have anyone here to break the tie.

So they reopened the public hearing and they continued it to November 3rd tonight.

Um part of that conversation also was to allow time for Canyon County to hold their public hearings to confirm the area of impact.

That hearing has been continued to Wednesday, November 5th.

We're kind of uh leapfrogging our hearings.

Uh state code does allow for annexation of a property when it is contiguous to the city limits, regardless of whether or not it falls within the impact area.

So those impact area conversations likely will not affect a decision that could be made on this tonight because state law does allow you to annex outside of the impact area.

So he stated what the changes were.

I showed them here on this slide as well.

On this one, um, this is just kind of a comparison of the overall area so that you can see the different um developments that have been either approved or are in existence and their relationship to the wildlife refuge.

Um you'll note that uh Deer Flat Ranch, which was just recently approved, is right there at the refuge.

Um is separated from the refuge by some acreage lots that are in Kenyon County, and then also provides that buffer.

That's really all I have to uh reflect back on this project.

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

Thank you, Christy.

Council, do you have any questions for Christy at this time?

Okay.

Yes, okay.

So Christy, back to the slide, the big area.

So is Lakeview encroaching any further than some of the other projects that council has approved?

Encroaching into the wildlife refuge itself.

Right.

No, it's not encroaching into the refuge.

And it looks like there's a county subdivision between Lakeview and the refuge.

There are county lots.

Yeah.

Deer Flat has.

They were RS4 on the lots up against Midland, as I recall.

Is that correct?

Um sorry, I think their lowest one was RS6.

I think there was some RS4.

Okay.

Well, those would be right up against Midland.

So I'm just trying to look at distances and and so forth.

I'm trying to compare between the two of what we've taken action on prior and what we've asked for these guys to correct.

Um, thank you for showing the sure.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay, Christy.

Thank you.

Okay, so this is a public hearing.

Madam Mayor, we only have one person that is requesting to provide public testimony on this, and that is Chris Aronen.

Good evening.

Thank you for sharing your name and address, and you'll have three minutes.

Sure.

Good evening.

Uh 4219 South Range Drive in beautiful Namba, Idaho.

Well, okay.

Good evening, uh, Mayor and Council members.

Thank you for your service and listening to the residents of these important issues.

I want to briefly um speak to you about the annexation of this new development.

Um I haven't given you this report.

This was actually designed for public forum that they kind of skipped.

This is a feedback from constituents about all kinds of issues.

Could you repeat what you just shared?

Go ahead, pull that mic up just a bit.

I have I haven't shared with you yet.

This constituent feedback report.

Um, but I will during public feedback later.

Okay, well, this is the public feedback right now.

Okay.

So in that case, if you guys would like a copy.

I see.

Thank you.

May I ask a point of clarification?

Does that letter pertain to this application or is it okay then?

It does not.

This is just constituent feedback.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah, it doesn't.

So people understand the housing is needed.

No one is against the growth itself.

But the roads, traffic systems, police staffing, simply haven't kept up with the pace of growth the city has.

Yeah, you you guys know it yourselves.

On top of that, impact cost are being often passed on to existing residents, which many do feel unfair.

Now, I don't know if it's relevant to this, but I got a lot of that feedback for the last three months.

Okay.

Before approving more annexations to the city, this one or any other ones, uh, many residents are asking to consider that we need better roads.

We need more police officers, and we need to fix our impact fees.

Uh so I'm not asking you to stop the growth.

Um, I'm simply asking you to promote more responsible, sustainable growth that protects the future and current residents.

Like I said, I was spoken to a lot of people.

Very unhappy people.

There's a lot.

Now I'm not saying you should stop this development, but please do consider those things that are mentioned.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Okay.

We don't have anyone else signed up.

Is there anyone here that had intended to testify?

Okay, so we'll let you go first.

Mark, you go next, and then and then we'll go the base sweater and then the um red sweater.

So we'll just go that down.

Thank you, Mayor, and members of the council.

There's a lot, I think, to be liked about this uh project.

Sorry, can David state your name?

David.

Taney 12232, South Hutters Point Drive.

I come here so often, I think we just know that.

As I was saying, there's a lot to be liked about it.

Um the uh one thing that we liked uh was we asked to speak to the developer, Marcel came and was very generous with his time, and uh some changes were made as a uh result of that.

The complaint is we didn't find out about him from the staff we had to search him.

Now we found out from a third party who he was and what the project was.

Even the picture that you have in the wall is deceptive.

Um a good significant part of our subdivision is identified up there as Red Hawk Golf Course.

Um is virtually adjacent uh to this project.

Yeah, that point seems to be lost on planning staff all the time.

Uh the only thing between us and the uh project is uh one golf course T-Box and uh golf course green, but in green.

Uh otherwise we're virtually adjacent to this project.

Because this is the first thing that's gonna happen uh along Midway, uh adjacent to uh the approved Southwest Napa specific plan.

When you've got another 10,000 homes that you're gonna be building between this location and uh Carcher, um I would hope that you could create a a uh a standard here or a threshold here that all of these new developments all the way up and down Midway should be required to meet.

Uh many of them probably come in and 40-acre parcels, uh hundred homes here, a hundred homes there.

And cumulatively, these are important.

And I think that the uh lack of attention uh to detail, both as regard to the environmental impact, economic impact.

I mean, how much do we know how much tax revenues come off of this?

How much is it gonna cost to operate the uh uh infrastructure and the services and so forth that uh the city is going to be required to provide over the years?

I just would think that in the future is these projects come in.

He could set a little higher standard as to what the staff's expected to bring to you, so when you make a decision, he can make an informed decision.

Other than that, uh we don't have a conflict with the project itself.

I think we're very pleased with the work that the uh uh Marcel did after our meeting with him.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And then the next person can just get right behind Mark.

Thank you, Mark, for giving us your address.

Hi, Mark Mitchell, one two three five five landownable eight three six eight six.

This is the first time I've seen the flat map, and I've got a it's nice.

It looks very nice.

I do live out in that area.

Um I think my biggest concern that's brand new asphalt on Midway between there and Roosevelt, I believe, or close to.

Um are we gonna widen that route?

Is this roads at least a center turning lane?

One each way with a center turning lane.

Do we know?

Is it in part of the specs?

Can I look at Daniel and ask him?

No.

Okay.

Um that's the biggest concern.

You have Midway is now the new Middleton.

It is very, very congested.

I get on that road many times at 6, 6:30 in the morning, and it is busy.

Seven, it's very, very busy.

People are either going to Caldwell or to Highway 55.

So they get on at the uh Costco, I call it over on ramp.

Um it's gonna become a cluster muck if we don't do it now.

The infrastructure needs to happen now, not down the road.

I do have to apologize to the developers, but I do feel this is their responsibility if they want to build in that area.

The other way, Iowa going out towards the Lake Wall, that could even use improvement.

That road's pretty tough because it's across, I believe, from Whistles Farm, but that is part of the refuge, if I'm not mistaken.

Um, and then the house on the corner, what's gonna happen to it?

Is it staying or is it going?

Do we know?

Right on the corner, midway and Iowa north.

We don't know.

Do you guys own it?

Can I ask questions?

Or do I just make a statement?

You know what?

You can ask questions, and then we should all be taking notes and trying to come back.

Okay, is there a roundabout that's gonna go there?

Is it gonna stay a four-way stop?

Um that is the back way into Red Hawk.

I I think that's just the biggest question I have is guys, are we looking at the infrastructure?

Iowa is great in some sections and not in other sections, a lot of it was counting for decades, and actually still is part of uh county across from Carriage Hill, the original Carriage Hill, not Toll Brothers Carriage Hill.

Um that road is still not curved.

We don't have curb and gutter in ours because it was counting when we built ours.

I mean, that's all got to happen.

It's all got to happen on that road.

It is becoming busier and busier and busier, especially during the summer months because the boating and that at Lake Lowell.

That's my concern about it.

Infrastructure.

Where's our infrastructure?

What is the plan on our infrastructure?

Please, please, please.

But I do like the community, it's very attractive.

Thanks, guys.

I got 22 seconds.

Can I keep going?

It's yours.

Okay, so the gal in the bait.

Yes, you.

Uh huh.

Thank you.

Thank you for sharing your name and your address.

Thank you.

Hi, I am Susan Weaver.

I live at uh I forgot my address at 3653 uh South Pymot Road in Boise A3706.

And to the gentleman, the seller lives in the home on the corner.

She will stay there.

They plan on never leaving, so she will remain in the home.

Uh again, my name is Susan Weaver.

Thank you, Mayor and Council members for allowing me to speak uh this evening.

Um I do represent the seller, and um over the past year, we have listened very carefully to what the council members have asked about the development and the changes they want to see uh made.

And after last month's meeting, uh as you're all aware, we went back and made some more changes and we reduced it by two lots and changed where the park location was in the development.

Um these revisions reflect real change and a willingness to work with the city on making it so that it is win-win for everybody, the the developer as well as the city and the community.

Um the developer and the seller have stayed committed to cooperation and in doing what the city has requested.

Uh the plan demonstrates good faith, responsiveness, and partnership.

With respect, I ask that you approve the project so that it and the progress that it represents can move forward.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Kaylin Miller, Kaylin Miller, 619 Crocus Court.

Madam Mayor and City Council.

I have lived in Nampa for 71 years.

That's my whole life.

Uh the first 21 years I lived on a farm south of Nampa, and then I went away to college, and then when I got married, I've lived in the city for 50 years.

When I graduated from Nampa High School in 1972, there were approximately 20,000 people in Nampa.

Now there's over 120,000, and maybe I don't like it that all these people have moved in here.

But I can't stop that.

I've been very involved in the community over the years and watched NAMPA grow.

I was very disappointed when I was watching.

I I don't I used to come to City Council all the time.

I don't anymore.

I watch it at home because I'm old and I like to sit in my chair and just watch it.

The developer had been denied previously and asked to make changes, which they did, and then they were pretty much denied again, and now they've made more changes, which I think are wonderful.

Um I drive by that parcel once a week to take my mother to an appointment, and it looks horrible right now.

And I want to tell you why.

It's because nobody wants to farm that parcel.

And I know this from personal experience.

My mother lives on a farm south of Nampa.

She's 92 years old.

My dad farmed till he was 80, then he retired.

Now he has a farm.

Well, my dad passed away, but they have a farmer that farms at my mom's farmer is going to retire.

Nobody wants to farm these small parcels.

They are postage stamp parcels.

You want farms, you go to the Magic Valley or Idaho Falls in the in eastern Idaho, and you'll see thousands of acres, farms around here, it's nothing.

So I see no problem with the development.

It would make the area look much, much better.

And I have a solution for those that are moving in and then complaining about the developments.

And industry will not come here if we don't have enough housing.

And I know I just read an article that uh a consultant that the city of Neva had said that we are short on housing.

So if you're complaining about using these farms, then I have a solution.

You buy it and you farm it.

And then if you still don't like it, um I talked to someone and I said, Why did you move here?

Well, I didn't know it was growing so fast, and I don't really believe that.

Wouldn't you have done your research and known that we were one of the fastest growing places in the United States?

But I have a solution for that too.

Or a Pheno.

I've been there, they're not growing very fast, and I bet they would love to have you.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to testify?

Jill Halloween, 603 West Crimson Luke.

Um, I just kind of have a question.

It I understand that there's a gravel pit just north of this project.

So I'm putting myself in the position of a uh home buyer buying a lot facing that gravel pit.

And I'm just wondering what the developer has planned as either a buffer or something to help that person buying that house from noise and dust and light that's going on in the gravel pit, and um whether or not there's gonna be some sort of uh a fence, a wall, or space between.

So that's just kind of a question that I have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to testify?

Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council.

I'm Cheryl Higley at 12441 South Abbott Downing Way.

And I spent a lot of time talking with Marcel and Heath after the last meeting, and I'm glad that they changed the made revisions that changed the number back to what it was when we had the neighborhood meeting.

So however, I still have concerns about the cost of growth, and not necessarily directed at just this development, um, but it and that the cost of services exceed the tax revenue that they generate.

And Doug Racine had stated at the September 15th public hearing that with the addition of sales tax that growth is paying for itself.

I would be very interested in seeing the supporting documentation for this because this is a big concern to me.

Like I say, not just for this development, but other ones.

Um, but none was provided that night, and I did not notice any provided in the packet tonight.

Um so the city council was encouraged to trust the verbal statement about sales tax, but I think the council should be provided with verification before they are expected to make a decision that relies on verbal communication alone.

So, anyways, and the Board of County Commissioners meeting is coming up in two days, and originally that would have already occurred, but now it hasn't.

I know Christie said that probably won't affect this, but nonetheless, it seems premature before that public hearing happens.

So that's all I have to say.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else that had intended to testify tonight?

Okay, seeing none, I think I want to ask a question.

I think it's important maybe before the applicant does closing remarks that we hear from Doug Racine on the cost of growth.

So, Doug, if you could are you going to share your screen?

Thank you.

And counsel, after this public hearing, we will take a break.

I forgot to write before seven, so um for those that are in the next one.

There we go.

Okay.

Okay, good.

So what I've done is looked at the um number of parcels in the unit.

I've reviewed this with Rodney and others.

And essentially for this particular uh subdivision, there's an estimation of a property value, just the value of the lot, around $57,000 per lot.

A home value on top of that would be about $440,000 for an average home.

That's pretty close to the average in Maridian.

Some of these homes will be higher than that, some might be a little lower.

So you'd have a total lot value of about $497,000 for $129 lots.

That's a total of $64,206,09.

Now the average residential population per home is $2.67, so we'll use that here.

So you might have the total population increase of $344.

I'll come back to this in just a minute.

When we calculate the exemption impact on this $64 million, it's $125,000 per home or deduction value of $16.125 million.

We take into account the impact of House Bill $39, which is another another 10% reduction, we would have a net taxable value of about $41.66 million for all the properties in that area.

Would bring the city another $1.7 million of impact fees.

Now on the sales tax valuation, the way sales tax are calculated and distributed by the state shared pool, they're done primarily on a um population basis.

There's some time lag and how they calculate the population and when they change it, but every community in the estate gets property taxes allocated allocated out to them based on their population.

Our last assessment uh in the quarter was $25.87 per head count.

Now factoring in that maybe not all of these $344 people are brand new to the city.

Maybe some of this is uh transitioning to another uh uh city or the other cities will grow as fast as we do.

I kind of cut that down by half and saying, well, we're we're assuming that we're not gonna get $25.87 per new person because maybe half of that is transitory.

So it's $12.94.

Now, what does that mean in total dollars?

Let's look down here.

For one year, the tax impact at this levy rate, which was pretty close to last year's budget levy rate, would be $112,484 per year in new taxes.

This makes a couple of assumptions.

One that everything opens up as a book and on day one all the buildings are there.

They're not, but for calculation purposes, we'll assume that the tax sales tax impact would be six thousand six hundred and seventy-four dollars for a total revenue of 119,158.

Now, how does that go over time?

So if we take our estimates of how many police it takes to um cover the new area by population, that's about four three.

I think of well, I may have moved it.

It's about 0.43 new police officers.

And that cost would end up being about $55,970 per year in police cost.

So we've got $119,000 of new revenue.

We know we have police costs of $155,000.

Impact fees are separate monies coming in that c take care of the growth.

And let's look what happens as we go forward.

Let's assume that the property taxes grow at the statutorily allowed 3% per year.

So they'll grow down here per year to $112,000 and fifteen and so forth.

Let's assume that the police costs grow by 6% a year, which is about what they're growing, between 5 to 7%.

So they'll go 55,000, 59, and they'll keep on growing.

Now the police car is paid for by impact fees.

So there's no cost of the police car, but they will be in 10 years, so I factor in down here.

This is the 20-year analysis.

So if I look over 20 years and I factor all these growth patterns in down here, when I get to year 20, we'll have uh a grow.

We have received about 1.8 to 35 million dollars in revenues.

The cost will have been let's see, about 1.3 million dollars.

So but part that was for the 20 years.

It's um 3.022 million dollars for the taxes, 179 for the sales taxes, 3.2 million dollars in total revenues, and total costs of 2.144 million dollars.

So over 20 years, the city would receive about a net increase in revenues of about 1 million 56,827.

That's over time.

Now, this isn't everything, but it gives a good um reflection of factoring in the sales tax and the property tax.

The this particular subdivision would generate positive income to the city in terms of gravities.

It would help us cover our costs.

Mayor.

Yes.

For a couple more questions if I could.

Yes.

And I want to start with a very positive.

I think this was a very, very, very, very good visual for me to see and break down the original number, the 13,009 and impact fees collected.

Is that impact fees across the board?

That's all.

All of them, not just police.

Everyone.

Okay.

Parks, streets, everything.

I think this is a very good.

I'm going to try and keep positive tonight.

I think there's a very good start on the next one.

Can we factor in the ro the streets?

Because we have to allocate the dollars to each impact fee collection bucket.

Police is probably the most significant in that cost drain.

I'd like to know the net after all impact fee buckets are dispersed and the breakdown of maintaining.

Also, do you mean exactly?

I mean, I can tell you what it is per bucket.

That's not hard to sell, it's hard to tell, but I can't tell you exactly what the impact fees are used for growth, right?

Yes.

So I can't tell you exactly what you I'm sure exactly what you're asking.

I'm just trying that the calculation is specifically looking at the cost impact of police.

Yeah.

Would it be fair to go off the potential valuations of dollars just from police specifically when we do this calculation breakdown on the because that's I I just look at it as okay, if we're receiving $13,000 in impact fees from y'all, thank you, uh, for police.

Then we could break down those numbers and see the projection of in 20 years, we're actually going to be up 1.1 million dollars.

But I think the numbers are slightly.

Actually, Mayor, just real quickly.

So the impact fees, just for clarity.

The what Doug did on the operational cost.

So those are operational costs of police for this.

The impact fees actually, police is a smaller percentage of that impact fee.

The largest percent of the impact fee is probably parks and streets.

And so that's where that money is going to go.

And then the only thing really for police, well, there's a couple things for police, but the police number isn't the largest out of that.

And so what you're looking at are two totally different buckets, right?

So what's important here is the operational cost, which is not impact fees.

So he took the cost of the police, the operational costs that are property taxes.

Well, and I just was thinking the factoring into the original vehicle getting paid for and because that would come out of the impact fee dollars.

I know all this isn't allocated directly.

The cost of operationally funding police.

Here's the breakdown over the years.

Obviously, that gets taken from the impact fee bucket, the 1.7 million.

But it's very little of that because uh basically for well, the vehicle is like it's 0.43, I think is what Doug said.

So I could break that out and see if the impact fees cover the cost of the vehicle for the first year.

I they probably do the impact fees will cover the cost of the if we add an officer 0.43.

It's going to you're gonna need a vehicle, half of the vehicle.

Probably will for that officer.

But it's a very small amount.

It's fine.

No, I'm I think it's a great start, and I appreciate the calculations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes.

Uh far as Doug on the uh valuation.

Uh you've got home sites uh listed there on your chart.

57,000?

Yes.

For the land.

Yeah.

So uh current current market, uh, there's no lots less than 115,000 on the market.

I I am probably 135 to 150.

I am likely very conservative on my estimates.

I'm just trying to communicate.

If you rolled those new numbers in, you would see even a better picture than what you're carrying.

I'm trying not to overpromise here.

I I I appreciate that.

I'm just trying to let others know that your numbers are very conservative.

Yeah.

Mayor.

Mayor.

This is Rodney.

I would confirm that as well.

I I just worked with Doug and we just came up with like a low-level estimate.

Um we have a variety of sizes of lots on this development.

So you might see some significant uh increases in value for some of those larger lots.

We just took like the lowest point possible to see if it even pencils out and it looked pretty good.

Yeah, there's nothing on multiple listing that is less than 100.

So the reality is, and these gentlemen know where the markets are, they know what needs to be happening.

So the question was I listened to the hearing um last night again, so it was fresh.

The question from the last time really was does growth fund growth?

And in this case, and what was asked of Doug was to come back and say, does it fund it?

And you have shown that yes, it does.

I would I would say that as we look at subdivisions, I can flesh this out more, but we we look at each proposal as it's a unique standalone and see if they pay for themselves, and that's provides a little guidance for the council.

Thank you.

Okay, council, other questions.

Do you have okay?

So let's, if there are no other questions like this, this is an opportunity for our applicant to come back and provide closing remarks.

And I know there were some questions, but most of it is not.

Well, maybe there was a question for you from Mark Mitchell.

Most of it was infrastructure.

But if I could have my, yep, you got it, Christy.

Thank you.

So Heath Clark, 251 East Front Street in Boise representing the applicant.

And so I'll just kind of go through in the order of uh the folks that spoke.

Um so Mr.

Haney, I think was the last name.

Um, just wanted to clarify there that his address is outside of the notice area, but we did enjoy meeting him.

He I think you attended the neighborhood meetings, so we appreciated those conversations.

Um his comments kind of led into Mr.

Mitchell's comments about traffic.

So I'll give you a little bit more background on the traffic.

Traffic was studied.

We did a traffic impact study that was reviewed with the city's engineer.

The the traffic impact study found that the area roadways do have capacity.

It also identified the improvements that need to be made, and those improvements include frontage and right-of-way dedication.

So 40 feet from the section line on midway, and I think it's 28 feet on Iowa.

And then there will also be a uh center turn lane at Capriani, so that's our northeast entrance over on Midway.

So those are the improvements that were found to be required by our traffic engineer and by the and through the city's review.

Um was it Kaylin?

I would love to see you at every hearing.

I'm just gonna say that.

Um with regard to the rest of the infrastructure, I I did want to just emphasize two things.

One is that in addition to the roads, sewer and water were heavily studied.

Your engineering department identified that sewer and water have capacity.

That sewer and water is right on our eastern boundary.

So in this case, getting more users on those sewer lines, getting more users on those water lines, that helps to actually reduce the overall cost of service when it doesn't have to be extended.

So we think that that's also a benefit for the city.

Um we did look at this question of the gravel pit.

Uh so the gravel pits on our north side.

Uh, I think there may have been an impression that our fence was just sitting on the edge and was going to teeter over into a vast pit below us, and that's not in fact the case.

So the black line that you can see is the property line, so that's where the our fence would be.

In between our property and the gravel pit, there's a driveway, there is an existing home, and then that red is the toe of that slope.

So we think that or the top of that slope, excuse me.

That so we think that that is really well taken care of.

Um I think the last thing that I would just say really quickly is that I agree with Christy on the area of impact question.

And so I just wanted to emphasize to one thing real quick.

So the area of impact is as the council knows, and maybe this is for the larger benefit here, is an area where you the city are given a kind of special of authority in areas that would otherwise develop in the county, right?

You have the ability to to have through an area of impact agreement, the ability to speak to and then have certain of your ordinances even imposed on county applications.

That's what an area of impact does.

In this case, what is being discussed is whether the area of impact boundary uh needs to be ratified, and that is as a result of the this the legislature's recent actions about areas of impact.

And what they wanted to do was to make sure that it still made sense for the cities to have that ability that that ability to speak to those applications that would otherwise just be county applications.

What is happening here doesn't change your ability to comp plan and it doesn't change your ability to annex.

So we think that those questions are answered.

We stand in support of what the city has done.

We think that your staff put together a really detailed excellent submittal to the county to establish that your area of impact, which was just recently established not too long ago, is correct, and that you are going to uh develop into those areas.

So we we believe that the city is well taken care of on that, and we think that Christie's comments on that were very accurate.

So with that, I will be happy to answer any other questions or otherwise wrap up.

Thank you.

Yes, Councilman Haverfield.

Um I was looking, can you go back to that uh aerial view of the pit?

Oh, okay.

That you just had there.

There appears to be um, I'm not sure if it's called Lowell Court or Curve or whatever it is.

Um there's an access point going to the north off the uh northwest corner of the property.

Where does that go to?

Uh Councilmember Haverfield, I think you're talking about this on the east side, kind of the on the west side.

West side.

Yeah, you've got sure what that is there, but um yeah, it looks like a pump station.

There's uh a continuation of the roadway that uh terminates at the property line.

Okay, yeah.

Yeah, so if you go back to that's just to access the pump station, Councilmember Haverfield.

Well, it appears that it's set up to be a continuation of that roadway to the north over your property line.

Is that the case?

Or is that pit in the way of being able to continue that road?

That pit would be in the way of being able to continue that to the north.

So uh okay.

Well, that answers that question, and thanks.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

I do have a quick question.

How long before you anticipate the build out of this and to actually get started?

Yeah, and I'll uh let my yeah, my uh client tell me if I'm way off on this, but we would anticipate the first residence within about two years.

Okay, and probably overall build out seven-ish, some eight years, somewhat somewhere in that range.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

Council.

Thank you.

Very much thank you.

I do want to say, as we're done here, there was a um one of the questions that came forward, it really had to do with infrastructure and roads.

And um, I don't know what the plan is on this road wide widening.

Uh Crystal, is this currently highway one or four?

Mayor, um, I will actually take that one.

This will okay.

This um midway in this area is a collector on our comp or on our uh functional classification map, so they will be required to do full curb gutter sidewalk pavement widening along their frontage.

Okay, and whose highway district is this?

So this is if I remember correctly, this is the boundary between canyon or highway four and NAMPA.

My thank you, Crystal.

This is highway four.

Okay.

So you know the question in most of the discussion really has to do with uh infrastructure coming late, right?

And it's the way it is in the state of Idaho.

Unfortunately, this is the legislative fix as much as anything because our legislature, the way they're funding roads puts us backwards.

So we need, and we have been advocating at the legislature.

We will continue to advocate that it isn't something we can fix.

However, one thought, and I'm just gonna plant this, and it may be the inappropriate time, but the impact fee side, when we're collecting impact fees at some point in the future, I would love to see us be able to dedicate the impact fees from this area to the road that's more adjacent to this area.

We don't do it that way, but it's something that I think it might be worthy of consideration.

Daniel, I see your face.

You're probably going, Mayor, don't go there.

Maybe that isn't the right thing to do.

I'm just planting a seed.

So it's something that we can talk about late.

Well, you guys can talk about later.

So yeah, it was discussed 10 years ago, and it's still here, right?

Okay.

So with that, are there any other questions that would involve our applicant?

Mayor.

Before we close public hearing, yes.

So Daniel, I just wanted to confirm you said that there'd be full frontage improvements along um the eastern and the southern boundary proper um roads.

On both midway and Iowa, Iowa is a local road, so they would do full curb gutter sidewalk pavement widening and midway as a collector, and they would do the same there.

So is that or an eight or a ten foot sidewalk?

On the collector side, that would be a 10-foot sidewalk on the local roadway.

Uh it's likely a five-foot sidewalk.

Okay, and then both frontages have a 25-foot landscape strip.

Is that correct?

Correct.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

If there's no further discussion that involves our applicants, I would stand for a motion to close public hearing.

So moved.

It's been moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

This is an opportunity for council discussion and/or a motion.

Mayor, I'd make a motion uh that we approve the annexation of zoning uh as listed on the screen for Lake View neighborhood.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Mayor Cling.

Yes.

Just an observation.

Um I went back and pulled up the markup that I had from before, and they hit everything that I had asked for.

The only other item that I might have considered was the RS7 along the northern boundary line being an RS 8.5, but since it's looking over a gravel pit, um, I didn't think that it was necessary.

Thank you.

Mayor, just for comment.

Uh I they likely don't like me, so I apologize in advance.

I just go back to the comp plan, future land use map, and the Southwest area plan.

I know it's before their time.

All of those say this area was intended to be very low density.

Uh I like the incorporation and the diversity and the diversity of this project.

I think it's great.

However, I just looking at the map, looking at the projections.

What I think we need to do to preserve west of Midway.

Um I don't think it hits the mark.

I appreciate taking on some of my commentary.

I know part of that, you're throwing a dart at a board that might bounce off, and I apologize, but I think it's very, very thoughtful that you remove the lots that you did to have those power lines over the top.

I went and looked at Lone Star Ranch this last Sunday, and they have power lines from the exact same group going right through them, and they incorporated very well.

They had a community garden, and so it does work.

That does not give me pause.

The only thing I go back to is uh what very low density looks like and what we're projecting.

And it's it's neat, even on the future land use map.

Your projects already listed in here.

They got a little plot line in there.

So I think this is going to go through.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

See none.

Roll Rodriguez.

No.

Haverfield.

I'm kind of torn on this because I don't believe that we've really hit the Southwest specific area plan goals with this development as far as um low density, but um Mayor, I I am sorry to interrupt here.

I should have said this right before you started.

Um this is outside of the specific area plan boundaries.

What is I think that was stated earlier, and um it was also stated that it wasn't impactful.

That it because of the annexation opportunity.

So thank you.

Okay.

So uh can I get clarification on that then?

Uh because that's a note that I had as far as Southwest area specific plan not considered.

I'm sorry if I'm interrupting the process.

I should have maybe asked this sooner, but so this is where the charted line.

Just for the record, we're looking at the map.

On the map, the charted line for the southwest area plan cuts off Lake Lowell and goes north.

This project south of Lake Lowell.

Part of the designation and one of the areas that we're looking at is south of the actual plotted map.

However, south of that, it still shows one or less dwelling unit per acre or cluster in light green.

But it's unannexed, and so we yeah.

Okay.

Griffin.

No.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Yes.

Or in favor, two opposed, motion carries.

I have to say to Kaylin Miller.

Never met you before, and oh my goodness.

We well, we have, but I just don't remember it, but it's so nice to meet you again then.

Thank you, Caleb.

Shout out to her.

She was the she was the attendance late.

Yeah.

She had the deal with me 308 times my senior year.

The attendance lady at Napa High.

Oh.

I told you about a voice road game.

My grandson said no one for National.

That's right.

There you go.

You survived, Sebastian.

A lot of people, but I won't take it.

We are taking a break, so we're officially uh recessed for a good five to ten minute break.

Thank you.

I know you guys don't want all my help, but you guys can have the right concept.

I know I do online forms, but I just get a lot more.

They want to get there, they want to put some other things like worse than all the things to fix them.

What is the problem?

What do you think of a problem?

I'm not saying it's the quarter of the nine, but tell me and we'll share it.

And it's all centered and we are in the dark.

And roads you have to build down.

I'm better one on one.

I did it for trouble.

Well, I don't know why I don't know.

Hopefully they start with this.

Yeah, we've got me talking to a lot of people.

Right.

I don't think first.

We've been there long enough to know the game.

Um I don't think we have to read that one.

I'm gonna have to go first.

All right.

I like the bigger part.

Yeah, and now we're gonna have to do that.

Oh, we think we had a thing about that.

Okay, I think we're gonna get started.

I think we've got a couple council members coming.

Just so everyone knows the next item on the agenda is the public forum side, the public testimony, because I forgot it.

And I so apologize to those that are here for that.

So we are going back to number seven on the agenda.

And um this is where NAMPA residents have the opportunity to speak on a non-agenda item with the three minute limit.

And I think let's see, we're missing two council members.

So there we go.

Okay, so we'll go ahead and get started.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chris.

You'll have to say your name and and address again, but thank you.

It's still Chris Moran, and it's still 4219 South Range Week in beautiful Nampa Idaho.

Thank you.

Well, uh good evening.

Mayor, council members.

First, I'd like to take a moment, and I do mean sincerely to thank you for your years of dedication and service.

I know elections are coming up.

Thank you.

So thank you for making the city a wonderful place.

Thank you.

Mayor, I apologize.

Chris, I I need you to yell into that microphone, or I'm not going to hear anything.

Can we turn his mic up just a hair?

Okay.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

So I've been complaining, and for the last several months, I've collected basically constituent feedback.

And I put it into a report.

I'm not going to speak details of it now.

It's three pages.

It has feedback from constituents about the issues they're facing.

No, these are problems.

These are not positives.

These are not praises, so please understand the sky is not falling.

Um I checked.

But it's just these are the problems that people are seeing.

You know, among those traffic, this impact piece.

This is just what people are telling me, the perception for our diethouse center.

Very big thing.

People definitely not liking it.

Same thing goes with traffic and all the other things.

That's in the report.

I just put it together for you so you guys know what people are saying out there.

That's all it is.

It's similar summary of all the feedback.

Um very much.

That's all I have.

Is that it?

Chris, thank you.

That is, you know what, thank you so much.

One for getting the feedback.

Thank you for sharing it with us, and thank you for doing it, even though it's maybe stuff that was like, ooh, we appreciate hearing it.

And thank you.

I just appreciate your approach and your attitude.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That is awesome.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Very nice.

Thank you.

My name is Patty Evans.

I live at 3616 East Rolling Green, Napa Idaho.

I think that the prayer this this uh starting of the meeting was very apropos to the things that I have to say.

And I also want to walk you through Luke 12, 2 through 3.

There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed or hidden that will not be made known.

What you have said in dark will be heard in daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.

Just remember that I keep asking myself, and I've said this many times every time I have stepped up here about the Ford Idaho Center.

I keep asking myself, and I've said this many times every time I have stepped up here about the Ford Idaho Center.

Why?

Why and why?

I just happened to come across an article that was in Idaho Center.

Um did I bring up the wrong thing?

I brought up the wrong thing.

It was an article in Idaho Ed News, and it quotes the CWI president, and he says specifically that first he's not convinced that the Idaho Center is a perennial money pit.

The city has substituted subsidized the Idaho Center for years, but Jones accurately points out that the balance sheet was improved over the past four pandemic years.

He also thinks CWI let could net hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual profit money by renegotiating with the Oakview Group.

That's the national firm that manages Idaho Center.

He says in the same article that CWI has several ways to pay for this deferred maintenance cost.

One of which is the funds from the auditorium district, which we've been told by this council would not be available for maintenance.

Seems like everything that the CWI president has said they will do with the Idaho Center to make it work for them, are ideas that came forward when Representative Jangula came out and asked this the taxpayers for solutions.

Every one of those things he's doing was brought forward to this council, and every one of them was met with, well, that won't work because that won't work because apparently he thinks they are going to work out just fine.

I keep asking myself why four council members and the mayor want to ditch the Ford Idaho Center.

Just dump it.

There's people in this room that have been paying for that with their taxes since it was conceptualized.

They own it.

They own it.

The taxpayers of NAMPA own it.

And yet you've come along and you said right away that, well, you know better than we do.

You know, you know, you know.

Let the taxpayers decide what happens with their assets with their property that they have paid for all of these years.

I keep hearing some things about land that's up north below the Boise River that it is deemed NAMPA territory that the city wants to purchase.

We do not need any more things that this city needs to pay for.

We can't afford it, apparently, because we're getting rid of the Ford Idaho Center.

You guys need to listen to the taxpayers, and you need to listen to what we want.

Thank you.

Patty, who did you hear that from about the land up north?

I heard about it in this very room in the October 6th meeting.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Kylan Moltop.

And why Kylan comes up if they're still here?

I would just like to say real quickly that I am so thankful that we don't have to worry about what is spoken in secret because none of us are concerned about it because we know we know our God and we know what was spoken.

So we're not worried about it.

So thank you.

Yes, the next speaker is is Doris Phillips.

Okay.

Unfortunately, we were so late, they probably did not stay.

So is that everyone?

That is everyone.

Thank you.

Okay, so we are going to.

This is for NAMPA residents.

Are you a NAMPA resident?

Okay, sorry.

It's just NAMPA resident.

It actually is agendized, and it's NAPA residents wishing to speak on a non-agenda item.

So it is I know, and that's because we didn't realize you weren't an AMPA resident, but it is a NAMPA resident.

So at that, I would say not tonight.

So no.

Can I give you my button?

Uh nope, we don't do that.

So thank you.

We are going to move into our next public hearing, and that is 8-2 on the agenda.

And 8-2 is an action item.

This is a variance to Nampa City Code 1033 Ford C3C requiring a 20-foot wide landscape buffer along 12th Avenue Road.

This is also a variance to NAPA City Code 10-11-4A requiring a 15-foot-wide front yard setback from the property line along an arterial road in the RML zoning district on a 2.42-acre parcel at 1012-12th Avenue.

This is for Bob Bennett with Citywide Facility Solutions representing the Zion Lutheran School.

The original concept is to allow the school to build a CMU wall for the playground, five feet from the property line and allowing for a 15-foot landscape buffer measured from the back of the sidewalk instead of the property line.

So, Bob, so who's our applicant?

So thank you for sharing your name and your address.

Yes, Joshua Swigert, 16346, North Blueberry Court, Nampa Ido.

Thank you, Council Members.

My name is Joshua Swigard.

I'm the headmaster at Zion Lutheran School, the school we're discussing at 1012 12th Avenue Road.

And we're here to discuss our desired project, 136-foot CMU block fence out in front of our playground area with the chief goal to protect the children.

A little bit about our school.

We educate children in faith in Jesus Christ, Christian virtue, and academic excellence.

We're deeply committed as a classical Christian school to encouraging patriotism and honor towards those uh city authorities that we have, including yourselves.

We host a Veterans Day that's coming up soon.

Flag etiquette and say the Pledge of Allegiance each morning.

I'm here today to request a uh permission to build a wall uh five foot off of our property line that's essential for the safety and beauty and confidence of our families currently and considering enrollment.

We had on August 18th, 2016 a pickup truck pulling out of McDonald's run right through our fence.

Um apologize for not having that in the report, but I do have a picture here, and you can see the damage on the slide.

Um this is supposed to be a flat slide and it's completely vertical.

Um that was in in 2016, four days before our school year started.

Um luckily um, well, by God's grace, we had no children uh on campus.

And uh we have a school resource officer, he's our police officer who's in charge of um uh advocating for safety protocols at our school.

Umfficor Bryce Martin, um, our SRO writes I'm writing to express my support of a solid wall to be constructed on the premises of the playground bordering 12th Avenue Road due to a large amount of foot traffic from Nampa High School.

Um, it is necessary to provide safety and security for the students as they pass by all hours of the day.

12th Avenue Road remains a main thoroughfare for vehicle traffic to heavy semi-traffic.

This wall would add a barrier of safety for the children while on the playground for incidental crashes that could easily end on the playground.

Currently, a chain link fence is the only barrier.

In my professional opinion, the wall is a must and an ever increasing need for a safe learning environment.

We've had some current families really advocating uh for this since 2016, and then that we've actually had some new families um uh consider not coming to our school based on the safety concerns, uh, and so it really does affect the viability of our school going forward.

Um parent wrote while we enjoyed everything about the school, we have safety concerns about the playground.

The fencing is very low along a heavy heavily trafficked road.

It allows open access to pedestrians on the sidewalk and isn't adequate as far as a safety barrier to protect the children during recess.

This project also would beautify 12th Avenue Road.

Um we were prepared to paint.

Um we already have plans to landscape uh the area between the sidewalk and the requested uh wall.

And um, it is engineered.

One of the uh supporters of this project who generously contributed to the project with the desire to protect children said that when they learned about the recent fundraiser to build a concrete wall, um, they eagerly participated by donating the balance of the funds estimated so that construction could be completed.

Our parents and donors have been advocating for better fencing since 2016, and the entire school community stands united behind this effort.

At the center of this request are the children, the playful students who fill our playground each day.

They are joyful and carefree, as children should be, running and playing without a thought of danger.

As parents and teachers and citizens, we carry the responsibility to ensure that their freedom is matched by our protection.

This is where the city has an opportunity to join us in protecting what is good and beautiful.

A new fence may seem like a small change, but for our students and families in our school, is a benefit to the safety and flourishing of it.

On behalf of Zion Lutheran School, I'd like to thank you sincerely for considering this request and for your continued service as public servants to our families and community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Could I have you take the picture that you tried to show us?

We're gonna go over put it over here and show it on the screen so that it's a public record.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

And one of them has uh the vehicle um parked.

I mean, where you can see the crash into the slide.

And then one of them is a picture of this, the damage of the slide.

Thank you.

Hopefully, we'll get it on the screen in just a second.

While he's doing that, Councilman Haverfield, did you have a question?

No, I just um I really uh like this idea.

Uh just so I'll be supporting it.

I just wanted to state that you might look at a fully grouted wall instead of a semi-growd wall.

Uh it's just so full grouting gets concrete in all the block cores, not just the where the rebar is.

Uh and that'll just make it that much more durable and strong.

Okay, appreciate it.

Our um one of our contractors, Bob Bennett's here.

So thank you.

So hopefully we can see that in just a minute.

There nope.

So what we may do is show that um in just a moment.

So let's we're gonna go ahead and go to the staff.

Well, let me are there any questions for our applicant for Joshua.

We'll have you back.

Oh, yes.

Have you had any discussion with ITD?

Yes, sir.

ITD is approved that um the landscaping, it's not going to be a concern.

So that is actually uh noted there, and our contractor wants to help me out.

Okay, so it's the fourth bullet point down uh under the existing conditions.

Says ITD has jurisdiction over this right away as it is a state highway.

They've indicated no concerns with this proposal.

Thank you.

I didn't I didn't catch that, so I appreciate the clarification.

No problem.

Thank you.

So we are gonna go ahead and move to the staff, and then we'll do public hearing, then we'll come back to you.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, we got the picture.

Excuse me, I was looking in front of me.

Well, I guess it's over there.

Okay.

It's over there, but it's not on the live stream yet.

Okay.

So just for point of reference, uh, we're looking at uh if it's not on live stream, the accident that was referenced by our applicant at the beginning as to why this is important.

So we've got that picture, and then we've got another picture, I believe, on the other side.

Correct.

Let's look at there.

We go.

That's uh August 18th, 2016.

That would what time?

I don't know.

Okay.

Thank you.

There you go.

Okay, any other questions for our applicant at this time?

Okay.

Joshua, did you have anything else you wanted to share before we move?

Uh no, Mayor, thank you.

Okay, thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Okay, Christy.

Okay, thank you, Mayor and Council.

Um, this is a pretty easy one, I think.

Um let's see if I can get to the applicable regulations.

Are you seeing that on that point?

We are.

Um, so there's five criteria when you're trying to approve a variance that and staff has found that all these criteria are met, and I will quickly go through the findings on that.

This is the uh setback that is required and uh and the landscaping buffer that is required.

It is the intent of these requirements to bring each property into compliance as it makes significant changes or improvements.

However, this is a long-standing school in the NAMPA community that has not ever been required to install these types of frontage improvements around their playground.

There is a safety concern for the students, and the property does already have a 60-foot wide landscape yard in front of the school building itself.

The applicant is willing to install landscaping improvements in the 15-foot area from the back of the sidewalk to the proposed wall fence or where the chain link fence is currently.

An ITD who has jurisdiction over this right of way does not have any concerns with this proposal.

Staff can recommend approval of this application based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law that are stated in your staff report.

There was no correspondence with any concerns.

The conditions of approval are basically just get your building permit approved.

And these are your potential motions, and I will stand for the questions.

Thank you, Christy.

Are there any questions for Christy?

Nope.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so this is a public hearing.

And then the mayor, no one has requested to provide public testimony on this item.

Is there anyone here that had intended to provide public testimony on this item?

See none.

This is an opportunity for applicant to come back and provide any closing comments or anything else that you'd like to share.

And council, do you have any questions for our applicant?

Okay, so we don't have any questions.

Is there anything else you'd like to say before we close?

No.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Not at all.

Thank you so much.

Move that we close public hearing.

Second.

All in favor?

Okay.

What is the will of the council?

Mayor.

Yes.

I move to approve the project as stated on the screen.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any discussion?

Real call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor.

Motion carries.

This is gonna be a great project.

Thank you so much for doing it for two reasons.

One to safety of the kids, first and foremost.

And secondarily, it's gonna really enhance the look in that area.

Thank you.

That is great.

So I don't know who all is working on this.

Bob, whether it's you or Joshua and those that are fundraising for it.

I just a huge thank you.

Protecting the lives of our kids is the most important.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

83 is an action item.

Um thank you for waiting so long, guys.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

83 is an action item.

This is annexation and zoning to RS 8.5 single family residential and a potential development agreement to connect to city sewer services for 1.29 acres at 1224 East Iowa Avenue for Jerry Lyle.

This is a single family home needing to connect to City Sewer.

Is the applicant here?

You are here and ready to go.

I'm so sorry you had to wait so long.

I didn't get here for an hour after it started.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I could see.

Good.

Okay, so share your name and address.

Thank you.

Are you Jerry Gyal?

Lyle.

I am, yes.

Jerry Lyle 1224 East Iowa Avenue.

Um I think pretty simple request as you guys can see.

I don't have presentation.

Damon's got that up on the screen.

Um, so I own that piece of property.

Um, as you can see, we're kind of this little pocket of county land that's surrounded by uh city limits.

Umly this is more of a preemptive request on my part.

Um my property is currently on a septic system.

I'm not having any issues with it.

Um, but I do have city sewer direct access through the the back of my lot.

Um some of my neighbors have been having septic issues, so this is more requests just to be ready.

Um, and I think there's other benefits to to being within the city.

Um, so I have the opportunity, so here I'm in front of you guys.

So if you have any questions, let me know.

Good for you, council.

Do you have any questions?

Good for you for being proactive.

That's awesome.

Thank you.

Okay, so you just saw the process.

We're gonna have staff report, public hearing.

We'll have you back.

Thank you.

Good evening, Damien.

Good evening, thank you, Mayor and Council Damian Snodgrass Associate Planner.

Tonight we have a pretty simple one.

Annexation and zoning to RS8.5 for a single family home to connect to city services.

All right, some of the property details.

Currently, uh, this is within the county, it's under the MDR zoning designation and is contiguous to the north.

As far as the history, we had a pre-application meeting that was held discussing annexation and a potential property boundary adjustment.

Um, splitting it one time, but that is not regarding within this application.

And more about the comprehensive plan.

The RS 8.5 does fall within that comprehensive plan designation.

There are some available services within the area or in the near vicinity.

He is asking specifically to hook up the sewer.

We did receive some general correspondence from engineering and some conditions that will be in the recommended conditions of approval.

Daniel can speak to more of why right-of-way isn't dedicated since this is a private access to get to this property.

Oh, and we received one public comment from Lindsay Bee Jim.

Um, this was a variety of questions regarding the application.

This happened prior to the planning and zoning hearing.

Um, we were able to get all these questions resolved with the people that were coming through from the near vicinity.

So the findings, all private landowners have a consented to the annexation.

Property shall be contiguous to the city limits or enclaved by other properties, so annexed that the NAMPA comprehensive plan includes the area of annexation and when applicable for annexation of roadways, all partially highways lying partially or wholly to be annexed, so on and so forth.

Staff found all of these to be met.

So if within the city, it falls under that comprehensive plan designation.

And uh right now uh the roadway annexation would fall under the memorandum of understanding.

Here are the criteria for zoning.

So the relevant facts falls under the right zoning designation, it falls under a correct zone.

Um it is an enclave property, and there are available city services.

So weighing all these facts, staff found us to be in harmony with the comprehensive plan and all within the allowable for zoning to RS8.5.

Here are the recommended conditions of approval that the applicant owner shall apply comply with all city codes, policies, and standards at time of property development slash redevelopment and engineering requested that the applicant owner shall pay a standard utility connection fee and impact fees prior to connecting to city utilities, right-away permit, and um do the proper stubborn to get the connection to that home.

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

Thank you.

Council, do you have any questions?

Pretty straightforward.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

This is a public hearing, and Madam Mayor, no one has requested to provide public testimony in this item.

Thank you.

Is there anyone here?

Good evening.

I do.

Mark Mitchell 12355 Landow Wayne Amp, Ida 83686.

Um this is a great idea for this man to be proactive on this.

I don't know if you realize this, but if you do FHA financing, and it may never go FHA, I don't know, but if there is FHA and sit or services are in the street, they must connect in order to get the loan.

So that that is a big thing.

So it it to do that, it really helps him be proactive and instead have to go through this whole process and maybe speed up a sale.

So yeah.

Thank you for telling us something that we maybe didn't know and I didn't know.

So thank you.

Okay, you're welcome.

Appreciate it.

Is there anyone else that has anything they'd like to speak to tonight on this issue?

Okay, see none.

For our applicant, Jerry, do you have any closing remarks?

Nope.

Council, do you have any questions?

Thank you.

Okay, stand for a motion.

So moved.

Oh, to close public hearing.

Yes.

It's been moved and seconded to close public hearing.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Thank you.

Council discussion and council motion.

And or yes.

I'll make a motion to approve the annexation and zoning to RS 8.5 for Jerry Lyle as stated on the screen.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Roll call.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Yes.

All in favor.

Motion carries.

Jerry, there you go.

Thank you for being proactive.

Good for you.

Okay, so now we are going to go back to our new business items and conclude that section.

We are moving to 5-7.

This is the discussion item.

This is regarding actions and code of conduct for the city council.

And I believe councilman Reynolds would like to present this item.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

So obviously we had a robust discussion on an earlier item tonight.

And uh this item on our agenda, I feel like is for council to address with fellow council members.

It or member uh it's not uh for the mayor to do.

The council governs itself.

So uh I had some things that I wanted to bring up and talk about.

Um, I would like Preston to talk about executive session, the why and the four and all the stuff to go with the executive session.

I know you did once, but I want to re reiterate that on the record, and then I'll take some more comments.

Sounds good.

Um mayor and council, uh, as stated earlier.

Uh the premise of executive session is by our legislature allowing us to take certain matters into confidence for the benefit of the public.

There's just certain matters that shouldn't be fleshed out in the public.

There could be personnel matters.

Um, there's the privacy of the employee.

Um, there's also pending gathering of facts for an investigation when it comes to other matters acquiring land.

Uh, we've hit on that.

I think a lot, I think we understand that merit that the negotiation process you want to keep the integrity of that and not lose any leverage.

Um, among many others, um Idol legislatures had executive sessions on the books for nearly 50 years.

Um, and they have a provision in there that when we do gather, uh, we do so on a narrow basis.

The courts will say, make sure you're really tight on why you're going into executive session.

Um we announce that on the record why we're going into executive session uh for the public's knowledge.

I alluded to this earlier, but we do mark our minutes when we start and when we end, uh, so the public is aware of the duration of that uh meeting, and that it in fact ended and didn't continue on for the rest of the week, right?

And so in that sense, in that spirit of transparency, we do uh remember that open meeting law starts with the public's the bit the business of the public is to not be done in secret, and but the legislature does authorize for valid reasons uh for this body to go into executive session.

Um with that I'll leave it there, and I know there may be some discussion too about um potential code of conduct, bylaws and things like that.

I think were you leading to confidentiality?

Was that part of your question regarding executive sessions or was it just that?

Yeah, confidentiality, yeah.

Um it's strongly implied, it almost goes without legislating it.

Why have an executive session if you don't need to keep those matters confidential uh during their penancy?

Um Idaho open meeting laws doesn't explicitly say that every item discussed in executive session shall be confidential and the disclosure has consequence X, Y, and Z.

Um case law doesn't have anything on point, but it's clear from all the cases uh that hit on open meeting allegations, plus the law itself, there is a clear, strong inference that the matters are confidential, and that's the intent to not keep them confidential really undoes the very purpose of why executive session exists, and so it behooves any public agency, this council, a county, a state board, uh, to treat the matter as such because it's the public interest that's on the line.

Thank you.

So um one of the things that uh um thinking about is that we do not have, and I I've talked to our legal about this.

We don't have a um uh code of we have we have a code of conduct thing that we sign uh as council members, and has a few items on it, but we don't have any uh bylaws and developing bylaws and having something that we can enforce for council members that uh choose to break those items.

I feel like is important and something we should address as a council in the future, and um see if we can uh hash out some bylaws that we could adopt for our council.

I think it would keep our integrity in check.

And um, so the other thing I would like to address is with councilman Rodriguez, uh he didn't ever you didn't ever answer my question tonight about what uh why David Bills and I are should recuse ourselves, and one of the things I noticed was that uh possibly that answer would come from whoever was texting you in the audience tonight.

That uh is was very obvious the questions that came forth.

I think it's fair that you bring those questions out or those answers, and uh we we have a right to face our accuser, and um I think that's important.

Um you talked about um some executive session items from the diets tonight, and um I know that that's probably doesn't seem like a big deal, but it is a big deal to me and to I know some of my fellow council members, and uh those items are not to be leaked.

We do have uh some form of action under code uh 74, something Idaho state law that talks about what we can do as a council for censorship if these items happen uh we can vote for that.

Um executive items put us at risk as a council.

They um they put us uh for potential litigation, they put us at personal risk, they put us at uh business risk, and uh I don't think the taxpayers would like to pay, they like to pay the extra legal fees that we have to incur to defend those things that are brought to us in a nefarious way, and so these uh items need to be addressed, and we need to be a counsel of integrity.

Um Victor, you also stated on your website before we voted on the Ford Idaho Center that you had voted no on the Idaho Center.

That's not integrity in my book.

That uh integrity is when you come to the dias to vote, you vote on that item, you don't post it on your web page ahead of time of voting.

Uh that just did not make sense to me, and um it's not who we want to be as a council to uh bring those things forward.

The uh I've talked before about 90% truth, and um 90% truth is what gets people in trouble, and um it all it stirs up the public, it um is not necessary.

100% truth is where we live on this diet and where we always want to live, and I hope it's that way long after I'm gone.

Um I found out many years ago that it's a lot easier to dig a hole with your mouth than with a shovel, and I kind of feel like in this case that's what's happened here, and uh it's it's concerning to me.

So as council president, I felt like it's my job to bring this forward and uh open it up for discussion with our fellow council members about uh the potential for adopting some bylaws and um any other items that would be on the council's chest, council members test about uh uh code of conduct of fellow city council person.

So, with that, Madam Mayor, I will open it up to whoever would wish to speak.

Excuse me to turn on my mic.

This is a discussion item, it is not an action item.

Um it is uh seeking um a direction.

Do you want uh code of conduct?

We did sign a code of conduct, but it was not by laws and it it wasn't enforceable.

And so what we've realized is that if we were going to do it, we probably need to adopt it via uh I would assume a resolution, but it would have more teeth in the code of conduct.

So council president, I'll maybe speak on that point and just a few points of clarification before the discussion may take off.

Again, these are just the legal points, um, not really the substance of the conversation.

Um yes, you do have authority to adopt bylaws in case that question does come up.

Um that's found in our constitution and explicitly in uh Idol Code 5302.

Uh cities can enact bylaws and regulations to minute maintain peace, good government, and welfare, and they can enforce uh those ordinances through fines or penalties.

Um then when it comes to teeth, you know, it's really up to the council, right?

If you want to adopt bylaws, what do you want to put in there?

Um, what is your code of conduct, and do you have any prescribed consequences for violations, right?

Um again, I think this is more exploratory, if I understand tonight, and it would take some time to really flesh it out.

You want to have good bylaws, you want to have good standards, uh, and so that'd be uh fair and the outcomes can be predictable, not so arbitrary.

Um so it would take a little time, but uh if that's the direction the council wants to go, we can certainly go down that path.

But uh legally uh you are allowed to do so.

Um the Idaho Code section on open meeting laws, um, doesn't hit on bylaws specifically.

What it does hit on is if there is a violation of the open meeting laws.

There's kind of two tiers.

One is if there was a kind of a oops violation that wasn't intentional, there is a civil penalty that can be assessed against the offending council.

Um that amount is to a hundred dollars.

Um, if there is a knowing violation, where you just say you know, through the law, we're gonna go around it, circumvent it, that would be $1,500.

And if that happens again in a 12-month period, that value can go up to 2,500.

In our case, as a city, uh, the county attorney would enforce that, um, and also private citizens can do so.

And so you got to be aware of what those penalties are for open meeting violations.

Um there is authority.

Um I'm aware of other cities that have done this uh where they do censor um uh council member for certain conduct, and that would be done by a resolution.

Um, but if you have bylaws, that would guide it more.

Uh right now we are without bylaws, and so the options are somewhat limited when it comes to censoring if that is ever a topic or a need.

Um, but you certainly can't explore bylaws and formulate them however however you wish and have a vote on that.

Madam Mayor, I just have one more question that I wanted to ask uh councilman Rodriguez.

So uh prosecutor uh Boyd um did tell us that uh uh one council member and one citizen had brought this complaint forward about a meeting violation, open meeting violation.

Well, my question is is how did a citizen complain when they wouldn't or shouldn't know what we talked about in an executive session?

Executive session that we notice on our agenda would have nothing wrong with it, how it's noticed, you would have to know what went on in executive session.

So my question is is your integrity in check?

How did that citizen know what went on in executive session?

Well, talk about integrity.

Wow, I don't know who the other person is.

I have no idea.

Mr.

Integrity.

You tell me who it is.

I don't know.

Do you have an answer for that?

Don't accuse.

I don't have an answer for that.

The don't accuse then.

Because I don't know who it is.

I have no idea who it is.

And then can you please answer my other question?

What was exactly I kind of forgot about it.

The question about why councilman Bills and myself would have to recuse ourselves from any vote.

I didn't understand that.

I understand a long time ago that you two were assigned by the mayor to start discussions.

And so uh when we went before, and you I and I guess you did that, but when you said about the BSU ground, that was related to CWI ground trying to get property from them to build a police or uh the recenter.

Now, I don't know all the all the ins and outs because I don't because I wasn't told that so I don't really know exactly what direction you two were headed if you were headed at all.

I just know that that's where it was.

I questioned that, and I thought, why are you doing that?

Because we haven't even gone that far yet.

So in the in the transparency issue, when we go before the council, we go before the community and say, give us solutions, give us ideas, give us a direction.

But all along you have already figured out where we're headed.

Well, if you two involved in that in in those discussions or whatever, maybe you ought to sit back and say, wait a minute.

And in full transparency to the community and perception of the community, it would be the honorable thing to do.

But since I was kept in the dark most of the time, I can't tell you what you two were up to because I wasn't there.

But I do know that the mayor was was assigned you two to it, so you know what?

There you go.

You want to clarify that?

Absolutely.

Because I don't know.

Absolutely.

So uh the mayor didn't assign councilman Bills and myself to anything.

Uh the mayor and I went to visit Dr.

Trump with Boise State on on our own accord to see if we could get some ground for the PD.

And um that was nothing to do with CWI.

So I don't know where councilman Bills and I were ever on a we're on the water renewal committee or the construction committee together with councilman Haverfield, but uh you know that uh is the only thing we we don't have any secret CWI committee, we haven't had any uh meetings with CWI prior to anything that we did with executive session and and as a group, everything was done as a group.

So I don't know.

I don't I don't I don't I don't know where that I'm not sure where that's coming from.

Yeah, and I don't know where you're coming from.

Share it with us.

Who gave you that information that we were conspiring to do?

When when this whole thing started, I I I was looking and observing, and then I went, okay, wait a minute.

This came up in a in the executive session.

And by the way, I'm gonna talk about executive so you can do whatever you want to, but I'm still gonna talk about it.

You can do whatever you want to, but I'm still gonna talk about it.

Is that we decided, and I don't know who we was who who was we that we decided we're gonna start conveyance proceedings and we're gonna figure out what to do with with the Fort Idol Center.

First time I ever heard it was in executive session.

Who I who spoke to you regarding Reynolds and I conspiring to do something being I don't know that that's the right word, David.

You can use that word we want, but it's not the right word.

What it was is that is that I remember that you all were talking.

Well, we we we talked to what was it, C W I or B ASU if you get all this police training facility and a rec center facility.

I didn't know what you guys were talking about because I have I wasn't privy to that.

Why did we do wrong?

Oh, what what's wrong?

If if if you've accused us of doing wrong in a public meeting, and I want to know what I then why don't okay.

You finally said, you finally said here of uh uh a month and a half ago.

I'm the one that's that brought up with the idea.

Okay.

So when did when did you decide all this?

When did you decide to to start this process?

What person beside yourself is accusing me of wrongdoing.

Oh, I'm I'm what other person you said there's somebody who said we violated Dale and I conspired to do something in terms of the ground and and CWI and Fort Idaho Center, and that's what you said on the record tonight, and I want to know who you visited with regarding that issue and how you come to uh accusing me of wrongdoing.

There's nobody else.

So it's you.

That's me.

I you're accusing us of conspiring to do wrong.

Is that correct?

Conflict of interest is what I said.

That is a conflict of interest.

Where's the conflict of interest?

Okay, if if if apparently you don't listen, but I'm gonna tell you again.

I listen real well.

Well, then why don't you just listen and quit talking?

Let me explain to you what I said.

If this is just ridiculous.

When it's when it when it's your idea to start this whole process and to give the conveyance, how's it how how is that observing the community's idea or plan or direction?

It's not because you thought it was your idea, and then from then on, you asking the community, well, give us some input, give us an idea, give us a direction.

Never listen to them.

In fact, you all you did was chew them out because nothing else works.

I said, I'm getting to your answer.

I said, if you knew that you were gonna do this idea, we should have been vetted with you, me and me as a council member.

You should have told me, well, this is what we're thinking.

Then I would have said, okay, or no, or give me the give me the reasons, give me the give me the the directions.

But then I see you and Dale thinking, or well, we're gonna go talk to Mayor Trump.

I mean, I mean not Mayor Trump, BSU President Trump about the land.

So I'm thinking, well, wait a minute.

What are what are the discussions going on with you guys?

And I don't have any idea what discussions are going on.

All I hear is the end result.

Well, we're gonna do this.

Well, how's how how how is that?

How is that uh uh transparent?

Not even not even me know what was going on.

You never called me and talked to me.

Dale never called and talked to me.

I didn't need to.

Well, I think you did because I'm a councilman, and I think uh and and and I am the I am no hold on, and I am the liaison for the Fort Idol Center.

I think I should have known what was going on.

Oh, you have a title of layers on to Fort Idol Center?

Well, it's the event management, yes.

Okay, so at that, I I think we're gonna stop um now.

So um just to add to it real briefly, I think that we should have bylaws.

I think that we should have bylaws.

I think we should put penalties in place.

I think if there's other cities that have censorship opportunities, we should investigate those.

Uh I'm not saying I we can't be retroactive, so just knowing here and now people shouldn't talk about what happens in executive session, just moving forward from that.

Thank you.

So with that, this isn't an action item, it's a discussion item.

And so my question if are we in agreement that we would like to put some bylaws together and we'll move forward.

So, Preston, just go ahead and get started on that, and then they would come before council for approval.

That's where the vote would come in when you bring them back, whenever that is, you can bring them back to the body for approval at a time.

And what I'd recommend is to have uh maybe a workshop discussion or something along those lines, so it's not the formal the first time you see it is not the end all be all vote.

It'd be helpful to maybe get some feedback.

Um I think that could be informative because bylaws can be as broad as you want, as deep as you want, or simple as you want.

Um I'm hearing tonight.

Again, this is just a discussion.

Um it sounds like it's along the lines of code of conduct, some standards, and if there would be potentially some consequences for violating it.

Um that gets a little tricky.

You need to establish a standard.

How would you review a violation?

Uh so bylaws in concept seems simple, but when you put pen to paper, uh just know it's a little more complicated.

Look at other cities and see what they have in place.

I believe you've referenced some other cities that may have something in place.

Again, I I know of cities that have done public censoring.

Uh but when it comes to a one-off resolution, but for a formal bylaws, um, we'd have to do some investigation.

I'm not aware of a city yet, but I'll follow up with you.

Well, we know that we have the Association of Idaho Cities Code of Conduct that we had adopted per resolution in 21.

We've signed it, but we didn't do it as a resolution.

So we can start there, we can look at the enforceability of it and build from there, but we can just build something off of something someone else has in place.

So thank you.

Let's not make it too difficult.

Mayor, I'm sorry.

I can't leave Rodriguez yet.

And so I think it's real important to know that we covered the issues.

We covered the background and the discussions.

There was no assignment, it was all exploratory based on talking with staff and the needs of this city to explore different issues that led to that you were involved in any and all discussion when it got serious or contemplating doing something at the Fort Idol Center.

You were the director.

You were the one calling the shots.

I wasn't calling any shots.

Actually, actually, he wasn't, I would say, because he wasn't assigned to anything.

Okay.

So I think it's it's it's it's a it's a it's a matter of that you and I are disagreeing, David.

No, you want to you let these people go home.

And you and I can go and talk about this by ourselves.

Disagree and you've accused me of doing wrong.

You're directing the conveyance of of the Fort Ido Center.

Actually, not, but um, I would just say uh, yes, there is a disagreement.

I think where this has become very difficult is when it is a an actual legal accusation of wrongdoing that questions people's integrity, which uh there can be misunderstandings.

Um the accusation and what we've watched, even um social media and the the negative things that have been said that are extremely inappropriate um and very unfortunate.

Uh what it's caused is it questions everybody's integrity, and uh and I think that is brings offense to every council member and myself too, is when our integrity is in question and all the accusations that come for what um if there's something really wrong, I think the real reality is we want to correct it, right?

So if we did something wrong, we initially our executive sessions were they're always based on legal advice, and uh but would never do anything intentionally wrong.

So this has been damaging to relationships, it's been it's in a whole bunch of ways, but with that, I think we're gonna end tonight.

So um I think Preston, you have the information or the guidance that you need.

At this time, we do have an executive session that we need to.

I think we need to.

Do we need to do executive session for MPPA?

I'm not doing an executive session.

No executive sessions, and I think he should be removed, Rodriguez, from further negotiations based on the video that was shared with us that he threw this council under the bus in his negotiations with the MPPA.

I think we need to start afresh.

Mayor and Councilman Bills, if I may wait on that.

Cannot do that.

They are elected official.

They are permitted to come.

I'm not saying exclude from this meeting.

I'm saying he's been working on the MPPA negotiation.

We have no contract.

We keep being told nothing's coming together as far as resolution.

If you want if I if I what I heard was was it removing from the executive session or from the board from the negotiations, negotiation in MPPA?

Okay, in that case, that that's my apologies.

I misunderstood.

Um that's a point of discussion.

You can do an executive session or here.

And you have to have a two-thirds vote to go into executive session.

I think for tonight, I'm gonna recommend and I please let that.

I'm sorry you guys have waited tonight for that.

I think we need to pause.

No executive session, no MPPA discussions tonight.

I think we've had enough tonight, so I would suggest we not do it.

They're gonna need to wait.

And with apologies, we'll just pause.

And at that, we do not have any unfinished business.

So I just I just want to say quickly, this has been a very frustrating thing.

This breach that has happened, and I spoke very publicly to our council members.

I sent an email the first time that it happened.

I was very upset because I respect the office, I respect my fellow council members, and I know that this is important information and that we need to to work together.

And I was very upset about it, and then to find out that it happened again, and in these contexts, this is put all of our integrity on the line, and it has been insanely upsetting to me, and I'm very, very upset about it, and especially the things then that have been said about us publicly, social media posts, some that are in here tonight that posted horrible things about us that are completely untrue.

It is not founded, and I don't appreciate it.

Speaking to the public and telling them that things are a hundred percent accurate when they are not absolutely infuriates me because we work in a very in integrity-based environment always, and we are always trying to do what is right, and it doesn't mean that it aligns with everyone a hundred percent, but that doesn't mean that we are wrong, and it doesn't mean that we didn't do something legal.

So I'm very frustrated about that.

And that came from these conversations where some don't agree and then they're running with things being facts when they are not facts, and that has been incredibly frustrating for this council.

Thank you.

So I need to clarify, Mayor, on the NPPA.

Here's a story with the NPPA.

I uh listen to the police officers and their direction of what they want, even though knowing that that uh the the FCO Doug is related to them the direction of of our finances and the direction of where we look another year to two years from now.

I informed the uh the MPPA that I I do support them, however, uh the council wants a different direction.

So David, I don't know where you're coming from on that, but that's about the only thing I've been saying.

So if you want to tell us that you would be good to negotiate with MPPA because you're not gonna give them anything.

We're gonna be tough as tough.

Well, I know who are your words I have been.

Okay, no, yeah.

So you know what?

Okay, so we're gonna pause.