Hi David.

Right?

Right.

You're not wrong.

Yeah.

So after we need to write them down.

Somebody go Sunday and say news.

So yeah, I went for the meetings there.

Anyway, so we have this reading.

You look so sharp.

Is my jacket not counting?

Oh, I love working on so many people.

Thanks, I'm calling it.

That's good.

Good morning.

How are you today?

Yeah.

Thank you.

So um was Shar not here.

Are you equipped to speak to the alcohol license if there's a question?

Um I'm going to shall have come in because she probably she knows.

Is she here already?

Yeah.

She should be in here with it.

Good morning.

I think we're ready to get started with our city council special meeting this morning.

Thank you guys for being here.

Uh we would like to open in prayer, and I've asked David Bills to open.

Please stand and then we'll follow with the Pledge of Allegiance afterwards.

Lord God, we give thanks for this morning.

We give thanks that we live in a free country.

Lord, we pray that you would guide and direct the affairs of this morning.

We pray God that you'll continue to give us wisdom as we lead.

Father God, may you bless the city.

We give you all the thanks and praise for what we're able to do in this country and in the city.

In Jesus' name.

Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Thank you.

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Here.

Angula?

Here.

Bills?

Here.

Reynolds.

Here.

Haverfeld.

Here.

Griffin?

Here.

Six present.

Thank you.

Okay, our first action item today is uh the expansion and transfer of an alcohol license.

Um this was in our package.

Um this is Serena Lounge, Black Pines uh saloon at 108 and 112 12th Avenue South.

This is for on-premise beer, wine, and liquor by the drink.

And I'd like to ask council if you would like anyone to speak to this issue.

Mayor, I'd appreciate it.

Okay, so I guess we're gonna have we'll have start with Morgan.

Morgan, thank you so much.

Good morning, good morning, Mayor and Council.

Um this is uh license this before you is going through the process.

Um there was um talk, and I'll let Preston chime in if he needs to fill in on the legal details.

This is a situation where we have an existing business that is taking over the uh space adjacent to them, so they are required through the state law and our ordinance to do an expansion just of the footprint of their liquor license.

So this is the existing Syringa, and it it will go into that next space.

Black pine is what they're calling that concept.

It will be uh those that pass through a door and there'll be more food and a little bit different vibe, but kind of sister businesses working there under one license and a single owner.

My understanding this has been approved by the state and the county, is that correct?

Correct.

Okay, and it was approved by PD.

Okay.

Are there any other questions on this particular item?

So has police vetted this uh expansion or change okay.

The answer came from the audience just for those that couldn't hear.

Yes, they did.

Thank you.

Because it does go before all three bodies.

And this is not the establishment that we had difficulties with some issues a few weeks back.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Thank you, Morgan.

Okay, so this is an action item.

Mayor?

Yes.

I moved to approve the liquor license as stated.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any uh discussion?

See none, roll call.

Rodriguez?

Yes, Angula?

Yes, Bills?

Yes, Haverfield, yes, Reynolds, yes, Griffin?

Yes.

Motion carries.

One two on the agenda is also an action item.

This is to authorize Nampa Police Protective Association negotiations offer.

So who will be presenting on this today?

Thank you, Clay.

Good morning, Mayor and Council.

I'm gonna pull up a screen real quick to give context.

Um the NPPA and the city have been having negotiation conversations since August 14th.

Um we've had eight meetings in total.

Um we were scheduled to have a meeting yesterday.

Uh unfortunately it was canceled since we weren't able to have conversation on the Monday um council meeting.

So I did just want to brief the council.

We did receive a communication from the NPPA board um this last weekend regarding just kind of a status update of where they are.

We had requested um that they take the last offer from the city back to its association for a vote.

Um that vote did come back overwhelmingly not in support of our proposal and to recall that proposal.

It was a uh three percent 3.11% uh increase for all levels in within the contract, a five percent increase to their health care, um, and then we identified uh one time funds for um equipment upgrade.

So that is that is what we have sent back last time to date, um, and I will their their last communication and what they have would like the the council to consider is um a 2.75 uh base wage increase, 5% insurance premium, and a 1% for match on their deferred compensation contribution.

They'd also like the council to consider a one-time use of funds for an increase in the uniform allowance.

And for information on what those dollars look like, um the 2.75% increase uh the 5% health care and the 1% 401k match would be a total of 823,673 dollars.

Um that amount is 14,598 above the $809 value, um, which is what we had last projected for uh an increase of cost.

So, as you'll remember during the budget process, there was placeholders put uh for wages and health care.

Um that was below that 800 mark.

Um, but based on the conversations and discussions with uh Doug Racine, our our CFO, that dollar value we could we could meet from the city's perspective budget-wise.

So additionally from the NPPA, um they have requested um that the council provide a an additional member on the uh negotiation team from the council's perspective.

I've put that communication and request on the screen.

Um so this is from their communication on Sunday, um, and their request is that we we add one additional council member to come back to the negotiation table.

And I'm happy to stand for any questions.

So today's action is we have two items that we need to discuss.

One who would be the additional council liaison into the negotiations, and then the other item is what we do with the offer that is there.

And I would just like to make a quick comment.

Um, as most may be aware that this week the meridian levy passed.

One of the things that we're facing is that we have not increased a levy here, and we are on a very tight budget.

So, with that levy, our understanding is there is a posed proposed nine percent increase to the meridian police officers.

It's going to be very difficult for the city of NAPA to retain officers.

We've lost two officers to Boise just in the recent, uh, I think one this week and one in the recent couple of weeks, and it it all stems around pay.

Um, for the city of Napa, this is really challenging.

And this is the effect of 389.

The fact that we cannot fund our police department, um, not only in the hiring side, but mostly in figuring out how to fund the positions of fund the department.

And these are ongoing operational costs that are funded out of property taxes.

And one thing that I would say is, and I don't know if we know that, that our uh property taxes, the police budget exceeds the general government property taxes that we receive from the city.

I just don't know if the public knows that.

So this is a little bit difficult.

So even trying to decide what to do today on an increase.

We know that this next budget cycle, we're gonna be in a really interesting place.

Trying to figure out what to do with it.

Yes.

Uh and and for transparency's sake, Clay, how many meetings have we had and gone back and forth with the NPPA?

We've had eight meetings to date.

Okay, eight meetings.

And so with the 809 baseline, that's still an 83 or 84,000 increase from what we already budgeted, correct?

Um that is correct.

So now with the addition of what they're asking, they were wanting an additional 97,000 dollars on top of what we allotted through the budget cycle regarding police staffing and increases.

Uh Mayor and Council, that is correct.

I I do want to just note the dollar value that was put in the budget, I think was intended as placeholders.

Um so we did a budget for what the average our city employee staff are getting on the co the cost of living increase in merit, and then there was a 3.72% hold place for the the insurance premium recognizing that was more than likely going to be higher.

Um so at the same time, I think it's important to note that the wage that uh they've proposed is a decrease from what this the city has scheduled or uh budgeted in recognition that the deferred comp is an important component for their membership as they have a rule of 80 versus a rule of 90, and that that difference is important to them from a recruitment and retention standpoint.

From recruitment and retention, thinking about retirement when they hit the rule of 90.

So for the sake of transparency, again, I feel that I'm gonna flush all this out.

The deferred comp dollars that they're requesting are intended to go for more senior police that have made their their time at the city of Napa and retiring at the rule of 90.

So, in the sense of recruitment, it doesn't necessarily benefit entry employees if they end up transferring to another department state agency or what be it, correct?

Um, I would say the deferred comp is an opportunity for any employee or any police officer within the union associate or the association to provide those funds, right?

So if they transfer out, that's still a value to them.

Um I think at the from a recruitment and retention, when we look at the overall compensation packages that we're competing against with other cities, deferred comp is one of those components.

Um, and while some may choose not to use that to begin with, it is still a benefit to them.

Um, but it you know, right now it's a two percent, they're asking for a one percent increase to go to three.

Some of our competition have a four percent.

It's a little hard to compare Apples to Apples because of the different compensation packages that are available, um, but from the association's perspective of what they've communicated to us, the deferred comp bucket is important to all of its members.

And then Eric, would you like to say, is there anything you'd like to add to that?

Yeah, just uh just a couple of points.

Um, so uh mayor and council, so on the deferred compensation.

Um from talking to the NPPA, about 80% of their membership takes advantage of it, which is a good number.

Uh, that means new officers are taking advantage of that.

Um, they they recognize the benefit of that benefit over the course of their career.

Um, and since they have an earlier retirement age, there's a bigger gap between age 65 and when police officers typically retire.

So that helps fund that gap because you take on all of your insurance, all those things that you have to pay for uh if you do retire early or do retire at your full retirement.

So there is that.

Also, I just wanted to speak to the what was budgeted by the city uh was not was a 3.7 percent increase to insurance.

Um the general city employees got a seven percent adjustment to their insurance, so coming up to five percent was probably really what should have been budgeted.

So that 83,000 dollars that that we're speaking about as an increase to what was budgeted was probably not what should have realistically been budgeted um for the for the start of negotiations.

So uh so I don't want it to look like that is a big increase.

That's that's the gap from what was set aside as a placeholder as uh uh as the chief of staff mentioned, but um, but I I think it's a misleading number if you look at it just that way.

Mayor, another question for Eric then.

If I could in your opinion, do you think the increase on deferred comp will help bring in new officers to the city of Napa?

I I think it will.

Uh it is it is a good benefit.

Um I I do hate to see the decrease to 2.75 percent as an offset to that, but I understand where the city is.

Uh this is what the negotiations with the the NPPA has come back with as a compromise for that.

So I think this is a good offer.

Madam Mayor, yes, Councilman Reynolds.

Thank you for your comments.

Uh Captain Scoglin.

I was also wondering if I could hear from Captain Daniels uh his perspective on it.

Um because uh he's sleeping back there, so morning, mayor council.

Um honestly, I don't know if anything to add.

Uh uh Clay and Eric both articulated, I think, very well.

From an administrative standpoint, uh that that small decrease in the wage isn't gonna have an impact on our recruitment ability uh from where our dollars are.

uh he's sleeping back there so morning mayor counsel um honestly i don't know if anything to add uh uh clay and eric both articulated i think very well from an administrative standpoint uh that that small decrease in the wage isn't gonna have an impact on our recruitment ability uh from where our dollars at uh the levy that's gonna kick in for next year for meridian that's gonna be the hurdle that we're worried about uh this small amount I don't think makes a difference to us when it when we look at what our hard dollars are per hour um in the long run I think this deal is a better deal for their employees uh because that gap that's a gap that some of us are experiencing uh uh right now and and it is a big deal and so I think for them to have the ability to put that money away to help bridge that gap um is is a higher priority for them and I think it's good for us I think it has a really strong impact on our retention as well as recruitment I could so just speaking to that you mentioned the gap the gap in all areas are pay insurance and deferred comp or just deferred comp or insurance what what is the big pressing need the well the clarification when I said gap I'm talking about that time when you retire between ages 51 and 55 for example you got a 10 year time frame that you've got to find a way to fund your insurance to get to Medicare so this deferred comp is a great tool that will help those employees find a way to bridge that gap I think most of us go on to some other form of employment but I'll be honest with you this is a full contact sport you're kind of worn out by the time you get to the end of this career and I can speak very much so with authority on that and so having that ability to be able to maintain a decent lifestyle and bridge those those financial gaps at the end of the career this this deal puts us farther down the road that way and I think that's a good strong thing for the employees and I think the retention on that I yeah we pay an employee that for five years and they decide they want to go to an agency that doesn't offer it and that money stops and it doesn't build anymore and so this is a great tool moving forward that can help us sustain people for a longer period of time keep those good employees around for a longer period of time question so if if this was agreed to is this a two year I believe it's a one year can we go to a two year mayor and counsel that is up to the council's discretion I we originally went into things with a two year we moved it back to a one year as you know the FY27 budget there's uh some uncertainty on that so that would be up to council's discretion if they want to commit to a two-year contract mayor for Clay again the 1400 increase in addition to 800 to 9,000 base number is that including the uniform allowance as well that does not include the uniform allowance and they are asking for the uniform allowance so we we can't accept an offer today with unless we add in that uniform allowance what is that amount that would end up being in addition to the 1400 and the 809000.

So the uniform allowance based on the projection of what we had done last time was 81000 that would be a one-time expense council has the ability to prep present back to NPPA their offer so it it doesn't need to be a either you accept it or we don't do anything council can modify and present back to a counter offer to NPPA that we can take back to the the negotiations for another meeting.

That's what we're here for and we want to you know it's I will say it's been a it's been productive conversation it's been good conversation to better understand their their needs you know it's easy to look at numbers uh it's hard to put yourself in their shoes to identify you know I I had an opportunity to go right on Friday last week and it was a good good experience um as I think the whole council agrees and supports our RPD but um the other thing I did want to note on the value from the retirement perspective we do have competing agencies that provide medical benefits from the date of retirement to hitting Medicare and so that's a a huge benefit to that employer which is one more thing that that we have to try and combat as far as keeping those employees in meridian or in the amount so council mayor excuse me uh thought would be is a uh 2.5 percent raise increase uh 5% health care one percent match and the uniform allowance for one year the first year and it's a two year contract what would the that amount end up being with the reduction from two point seven I know that it's eighty one thousand with the addition of the uniform what is the less of 2.75 to 2.5 those would be numbers we would have to I'd have to have Doug run.

Um so if you did another of the same amount, probably another 20,000 ish.

So it would still still likely be an increase of 60,000 over what we did in our original budget.

Correct.

Thank you.

Do we have Mayor is Doug online?

Doug is online.

Yes, I'm online.

Doug, can you if you were to take you were to take and drop that to 2.5%, the total increase, uh the total package would drop to 775,966.

So about $35,000 below the $89,000 we were at in the prior meeting.

So $51,000 of an increase.

Yeah, where Mayor, if I could.

Yes.

Doug, where would these funds come from if we opted to um approve or go back into the negotiations and fund the extra dollar amounts?

I have I I have to reduce another budget to get there, and I can I have some small valuations we use for operational contingency that uh that I tend to um uh we tend to not use unless council authorizes that, so I could pull it out of that bucket as needed.

It's not a large bucket, but it would be enough to cover this.

How much is remaining in that bucket?

Um right now, well, let's say we've got let me go back for context.

Uh well, we had this uh a couple years ago when we when we were budgeting it was about um two two and a half million dollars.

Now we're down to about 700,000 dollars.

We keep spending into it, so it's getting smaller and smaller, and it will go away as as we spend it.

Could we I'd like to speak to that because that is a uh discussion that's hard for the public to understand.

So uh Doug, and I'll just start it, and Doug, you can add to it.

So for those listening, the city of Napa has projected that we were running into a very, very tight budget.

And so what we did was we used ongoing operational monies for one-time capital improvements, knowing that we were going to come to the place which we are hitting probably next year where we have zero bandwidth in our budget.

And so that's what Doug is referring to.

That's gotten down now to 700,000.

So uh and Doug, you can speak to uh financially what you're seeing because of new construction and our levy being so low, what used to come in for new construction and the for our budget is really really low now, and so we're we're coming to a place of criticality in our budget.

And so when Doug is talking about what he's talking about, he's been very careful.

We have been very, very careful.

That's why we didn't have to do a levy this year.

But with our competing agencies, and that's the only concern I have with the two-year, uh, we've got to retain employees.

If we don't have public safety in the city of Napa, we don't have officers, and they're exiting to go to our neighboring agencies.

That's very concerning for the city of Napa.

Doug, is there anything else?

Yeah, definitely.

So what I'm seeing now is if we take the property tax permits and the occupancy permits granted through um planning and development and and development services, in 2026's budget, the new construction dollars raw were about 329 million dollars we added to the uh the bottom line of the city's assets.

That resulted in about 900,000 dollars of new taxes.

That was down from 1.8 million dollars the prior year.

Going into 27 as we close out the 25 calendar year, the new permits right now are at 68 million dollars.

So you go from 329 million dollars that gives 900,000 of new taxes to us, 68 million dollars, and a very, very, very small of new property taxes.

So our base is good, the base is solid, but we pay for raises, we pay for the MPPA, we pay for anything else the city needs, it's a new cost out of the new construction dollars and the three percent.

That's where we get it from.

So we're going to see very likely a significant decrease in the new construction dollars.

I believe this is more transitory than permanent.

It's a more of a issue.

But um if we were to do a two contract and guarantee a uh two or three percent for the police, that would that might be extremely challenging to live up to in the 2027 budget cycle as our amount of new monies will be difficult to manage.

We'll have to prioritize extremely effectively.

And I would just like to excuse me, Councilman Bills.

You just made a comment that you're you don't think that is transitory.

If we slow growth and with now our levy so low, our new construction is coming in so low.

And Doug referenced increases, but our cost of doing business, for example, I believe Idaho Power has an increase request.

If I remember correctly, it's about 17%.

I can't say right off the top of my head what our utility bill is, what that increase alone brings.

Our insurance costs have skyrocketed, not because the city of NAPA, it has to do with the international and then national uh reinsurance market because of all the major catastrophes across the nation.

The city of Napa is ranked as one of the best run cities when it comes to our insurance, and uh they use this as an example because we've done such a good job.

So it isn't because we're not doing a great job, we're doing everything to get our discounts as discounts and how we're running the city.

The cost insurance increases that impact this Gen Gov budget has to do with something totally out of our control when it comes to the reinsurance market.

So there are a lot of financial increases that we absolutely do not get to control, and that is all property taxes.

So that's just a quick overview on budget.

Yes, Doug?

So as we go into the we'll start the 27 budget cycle next January, February.

Um if what I'm seeing in the permits and trends holds consistent, as we do the budget, the use of foregone would be uh mandatory.

We wouldn't be able to complete a budget without that extra money, but it also means that our capacity to hire new people next year will have to really say, you know, that's not gonna happen, we're not gonna be able to add new positions.

So as you make this decision or recommendation on to the uh the NPPA, keep in mind that for 26 we're on relatively solid ground, but as we move into 27, we're going to experience a period of tightness.

How long that lasts, councilman bills could be very correct, maybe it isn't.

Uh, but at least for one year, I'm entirely certain that we're going to have a very, very tight year.

Uh world's not gonna fall, the nothing's gonna end, but we need to be the the advantage now is we have the opportunity to plan ahead, and this is what my my advanced work is done is given us that time frame.

But this is the council decision, yes, councilman bills.

So, Mayor, from my perspective, uh, because of the uncertainty and the likelihood of a dropping economy from what we've experienced.

Uh it seems like it'd be in the interest of the association and the city to sign a two-year and know where we're headed and uh adjust new hires uh any further than we we've added quite a bit this year, and we want to keep the force strong.

Uh but uh there's gonna be a balance when we have to make some tough decisions.

Uh the economy is not going to do what everybody is rosy thinking about doing, is my opinion.

And uh from the experience, I've seen uh there's a continuation of a decrease.

You can only spend so much on housing.

Uh the numbers that are coming out, uh folks are paying above the typical percentages for housing, and there's gonna be a continued uh restriction in that area.

Uh you're seeing lesser permits because there's lesser purchases.

Uh we we follow the MLS as to how many deals are closing, and uh so there's changes on the horizon.

Now, whether it's a dip for a short bit or whether it's going to uh continue is uncertain.

So we're headed into tight times when there's gonna be uh tough decisions, and uh so if we're able to put together something that we can live with for two years, that gives the association uh guidance or not.

If we're gonna stay in a one year or continue to negotiate, then we have to take in consideration uh in a tough way uh of what next year looks like and the year thereafter.

And we know we're in a decrease because of the House Bill 386, and we know we're have other issues forthcoming.

We continue to watch our infrastructure uh deteriorate, so it is going to be a tough time.

to put together something that we can live with for two years that gives the association uh guidance or not if we're gonna stay in a one year or continue to negotiate then we have to take in consideration uh in a tough way uh of what next year looks like and the year thereafter and we know we're in a decrease because of the House Bill 386 and we know we're have other issues forthcoming we continue to watch our infrastructure uh deteriorate so it is going to be a tough time my thought was if we could get together on uh the agreements here and do it too if that was workable uh that gives us uh 18 months of working out what thereafter looks like and uh so that's that was my thinking on proposing that thank you any other comments just yes confirm with Eric was there much of an appetite for I know originally we were discussing a two year but obviously there were different factors with this agreement that potentially could come out at a 2.5 percent would they be amenable for two years to hold it at that rate so uh councilman griffin and and uh mayor and the rest of the council the I think that'll be challenging I think to get to a two year uh at this point it's gonna be asking quite a lot of the negotiating team in order to come back with a 2.5 percent um uh it's you know we've gotten to the point of a one year because um there there was a a number of asks from the association uh that simply could not be funded by the city uh so uh so to get to this point uh the association said let's do a one year contract um we reduce that to a one year contract asked to try to get to a agreement that we could get through a year and then see where we're at obviously the longer negotiations go on the more things start to play a factor in the negotiations you have the the market value uh that's going to change with the levy um as as the mayor had mentioned um so the association is going to focus on the market value um where we're uh where the city is focusing on the um the economy and where we're at um legislatively and all those factors that play into it so there's a lot of talking points on both sides of the table this will not be a short and it hasn't been a short negotiation it will be much more protracted to go back and try to work out a two-year contract um we'll obviously do what you know council requests in that regard but I it will definitely be very very challenging uh and I think that you know there's just a lot of different talking points that are gonna play into that I I know the uniform allowance and and Doug uh can weigh in on this as well we have um several open positions that aren't going to get filled uh until the April Academy so I think the 51000 or 81000 can be absorbed in our police department budget if that's a one year uh and we can look at what that that can be a part of a future negotiation um and I'm sure it will be it'll be a talking point uh to be extended by the association so uh but I think that that can be absorbed in the police department budget uh with uh with what we're gonna be saving in those open positions unfortunately not being able to fill those right away so um so that's just one element to that but um but a two-year contract since that's where we started this is where we are and then trying to go back to that with some of the now new talking points that are that are present um I think that's gonna be very challenging.

So mayor yes the old adage greed kills every deal so both sides are gonna have to come together if the association doesn't want to come together then we'll we'll continue to negotiate for months.

I would recommend that councilman Griffin and myself be appointed to the committee to the negotiation table and we start afresh with two new members and continue the negotiations if the association doesn't like what we're proposing at this time.

And and Councilman Bills uh just uh just to make that point I think our conversations have been very good um that I'm I'm just trying to highlight really the the contrast and where how we're looking at it from the association's perspective in terms of market and where the city is so it hasn't been antagonistic at all it's been very um very cordial conversation uh I very much appreciated the association's uh attitudes that they've as they have come to the table and we've had those conversations so that's been very valuable well I can appreciate that I just think uh there's a lack of appreciation for needs in all directions and there's only so many dollars and there's only so much tax dollars that can come and uh you know our next items that we're gonna get into want want want and uh it just you know there has to start being the tough decisions made to continue forward and so this is this is one of those from my perspective but council is mayor yes I just want to add in in my uh perspective of this uh the original offer the the last offer that we had on the table with the MPPA adding the 1400 for the one percent match seems uh with a one year seems the best way to go I think we can get it done with that and um we can negotiate it again in a year the last contract

And uh you know, our next items that we're gonna get into want want want, and uh it just you know there has to start being the tough decisions made to continue forward, and so this is this is one of those from my perspective, but council is yes, uh just want to add in in my uh perspective of this uh the original offer, the the last offer that we had on the table with the MPPA adding the fourteen thousand dollars for the one percent match seems uh with a one year seems the best way to go.

I think we could get it done with that, and um we can negotiate it again in a year.

The last contract was a two-year contract, and negotiating it again in a tough market is a good way to go, in my opinion.

So I would be in support of adding the fourteen thousand dollars to it and having this go away.

That means the uniform allowance goes away.

That's correct.

That's correct.

Okay, councilman Griffin.

To clarify, you are not wanting to add the uniform allowance into that offer.

I understand that Eric said they could absorb it, but we would still have to agree to that provision, and then they would somehow absorb that potentially we can absorb it for this year.

So if it were one year, so it wouldn't be part of this negotiation anyway.

This the department's already been allotted their funds, so what they do with those funds is outside of the offer that we're about to present to anyone.

Actually, this I'll let Clay go ahead.

So council approved the hiring of positions, so that would be in the wage benefit side.

If if the PD were to use those funds for something other than that, it would have to come back for reallocation to council.

Um if council decides to use those as one-time funds or one time uh in the contract, it would it would clearly state that that increase is one time.

There's already a uniform allowance in the contract.

This increases it based on the cost that they've seen with the increase of uniforms, um, but council would have to give that direction, and we would also be coming back to council for a final approval once we do meet with NPPA and get their feedback.

And it is effective October 1.

So it it would impact this uh budget year, this fiscal year.

So um if we could is it fifty fifty thousand on the allowance?

So be a total if we could cover that with uh salary savings uh from the new positions until they're come out of the academy, then I would be in favor of that for one year and then we negotiate that again in the next round because I I do see the value of having the uh increased uniform allowance for them in today's market.

So mayor, can I just confirm what what I'm hearing?

If that's okay, or do you want to yes?

And then I think we'll have to there isn't an actual motion on this, but I think we're gonna need to have a vote.

Um so it would be going with the 2.75 wage increase with a five percent increase to the health care costs with a one percent for the 401k match, which is the total of eight oh nine eight hundred and nine thousand seventy-five dollars plus the eighty-one thousand one twenty-five for the one-time increase of uniform allowance.

I thought it was eight oh nine originally, but now with the one percent it was an additional fourteen thousand, so it wouldn't be you're correct.

You're correct.

Thank you.

And how much of that would be one if if it is a if it's a one year, it depends on what way we're going here.

Um how much of that is can we absorb through the salary savings?

So we're not so the overall increase in the budget is how much overall increase for the ongoing contract would be the 823,673.

The one-time cost for the increased uniform allowance would be the 81,125.

The 81, 125 can be absorbed in the salary savings of the positions that haven't been filled.

So the 81 is on top of the 823?

Yes, yes.

So we're up at at over 900,000.

Yeah, that's it would be and we started at the hundred and seven twenty-one.

We started at 721.

But they're absorbing okay that's what I'm curious.

How much is getting absorbed it's 97,000 would be the increase off of the budget that we had set.

97 not factoring in the uniforms.

So that's an additional 81,000.

But if it's our hundred, you'd be 180,000 total.

It's quite a bit different than where we started.

Yes.

Doug, can you clarify that comment?

What was 180,000 absorption or 180,000 180,000 I would have to add in to the 700.

So we we already know what the impact is from the proposal to take us from 721 to 823,000.

That's I'm gonna have to find a way to eat that out of some other budget.

If you add them uniforms of 83,000, then we give up to that total of about 180,000 of increase.

And I'm gonna have to come from one-time monies or from reserves in order to make that uh a funded reality.

For clarification, then 97 is what we would have to commit to from the one-time funding.

81,000 is what the NPD is going to commit to from the difference in time between October and April for the new hires that come aboard, correct?

Um I think that might be a little bit backwards.

We're going from yeah, well, let me be right, yeah.

So we go from 721 to 823.

So that's right.

That's 102,000, right?

From 721, 823.

That's 102.

If you add in 8,000 on top of that of one-time monies, that gets you to the 100 and roughly 80,000 increase.

90 102,000 would be part of our ongoing operations that would have to come out of the budget, not from one-time sources.

And if you want to do the budget for the uniforms as a one-time value, that will be eighty-three thousand dollars.

I will tell you if we put it as a one-time in this year, they will come back next year and ask for that to become made permanent.

So it's a question of semantics.

So, council, um at this point, I think we have some differing of opinions at the bench.

What direction would you like to go?

Councilman Reynolds is working on a motion.

Are you working on a motion?

Sort of.

Okay, I feel like it needs to be left at the one year.

So we have the ability as a city to negotiate this in a year when we know what our budget's gonna be.

And uh if we can show the MPPA that we have a really really tight budget, then we can go in with that offer at that time.

Um from one of the two council members sitting up here that has strapped a badge on my chest.

I know the importance of having these salary um and the uh and the deferred comp as well, and uh and in health care, everything is risen.

Uh there's a lot of risk that goes into this job, and I think they should get paid accordingly.

And um it's um so I think we should go into with a one-year 2.75 percent wage, five percent health care, one percent 401k, um one time uniform allowance for a year taking out taken out of uh salary savings from the uh new hires that have not come out of the academy.

Uh that would be my motion.

I'll second that okay.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any further discussion?

Mayor Clink.

Yes, Councilman Haverville.

So again, this is just a negotiation, so it's an offer, is what we're voting on.

Okay, thank you.

Yes.

Also to reconfirm with the motion, obviously the salary savings is going to take on the uniform this year, but we would be committing 102,000 dollars ongoing to our budget.

That is correct.

Okay, any further discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Angula, no Bills, Reynolds?

Yes, Haverfield.

Yes, Griffin.

No.

Three S39.

Okay.

So I want to ask a question on this one because this is very different.

Council is responsible for budget, not the mayor.

Typically, we are not taking a vote in executive session on this.

It is a recommendation coming from council back to the association.

And so I don't feel in many regards correct in breaking a tie on a budgetary item because it is the council's responsibility, not the mayor, and I don't mean to shirk from this, but it is council is accountable for budget.

So different than a land use issue.

And so I guess I'd like to ask the council, and I will say something.

Um the greatest concern that I have is the fact that we have a nine percent increase coming in our neighboring community, and it's gonna be employee retention.

It's gonna be very difficult.

Um as we've I couldn't tell you the number of officers overall in the last couple of years that have moved on, but we've had a number, and it all it's all about the bottom line, it's about the dollars.

You've got new officers that can't, you know, they're trying to raise a family and they they just need the income.

So that makes it very, very difficult.

So next year, I we're gonna have a tough negotiation.

So I understand Councilman Bill's thought in tinyness to two years, but I also understand the position of saying, you know what, it's a one-year contract.

I don't think they're gonna accept, especially with the levy.

I really don't.

And so um I think we need to continue this discussion because we're a split council, and I don't think that that's how we're gonna move forward well.

Just to speak to why I voted no a little bit.

I I think that we should consider as a city levying for police officers and for public safety.

Leave it in the hands of the voters and they can decide.

The reason I give a pause is we already took forward on this year, specifically the help police.

Now I understand, and we've had the arguments and hashed it out that that's for new officers to help retain current officers in NAMPA.

So we're having this this balancing act that we're we're doing.

It's difficult for me from uh previously not accepting the budget for FY26 because of an increase to then commit to an additional hundred and two thousand of an increase.

I think we need to consider strongly levying, similar to Meridian.

I think there would be an appetite for it in our good city because it would be specific to officers in public safety.

Mayor, yes, just for clarification purposes, since you're not breaking the tie of uh a tie vote is a no vote.

That is correct, clarity of the people listing Mayor.

Then I'd uh I would suggest then uh that we reappoint two councilman counselors, okay.

And uh continue the negotiations.

So again, I'd be willing to serve.

Uh I think Sebastian Councilman Griffin, he's willing to serve would be a good councilman griffin.

Do you have the the time?

Are they wanting two of us?

I thought they wanted just one.

They want two.

They want two on the committee.

Two on the committee.

I would support it.

No, I'm good.

I'm good.

Mayor Clint.

The um the motion is to add a second.

So the way that it's reading there, Councilman Rodriguez would still be one of the members.

The way that this is well, this was that I'm suggesting a change up.

I think we're at the stage now that we need a full change of okay.

So what is the will of the county?

It's again this is we'll go ahead and take a motion.

Um is that a motion?

Was that a motion?

Are you happy to serve?

Okay, so we do have a motion.

We will need a second to that motion.

It's been moved and seconded.

Then councilman Bills and Councilman Griffin serve as the council representatives for the MPPA negotiations.

Is there discussion?

Seeing none, roll call.

Rodriguez?

Yes.

Yes.

Bills?

Yes.

Reynolds?

Yes.

Hammerfeld?

Yes.

Mayor Finn?

Yes.

Motion carrying.

Okay.

So that is done.

Now we are not done because the council has to make a decision on what you're going back to the association with.

We can't leave it.

So I would ask the council, what would you like to do?

There um that last motion failed.

You can have a substitute motion.

So the last motion was for one year at that level.

Is that correct?

It was.

Okay.

From my side, we go back and just have a uh resit down.

And then we'll come back to council with uh an offer.

I don't clay, you're the one representing in that mayor and council.

I I think it would be in the council's best interest to come back with a proposal or at least a some guidance so that we have something to provide to the association.

I think we know where they stand and what their desires are.

Um so if that is not something that council is is okay supporting I would prefer that we have something to take back uh to the association for their consideration.

Mayor.

So yes.

Just so we can start picking this apart.

Can we get a vote on if we want one or two years?

And it doesn't have to be a formal motion or a vote.

Just let's have a discussion.

I guess Councilman just restate your motion.

Yeah, restate your motion.

So uh my my motion, my original motion was a one-year contract, 2.75% wage, five percent health care, one percent 401 uh deferred comp and uh the uniform allowance out of um salary savings of of a one-year term out of the salary savings.

Second, so it's been moved again and seconded.

Let's do another roll call vote.

Rodriguez, yes, Jangula, yes, Bills, no Reynolds, yes, Haverfeld.

Yes, then no.

Do we end up with the same?

No, no, it's four.

It's four two.

Okay.

So that's our decision to go forward.

Thank you, counsel.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, Clay.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Eric Brad, thank you for being here.

Appreciate it.

Okay, so we're gonna move on to our next item.

This is one three on the agenda.

This 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.

Um this was continued from the 11-3 meeting.

And uh within your packet, um, council and in the for the citizens, there were a couple of uh there was a letter from the twin falls county prosecuting attorney and a resolution.

Have you all had an opportunity to read that?

Okay, and then is there are there any questions from Preston for Preston, our legal counsel?

Um mayor, comment?

Good morning, council.

No no questions.

Um just want to make sure everybody's had a chance to read that, maybe just some quick context.

Since our meeting on Monday where this was proposed and we tabled it, had a lot of good, robust, productive conversations with the Twin Falls um County prosecutor, and I think we reached a very uh favorable outcome, all things considered.

Um I was really appreciative of their investigation, they were very thorough, very reasonable, and the letter the letter speaks for itself.

I'd leave it at that.

Thank you.

Councilman Reynolds.

Madam Mayor, is the letter available to be read from the dias for the record or the recommendation.

Mayor it's part of the record.

If you want to read it, that is absolutely acceptable.

That would be would you like to read it?

Do you have it in front of you?

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Would you like to read that, President?

Please sorry, Dale.

Uh dear mayor and members of the city council.

This is uh for context, Grant Loebs, Twin Falls uh prosecuting attorney.

I was contacted by the Canyon County prosecuting attorney, Christopher Boyd on October 17th in connection with the complaint of alleged violations of the Idaho open meetings law during the council's discussions about the Ford Idaho Center.

Because Mr.

Boyd is a conflict in the matter, I agreed to enforce the matter under Idle Code 742085.

I have conducted a review and investigation of the complaint.

The complaint makes various allegations, but I find that the essential problem relates to whether the city could probably hold executive sessions under the trade and commerce prong of the open meetings law at Idle Code 742061E.

While the open meetings law states that the exceptions to open meetings must be narrowly construed, there is a question whether the city was authorized under the facts known to the city at the time to go into executive session under that subsection.

Though this may have been a technical procedural mistake, it did not result in a secret decision.

There is sufficient evidence that the city held extensive dialogues and deliberations in open public meetings related to the Ford Idol Center.

Given the public hearings, workshops, and meetings on the Ford Idol Center.

And will render this matter closed.

If you choose to self-cure through the resolution, please provide an executed copy of the same.

Upon receipt, this matter will be closed, and I will provide a formal letter to that end.

Sincerely, Grant P.

Loebs, Twin Falls County Prosecuting Attorney.

Thank you.

So with that, Council, how would you like to proceed?

So, Mayor, with the uh resolution that's in front of us, uh, I would move that we would pass this resolution.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to pass the resolution.

Is there any discussion?

Mayor Kling.

Yes.

Um again coming in this morning.

Uh I didn't have a whole lot of time to do much reflection on what's being presented before us, and I I do like to tend uh to get into the the weeds on some of these things because words matter.

Um coming into the meeting this morning, I thought that we were going back to a position where all of the prior executive sessions and two public hearings were null and void.

What I'm reading now is that that's not the case.

Is that correct?

Mayor Councilman Haverfield, that is correct.

Okay, so if that's the case, um I had several questions in my mind, nothing that I had had a chance to write down yet because I didn't get this.

Um I didn't get a chance to read this until about an hour ago because I didn't stay up late enough to see if it came through on my phone or through the city website.

So I would love to have more time.

It doesn't sound like that's what this council wants.

But I'm wondering why we're even then having to sign a resolution preemptively self-recognizing something when we're saying that we have no fault.

Um your interpretation of this letter from Grant Loebs is stating that we didn't improperly hold executive sessions about that item.

Um I guess what we're stating that we're preemptively self-recognizing as far as alleged violations or technical and uh procedural mistakes.

Is that correct?

Mayor Councilman Haverfield.

Um, just to be clear, the resolution you're reading, Councilman Haverfield, there was one on Monday's agenda.

There was an updated one provided yesterday in an email to counsel at about between five or six o'clock.

Are you reading the one from yesterday or the one from Monday?

I'm reading the one that I pulled up on the city website this morning.

Well, you received, I just want to be clear.

We sent an email to all council members yesterday at five.

We sent an email plus it was uploaded to the packet at five o'clock last night.

And we sent an email.

I think we sent an email, I'll have to ask Shar earlier when the agenda was sent out saying that you would be receiving an updated packet, and that we would notify you as soon as it was updated.

So that then update came at five o'clock yesterday.

And the resolution, as Preston will say, is very similar to the same resolution that was sent out on Monday.

There's just a couple changes to that resolution.

I acknowledge that, Mayor.

That's that's where I have a concern is that I'm trying to go back and forth to see what's changed.

I've had a little over 12 hours to do that.

Part of that time, obviously, I tried to get some sleep.

Um I'm coming in this morning trying to be open-minded to the process.

It doesn't sound again like I say that uh you're just trying to move this on uh without allowing us to have ample time to be able to formulate our questions to be able to so that we can properly respond.

So I can't support the motion simply because I haven't even had 24 hours to review and cross-reference and ask the proper questions of counsel, our legal counsel to make sure that we're not making a mistake.

What I'm looking at, even in his letter, I have questions on to understand the intent of what he's saying that we are not responsible for, but yet we're still being asked to preemptively self-recognize violations in this resolution.

What are we basically stating that we're um self-recognizing?

I don't understand that, because there's nothing listed out there either.

We've taken out Mayor, let me finish.

I was gonna say, let's address that.

I'd like to address that question so that we when you're done then, Preston, could you answer that question?

So when I look at what was in the original resolution, there were dates and times that were eliminated.

So my question would have been this morning, if that was still the case, what breadcrumbs we leave behind for others that follow us to be able to go back and say, okay, at this point in time, this public hearing happened, this public testimony was received, but now it's null and void.

So what happens to that record?

Does it get X'd out or did it stay?

Now I guess I can answer that question myself and stating that that's not the case any longer, that that is still uh information that's available to the public a year from now, five years from now, whatever.

If they want to go back and understand and and put together some sort of a uh storyline, that they can still do that because that's still public record, correct?

Those public hearings.

Mayor?

Councilman Haverfield.

Please.

There's a lot of questions in that statement.

I'll try my best to address them, and I think it'll be productive.

Let me give some high overview here and maybe drill down a little more.

So for context, when we received the courtesy letter from uh county attorney Chris Boyd, there wasn't a lot of context or specifics exactly what they wanted to cure.

There was a little bit of self-investigation, trying to figure out what the specifics were.

That was the conflicted out to another prosecuting attorney in Twin Falls.

And as of Monday this week, um he and I had not connected in great detail, only preliminarily.

In the last four days or three days, there's been a lot of communications, a lot of calls with him.

And so a lot more details have been provided to the city about hey, as I'm looking at the facts, here's what I think would be needed to cure.

That prosecuting attorney is the enforcing agency, and they have the discretion to decide what they think the level of violation is or is not.

As stated in his letter very clearly, the level of violation is questionable, and even at that, it's very minor, as he says.

It's a technical procedural question, and he has said to dismiss the matter and close it entirely.

Here is a revised language on our resolution, and we work together about what that needs to include and not include.

And so we have a more refined resolution than what you had on Monday, because we have the benefit of input from the attorney looking into it.

So what you see here is more tailored and tuned to the facts as he sees them, and so it better reflects what cure the city would be required to make for him to close the matter.

And so, with the benefit of this here, um this he is willing to accept if we were to execute this resolution that the matter would be closed and be put to rest.

So what changes were there?

Um not too many.

Uh paragraph 1.7, 1.8, 2.1, and 2.2 of where most of the changes were, and some of them were stylistic from his perspective, and some he thought weren't necessary to go to that great detail because he didn't find that there was a significant or major violation, just maybe a technical one.

And so this is what he's willing to accept on behalf of the city.

And that's he's willing to accept so that he won't continue to uh investigate for prosecution purposes.

And his yeah, from his perspective, this would put the matter at rest and uh satisfy his um review and investigation.

Unless other allegations are filed.

Um he's had all the facts brought to him for this investigation of the complaint.

Of the original complaint.

This is the one that was uh that Chris Boyd had received, which he then passed on to Grant Loebs.

And again, just for the sake and I'm mad, uh I'm sorry, Mayor.

I'm just having a conversation, I guess, with my legal counsel.

Um the original allegation uh that was filed uh stated, well, and Chris Boyd's response was there were two items that were considered in his when the fire alarm went off.

You know, he basically was giving us uh a concern, a courtesy uh, you know, you better take care of this, otherwise there might be a fire that we need to again.

So that's just more of that smoke detector going off courtesy thing.

Um he stated that there were two allegations that he was mentioning, they weren't even a part of, according to Councilman Rodriguez's uh original was based upon a vote taking place in executive session.

They weren't either of that wasn't either of those items that he listed.

One was whether it was properly noticed, and the other one was it was an acceptable topic in executive session.

Those were the two things that he brought forward.

So that's what has been addressed here in this letter from Mr.

Loebs based upon the letter, courtesy letter that he received.

Mayor Councilman Hammerfield, he's addressed both those points and more.

So he addressed the motions, the minutes, he addressed the basis under which the city went into executive session, and he made a determination that there were no decisions made in executive session.

And so on all fronts, he's reviewed it and sees no further reason to uh further investigate and prosecute this, and this is the procedural step to put the matter to bed and has asked that we execute this resolution and continue forward and you'd put it to bed.

I think this third paragraph where it says there's sufficient.

Um let's I'll just read it again.

Though this may have been a technical procedural mistake, and this is regarding the item that we went into executive session, but also it said it did not result in a secret decision of something that was that we took a vote in executive session, which we do not, but he this is the important part.

There is sufficient evidence that the city held extensive dialogues and deliberations in open public meetings related to the Fort Idaho Center.

Given the public hearings, the workshops, the meetings on the Fort Idaho Center, he said he did not find facts that indicated any violation was sufficiently causally connected to any subsequent action to require the city to declare prior actions null and void.

That is the important part.

Because we did a tremendous amount, we held public hearings, we held town halls, we went through, and so that is I think that's the answer to the comments that you're making.

Mayor is his response.

The way that I read a lot of this back and forth, and again, I'm just a layman, I'm I'm not a an attorney, so words do matter, but um I thought it was more based upon the the resolution was based upon the intent, whether there was any intent, and obviously what the resolution says, there was no intent to do anything illegally.

Correct.

Um this is kind of a a cover all that we can say, well, because we're we're null and voiding all of those executive sessions, those two public hearings, that pretty much takes away the concern that we made our decision in those uh venues or you know it properly.

So now what we're saying is no, we don't have to worry about the testimony that we received.

The public hearings took place, and it's not like we're Xing those out.

That's where I'm trying to get wrap my mind around what we're looking at today because it's changed.

So that's why I'm asking the question.

Yeah, and I just add Mayor with the benefit of more dialogue.

What we had proposed on Monday was probably more airing on the side of caution, maybe um with the remedy being bigger and more expansive, but now we've actually had more detail with the reviewing attorney, and in his uh professional opinion as the enforcing agency saying, hey, the remedy is actually we we would do it much smaller.

So that's why I see it refined a little bit more here.

That benefit of that input.

Councilman Griffin.

And uh, just a few comments that I heard from Councilman Reynolds that I need clarification as well.

He had mentioned that potential breadcrumbs that we might be leaving behind and the possibility for talking Haverfield, I'm sorry.

I'm thinking Randy, but I didn't want to say that.

Councilman Haverfield's comments about the breadcrumbs and future allegations.

The statute of limitations is 30 days for after a vote is taken, and that has run its course.

So with this resolution, in addition to that, this will be cleared up from this point on.

Yeah, uh it's a good point, Mayor, Councilman Griffin.

Um, under the open meetings law, there there's really kind of two sticks, you know, an enforcing agency has one is hey, could your actions be null and void?

And another one is uh civil penalties assessed against the governing body members.

Um the 30-day window for the null and void is from a time of an action based off the uh county attorney's review.

He he is stating here that there was no action that needs to be null and void.

Um so the 30-day window is now irrelevant, and he's seeing no other further basis to proceed as to civil penalties, and so this would uh formally and finally put the matter to an end.

Is there any further discussion?

Mayor.

Uh so can I ask the question then?

Uh in the original resolution, there was a bullet point one six uh that is not one six in this new resolution that states the city acknowledges that it has been placed in a position where it must address alleged open meeting violations.

Is that still there?

Without a full picture of what exactly is alleged, thus necessit necessitating the city to take preemptive action and to maintain integrity of the process.

Is that still in uh this resolution?

Mayor Councilman Hammer, that is not in the new resolution.

And so we were doing our best to formulate a solution, but now we have input from the enforcing agency.

So now we are not in the dark anymore about what they're seeking and what their review is.

So that's why you see that change in the updated one of effective yesterday.

Okay.

Um is my one of my questions is why not wait until the formal findings.

But you're saying that you have formal findings, but we're still saying we don't know what we're self-recognizing totally.

Uh Mayor Councilman Haverfield, I think we we do know what we're self-recognizing.

And I just those allegations.

That's correct.

Okay, so if there are other allegations brought forward, it's separate from this altogether.

How can it?

I mean, if someone else brings forward allegations of whatever criminal attempt, I don't know.

Um, then that would be uh different than this.

But the 30 days is run its cores for somebody to submit that after a vote, and this addresses the technical errors, then 2.1 say may have occurred.

Um in addition to Grant Loeb's letter, as I understood it, that stated that there wasn't anything that had occurred, and this additional step just helps cover us if something may have occurred.

That's what we're self-recognizing.

And then after in addition to those two things, the time and the letter is it buttons up the issue.

Well, and the issue really it goes back to because we held the town halls, we had several meetings, we had a lot of different meetings, and we held a public hearing.

There was nothing done in secret.

So any discussion, and because we posted everything online, everything was out in the public before any disc decisions were made.

That's why he I believe my understanding is he has ruled as he has, which he stated in the paragraph I just read that said be there is self-evidence, sufficient evidence that the city had extensive dialogue, all the meetings.

He's reviewed all of that.

And so the point being that we have in some way self-cured the issue because we went public.

Everything has been in the public.

There have been a lot of meetings in the public.

There has been nothing done in secret.

And so with that, that's why he came back with the ruling as he has.

So my last question then, Mayor, is to Preston.

Um, if I can find where I would have asked that on Monday night.

Um there's a reference to uh state statute that maybe it doesn't apply now.

I'm not sure, but let me look and see if I can just find it.

Um maybe I won't be able to.

I wasn't prepared to answer this question.

Oh, we switched from 74-208 uh 7 A and B to 74-208, and some of this information.

Um again, this is where I'd like to make sure that we're doing the the right thing, but uh so you the failure to respond is is not uh we are responding properly.

Alleged open meeting laws, um the 14 day stuff that's listed in here.

We've complied with all of this, and that's why this no longer is a part of what's being uh reviewed now.

So mayor, I'm I'm sorry, I'm still conflicted.

I I won't be supporting the motion because I don't I don't think that I was given proper time to be able to do uh do my research on it to make sure that my vote mattered.

So thank you.

Yes, just point of clarity.

Yeah, we did receive an email from um Shar at 1103 in the morning, letting us know that we would be receiving something later that afternoon.

We did receive another one at 5 p.m.

with that further clarification of that final notice.

I work a full-time job, I'm a single mom, and I had a three-hour choir rehearsal yesterday, and I still had time, so I don't know.

I I um spent 32 minutes on the phone with Preston in the morning to get all my questions answered prior to that coming out, and then I spent another 20 minutes on the phone with him after that to clarify any questions that I had.

And I uh I think it's come to the conclusion that this has been clearly political weaponization, and I actually take really great offense to that.

We haven't acted out of integrity at all, and therefore I've um I will support the motion.

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion?

See none roll call, Rodriguez no?

Yes, El Reynolds?

Yes, Haverfeld?

No.

Griffin?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

And this is an action item, and this is to make declaration via resolution that city owned real property, the Fort Idaho Center is underutilized and not used for public purposes and provide notice of a public hearing for a vote on December 1st, 2025, for the intent to convey the to the College of Western Idaho.

So Preston, would you like to explain why this is on the agenda and walk us through this?

I think it'd be important to understand kind of an overview of why this is back here now that we've got the prior agenda item put to bed.

So as you know, this is not a proposal or transaction that we often deal with.

A major transaction for a large piece of property, a lot of moving pieces, and a lot of things to account for as this body's well aware, and I'm sure the public as well.

And during that process of preparing for our vote, we as a city have reviewed various documents that have come to us after the city voted on the 15th of September to declare unutilization, which is required by statute, step one.

We took it our step two, which is required to then have the public hearing and then a vote on whether you will convey the property.

That took place October 6.

As a typical in a land transaction, you then start honing in on the due diligence and closing period and all your reviews winding up to the actual signing and recording of a conveyance.

During that process, we went to title, which is one of the normal steps, and they had flagged an issue when it came to the title ownership of the larger parcels and then the RV parcel.

I don't know if we can get a visual up here, but if you can imagine with me, you have the arena and then the main arena, the horse park area, then there's some RV stalls kind of as an appendage that uh comes off up at the top right.

So in that review, there were some issues flagged as to an unrecorded deed, and then there was flagged an issue about a document that was recorded but lacked a legal description.

And as we look closely at that, we found that that document the latter one was called an omnibus transfer document, and it's kind of a strange oddity, and it actually matched a document that we had found the county had had looked into back in August.

And at that time, they presented it to the city and said we found this document.

It's odd, it's strange, we're not sure what to do with it.

Where does this puzzle piece fit?

And so, as the city we parked that and would review it during the normal title review process during closing and due diligence.

That this omnibus transfer document that lacked a legal description, um, title was not willing to say that the city may or may not have title or ownership to the property, and so on October 29th, we addressed and cured both of these title issues that were flagged and brought to our attention as promptly as we could.

We had the unrecorded document that 20 years ago should have been recorded, and it had the proper legal description for the larger parcels that was quickly recorded.

Um the other document, that kind of odd omnibus transfer document.

Um we went back to the urban renewal agency, NDC, who 20 years ago had uh that document was drafted with the city and then it in eyes of the title company looked to be deficient, and so we an abundance of caution, a um a new quick claim deed was executed just to clean that up, and that was also recorded on October 29th.

So as of that day moving forward, the title issues that were flagged, which is what you want to do in a review closing period, because you want to have that done before uh you sign off on the final conveyance.

We have addressed those, we've cured it, it's all good.

But if you go back to September 15th and October 6th, there remains a debatable question, right, as to ownership of the property by the city.

And so what we're proposing here is just in a spirit of transparency and an abundance of caution that we would redo steps one and steps two with the exact same document that was before you on September 15th, and then we would hold another hearing on December 1st as required by statute for um approval again to convey the property.

Now the difference between the October 6th hearing and December 1st, this one will be a little more honed in just as a proposal to CWI.

If you recall in October 6, you had a buffet option of three.

It was keep, sell the high bidder, or convey to CWA.

So that will be the only difference on the um December 1st hearing.

And so there's a there's a debate or an argument made that our decisions from the 15th of September and October 6th are intact, would uphold, but just an abundance of caution.

Um what we're proposing here is to go through that step one and two, so the processing procedure just has no speculation over it.

So hopefully that context helps give you a picture of why this is here.

Um happy to address any questions that mayor council might have.

Thank you.

Are there questions?

Comments?

Question then.

So is the hearing on uh December 1.

Public hearing?

I guess that's what that's what this is saying, a public hearing.

That's correct.

As opposed to just a vote clarifying and correcting a legal description.

That's correct.

We would follow the same procedure we did previously, so it would be in a public hearing like before.

And the corrective action is done on the the title and the legal description.

That's all done.

So nothing needs to be done on that.

This is this is as Preston shared in the abundance of caution because it appears that we have a very uh so the question mark is the public hearing whether it had the right legal, therefore, we're were we discussing the correct property.

Yeah, and so now we're gonna re-hear a hearing to say that we're discussing the correct property.

Yeah, um, not to get into the legalese, you know, there's this distinction between equitable ownership, legal ownership, and um think of owning a mortgage, you have a right to it equitably, legally, maybe the mortgage company has a claim into it.

So there became a question of well, as a matter of law, as of a snapshot on September 15th and October 6th.

Could there be a question about it?

Sure.

So an abundance of caution, we're just gonna redo it now that the process has been cured and remove any speculation that could be.

And I want to say that for the council to go through another public hearing is brutal.

I'll just say I do want to apologize to council that um when the county said there's an irregularity, we need to look into it.

Unfortunately, we did not at that time thought it was curable during the title process, that was incorrect.

And it did not happen during that time, which has caused us, and you know, candidly, we would probably be just fine.

As Preston shared, this is in the abundance of caution because it's a really sad thing, and I'm just gonna say this just because people don't like a vote to actually come against them and accuse of L intent and whatever is quite unfortunate in the world we live in.

But in an abundance of caution, we're gonna go through the process again, just so that there is not an opportunity to say, hey, you didn't own it.

We know the intent.

The intent was, and it wasn't caught for 20 years because this is an error that happened over 20 years ago.

The intent was to convey the property, and we thought it was all done.

It's just that when you find a technicality, an error, and it should have been resolved back in August before the September 15th, it was not, which puts us into going over this again, of which I do apologize.

Yeah, mayor, just in hindsight, too.

Yeah, now we see you know, at that stamp point in time, would anybody have thought that there could have been a title issue after 20 years and all the work the city's put into it.

It's like asking any of us right now, could you say with a hundred percent confidence that you own your property?

Is there no title issues with your home or whatever?

We all assume there isn't, but when you put a magnifying glass to it, there's sometimes that happens.

That's why there's title insurance for those very instances.

And so as soon as this came up, we promptly and quickly addressed it, we cleaned it up, um, and and provide and we presented to you just an abundance of cost and course of action.

Uh, but yeah, hindsight's 2020, but I think the process here um is straightforward.

Madam Mayor.

Yes, councilman make a motion to approve.

I'll second that, and then I have a question.

Yes.

Um, will this be for the uh parcels that were in question, the uh the underutilization and the uh public hearing, or for the whole entire parcel?

The entire parcel.

I just wanted to clarify that.

So yeah, a second scope.

Okay, there is a motion and a second discussion.

Question again, since the uh public hearing in the past where this was uh utilization conversation um is still on public record, correct?

And like you did on September 15th, you would make a vote here, uh finding that it is underutilized or not used for public purposes.

So it's the same document that was before you about a month and a half ago.

But it's for the smaller piece of property that was no, it's it is like before, it's for the full piece.

Um the smaller parcel, there was two, there's two deeds in question rather than pick one out than the other.

This is being brought to you as a complete package, the entire parcel on campus.

Um I look back, I I feel that part of uh this again for breadcrumbs for others, since I won't be uh involved with these decisions after the first of the year.

Um I feel that part of this was built on speculation and potential twisting of uh ideas to come up with the determination that the property is uh is not is not uh properly utilized or uh based upon the like one ten, given the primarily commercial and ticketed nature of the events.

Um if that's the case, and the rec center, the civic center, the golf courses, and the parks would all have the same use um ticketing or use fees that would be associated with them, whether they're by membership or by uh ticketed events, like at the civic center.

So if the city in the future uses this as um a precedent to be able to give away properties, um that's where my concern lies.

I won't be uh uh voting again, or I'll be voting again no on the resolution.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

Mayor.

Yes, would you prefer I save my comments now or at a vote?

It's up to you.

We have a motion and a second, and this is discussion time, and then we'll take a vote.

So it's a you certainly can state now or later.

It's up to you.

I'm just trying, and I've had a number of calls with a number of individuals at this uh hearing room today, both public and legal, and everybody else.

I am struggling once again on this vote simply because of the repercussion in the sense of public trust and the process.

I was under the belief when I originally had voted to convey this is what we needed for NAMPA to heal and move on, and then we get a challenge, and then we're gonna get another challenge, and then another hurdle, and ultimately this does not end today, it does not end December 1st, because then there's legal challenges that are looming, whether they've been filed.

We can't say so because we haven't gone through the process, and we're not at that stage.

So I'm just trying to decide once again.

I I'm uh I don't know what the phrase was wishy-washy or swaying back and forth, I don't know what it was, but uh I'm going back and forth because I'm trying the way the perspective of the community and the will of the the community at large, not small minorities this way or that way, what at large is the thought.

We had early on discussed maybe taking a poll, and we found that it wasn't legal to take a poll this November, but I think elections are a way to gauge where the public really is at.

And I'm not going to specifically call out one race or another, but there was a lot of races with a lot of candidates talking about process, talking about um public concern, and the outcomes showed that as well.

So I wish we did have more time.

Uh five one-hour conversations still haven't helped me make up my mind, and this hasn't helped me make it make up my mind because I just am trying to think what's going to be best for the community at large for public trust for the process.

I frankly don't know how we keep funding the Fort Idaho Center, but it is making money.

So do we hold on a hope for the economic stability that likely isn't going to continue or unlikely will continue, or vice versa, likely will continue or unlikely they not.

And holding on to prayer that we continually are able to fund this.

Because I don't know where we're going to come up with the money.

I can see it now.

Councilman Griffin hates the police.

No, Councilman Griffin cares about taxpayer money.

And then you could say, well, if you really care, why are you giving away an asset?

Well, in the eyes of this councilman, it's a public benefit, yes.

I think it's something that the community loves to have.

But in terms of an asset, it's only an asset if we can tangibly sell it, liquidate it, and have those funds go back to you as citizens.

But we don't want to do that.

I'm having a real hard time.

Hem and in hawing was the phrase.

I am him and hawing because this is this is a 50-50 issue for me.

So is there any other discussion?

Seeing none, we're ready to go to roll call.

Rodriguez.

No.

Jingua?

Yes.

Bill's Haverfield?

No.

Reynolds?

Yes.

Griffin.

No.

So it comes to me, and I'm going to vote yes, and you all hate me, and I don't really care.

The reason I say that is that this is, I truly believe, and the the basis for utilization has to do with can it be better utilized?

Absolutely, it can be better utilized, and we have clearly reflected that.

Under the ownership of College of Western Idaho, it gives a hope in a future to our students.

The next generation of this community resides in that and the fact that we can't afford it.

But the reason I'm voting yes is because this vote, a yes vote takes it to public hearing.

It's not done.

But I believe our citizens deserve the opportunity to go to public hearing, and that's where it should go.

This should be discussed in the public and let the public come and testify, and we're gonna go through that process again.

But the reason I'm voting yes is because I believe our citizens should have the opportunity to have a vote and have a public hearing before we end this process right now.

And I truly believe that that a higher utilization is going to take place under the ownership of the College of Western Idaho, and I believe our citizens have the right to a public hearing, and it shouldn't be made at the bench.

Mayor.

So my vote is yes.

One question, and not countering anything you're saying, just on the date.

December 1st, I will be out of town.

I can remotely tune in for that public hearing.

This was I thought we were done two months ago.

So I'm going to be gone for Thanksgiving and won't be back until the fourth.

Thank you for stating that so we recognize that you're not you're not intentionally not here.

You had previously, but we have uh voted to put it on December 1st, and so it is, and thank you for joining us remotely.

So with that, I would stand for a motion to adjourn the meeting.

So move.

Meeting adjourned faces in the audience.