I think we're ready to go.

Test test.

Okay.

Good evening.

Wow, it's you know, it's kind of an empty room tonight.

So, yeah.

We'll see what's it'll probably get a little bit more full later.

Anyway, so good evening, and welcome to the Napa City Council meeting.

And we have a wonderful tradition, and that is opening in prayer.

And Pastor Chris Evanson with the Seventh Day Church in Napa is here with us to open us in prayer.

And Pastor Chris, thank you so much for your leadership in our community.

I don't know how many years ago it was when I first met you.

It's been a long time.

Really appreciate you.

Thank you.

And thank you for opening us.

So we're out of the way.

Yeah.

And in fact, we're looking forward to a free health clinic at the end of January that we'll be serving the community with as something we're just now working on, and really excited to bring that to NAPA.

That is awesome.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Well, thank you for opening us in prayer.

Of course.

Let's pray.

Father in heaven, Lord, we thank you so much for your many blessings.

Lord, you have given us so much.

We thank you for the freedoms that we enjoy.

We thank you for the veterans who have served to bring that freedom to us.

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

Thank you again, Castor.

Thank you.

Okay, roll call.

Rodriguez.

Here.

Here.

Reynolds.

Haverfield.

Here.

Griffin.

Mayor.

All present.

Our next item are uh proposed amendments to the agenda.

Are there any proposed amendments to the agenda this evening?

Madam Mayor, um, I believe that staff needs to have item eight three removed from the public hearings due to uh a technical error on the publishing.

So eight three is a public hearing, and this is our pub our parks um the rate increases, and the reason for that has to do with there was just an error with the Idaho Press that it didn't get published twice back to back.

So it is going to be postponed to um I think do we need to identify date certain on that?

Okay.

At this time I believe it is going to be the 15th of December, but um, so that is being postponed just so everyone knows the why.

Are there any other proposed amendments to the agenda?

Yes, Mayor.

Yes.

Uh item one five D, please.

So Councilman Griffin is asking that one five, and what was the letter?

D, yes, yes, thank you.

MOU between the City of Nampa and Nampa Development Corps.

Okay, you'd like to pull that and we'll have a discussion on that.

So one five D.

Okay.

Any other uh proposed amendments to the agenda?

Okay.

I would stand for a motion to adopt the agenda as amended.

So moved.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Thank you.

And then I would stand for a motion to approve uh the consent agenda with the exception of the amendments.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Thank you.

Okay, so let's go to 15D.

15D, it was an action item and is to authorize the mayor to sign a memorandum of understanding between the City of NAMPA and NAPA Development Court for NDC's funding of the administration of NDC, NDC's funding of the park department's maintenance of library square, and NDC's funding of the facilities department maintenance at the downtown garage and library square.

NDC's total payment to the city for the outline services is 225,349.

And this did say pending approval by legal, and this one you have approved.

Mayor, this is in the process of some back and forth revisions.

It's a document that may not have been updated for a few years, and so there's a few tweaks I think would be recommended for the city's best interest, and just awaiting confirmation from NDC's attorney.

And so those are not finalized yet.

Okay.

So um, and it is approved in the NDC FY26 budget, and in just a minute we'll go to Councilman Griffin to see uh what his his comments or questions were on this.

I have a question.

If this is not finalized, Robin, is this time sensitive to where it needs to come forward tonight rather than getting to the final, getting it done and bringing it forward with the revisions done.

Good evening, mayor council know it.

Can wait.

It can wait.

Yeah.

Okay.

In some ways, I'm feeling like it should.

If it's not done yet, it would be good just to bring it when it's finalized.

Yeah, that that would sound great and allow us time to have it finalized, so it's a finished product before you, and so we'd be happy to do that.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so Councilman Griffin, um, we are gonna bring this item forward again, but is there something that you would like to discuss on it?

No, not at this time, other than if on the new contract and the cover page just explaining when expected projects are going to be completed in anticipation.

I know they are maintenance on the parking garage.

I don't know if that's the drop-down drop-up, but I know there was funds allotted to that, so just the details.

I know it's October 1st or the 31st.

I didn't know if completion date would be October 31st.

So just okay, so Mayor, Council.

I think there's some questions outside of the contract that you're wanting to talk about.

So you and I can talk separately.

I didn't know if it was specifically for that and only for that, or if there were other projects planned to be completed.

I'm happy to talk to you offline.

Thank you.

Yeah.

If it is something that's beneficial, and if your questions are related to the services that are being provided, anything that could be put in the summary document updated would be great.

That might be a good way to address it too.

Sure.

Okay.

So we will postpone this to the next meeting.

Okay.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Okay, so we are going to move forward to staff communications.

Planning and zoning.

Thank you.

Mayor and Council.

Rodney Ashby Planning and Zoning Director for the record.

Um planning and zoning met last week and had three or two final plats that you approved on consent agenda tonight.

Uh the word first one was Brookhaven subdivision and then seven Maples Ranch subdivision.

And then they had an extension of final plat extension for one year for Baker Park number one, and all of those were approved by PZ.

The next one was a comprehensive plan text amendment, zoning text amendment, and zoning map amendment that you are uh going to be considering on the 15th of December, and that was for the form-based code, and um that will come before uh city council again on on December 15th, and that was recommended for approval by planning and zoning.

The next one is annexation and zoning for Shadow Creek at Lake Lowell, and this is uh near Lake Lowell and Midland Boulevard, uh, 1408 Lake Cole Avenue for 12 buildable locks for single family detached dwelling units in four common lots, and this was recommended for approval that will come before you on January 20th.

And then uh we had two daycares that uh were both approved, one at 11235 West Kite Street and the other one at 11540 West Sami Street, and these are up to 12 children.

So that's all I have.

Council, do you have any questions?

Mayor, I do.

Yes, uh, I had a number of my neighbors reach out because one of those are daycares are right down the street to me.

They had mentioned an appeal.

Have any appeals gone through, or is there anything in the works in that sense?

I haven't received any appeals yet.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rodney.

Appreciate it.

Okay, that takes us very quickly to new business, and our first action item is 5-1.

This is to authorize the mayor to sign an interagency cooperative agreement between Napa High District, Highway District 1 and Highway District 4, Ada County Highway District in the city of Napa for the Canada Road and Eustique Road Intersection project with the city's portion in the amount of 289, 320 and 75 cents.

And it is approved by the attorney and in the FY26 budget.

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Ingula.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

52 is an action item.

It's to authorize the mayor and the public works director to sign a task order with precision engineering for the Canada Road and Eustake Road intersection and the amount not to exceed 1,157,283.

It is approved in the FY26 budget.

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Ingula.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

5-3 is an action item.

It's the award the bid and authorize the mayor to sign the construction contract with Excelsior Construction Company for the streets division expansion project in an amount not to exceed $91,600.

And it is approved in the FY26 budget.

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

5-4 is an action item and it's to authorize the mayor to sign the resolution for the fiscal year 2026 increase to water renewal, which is wastewater, utility rate of 1%.

This is effective December 1, 2025.

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

See none roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

5-5 is an action item, and this is toward the bid and authorize the mayor to sign a contract with H.

D.

Fowler Company for the water materials restock FY26 project in the amount of 210,000 49.83 cents.

And it is approved in the FY26 operations budget.

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

See none roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Ingula.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

5-6 is an action item.

It's to award the bid and authorize the mayor to sign a contract with Hydro Specialties Company and the for the water meter procurement for FY26 project in the amount of 343,274 and 60 cents, and it is approved in the FY26 budget.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

57 is an action item, and this is to authorize the chief of police to sign a lease purchase agreement with Motorola Solutions for the purchase of 10 Motorola AXS consoles in the amount of $585,000 for FY26 with a total purchase of a million forty-five thousand six hundred sixty-eight dollars spread over fiscal years 26 through 29.

And this is approved in the FY26 budget.

And I will defer to legal.

It does say pending legal approval, but I'll let Preston speak to this.

Mayor, thank you.

And we have some good updates at the time the agenda was prepared.

We were very close to having this finalized.

And rather than wait till a later council, we decided to have pending legal review.

And in that time we finalized the terms with Motorola's uh legal counsel.

Um and that has been finalized as of this morning.

And one point that they uh do require as part of the agreement is that as part of this motion, mayor, um that it be found by the council that the city has determined that a true and very real need exists for these consuls.

Uh PD can speak more on those points, but um I understand the current consuls are nearly eight years old, pushing nine years as part of the contract with Motorola.

They do want to see that the city finds that this leads to purchase agreement is in the city's best interest, and that you would designate um Chief Huff to sign it.

Um typically mayor would sign a contract, but in this instance, uh with PD being the beneficiing department, uh we'd ask that Chief Huff be authorized to sign it.

So a little different than normal.

Uh those are the three things uh it's for discussion for this item.

Thank you very much.

Any discussion mayor, just a clarification is for 10 at this point, and then uh more will come in the years to come.

Is that what we're talking about here?

Mayor, I'll defer to PD for some of the specifics on the product to Shepard.

It's been very helpful in this.

Thank you.

Thank you for coming forward and answering that question.

So for the 585,000, that would be for 10 consoles.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Uh, how much are they a piece going forward?

Uh so I'll give you a rough figure.

Um, mayor and councilman.

Um the reason why I'll give you a rough figure is we initially had a plan to purchase 12 of these, and it was at a point of about 1.2 million for them.

So we revised the plan, came down to uh to 10 consoles, which took us just over a million dollars with interest.

So the explanation Waterl gave me was 100,000 a class just so that I understand these go in in the vehicles themselves.

No, this is for dispatch.

Oh so this is how the dispatchers talk to us and their um regular communications or 911 communications, that's how they communicate to us.

Okay.

I was wondering what the c what the cost covered, but that answers that.

I thought they were going in the vehicles as well.

So those are those are a little less expensive.

Yes.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Any additional questions?

Okay, Madam Mayor, I move that we approve uh uh action item 5-7, second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

See none, roll call.

Rodriguez, yes, ingula, yes, bills, yes, Haverfield, yes, Griffin, yes, Reynolds, yes, all in favor, motion carries.

Item 58 on the agenda is an action item.

It's to accept the canyon county canvassed election results for the November 4, 2025 elections.

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

So I don't know when we have been through new business by 520.

This is amazing.

Okay, so we will wait on the public forum because it's a little early for that.

Um the next item that we have.

We're gonna have a pause.

Let's go to nine, unfinished business.

And I believe we only have one unfinished business item, but we'll go ahead and get that out of the way.

Is an action item, it's to authorize the mayor to sign a resolution adopting the NAMPA Downtown Implementation Plan.

This is amending chapter 15 of the 2040 comprehensive plan for the city of Napa regarding regarding the summary of the downtown implementation plan.

The removal of the reference to the Central NAMPA revitalization blueprint, which was adopted in August 2004, and an update to the NAMPA Downtown Streetscape Plan reference and providing for an effective date.

And this was approved by city attorney.

And we don't have to read the resolution, so be a motion.

Did you want to send your suspension of rules?

No, because there's no reading.

Okay.

I move that we approve this item.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Henry has.

No.

Vote no.

Sorry.

No.

Okay, thank you.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Or in favor, two opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay.

At this time, we do not have any other actions.

We do not have an executive session.

And we don't have any other actions that can be taken.

We can move to public forum and cover the beginning of public forum, I think, but we don't have all of our students here yet, correct?

530 is when students arriving.

So we have a little bit of a pause here.

And just so we with um public hearings, we are not allowed to start those until 6 o'clock.

It's very unusual that we're this fast and done.

So and there isn't anything agendized.

So I think I would just stand for a break.

We'll take a probably about a 15-minute break.

Come back at pardon?

Is anyone signed up to speak this evening?

No.

Okay.

So we will uh take a break until let me see what the exact time is.

It's 521.

So let's do uh 535 is when we will come back together.

Does that sound good?

Okay, 535, and we'll be on break until then.

Thank you.

Yes.

No.

Mostly the majority of this money is coming from the end goes.

These are nine months.

Okay, so this is coming under 911.

Oh, good idea.

Oh, so we're going to require the problem to do.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Oh, well.

Yeah, I mean, we're we're reading.

Yeah.

We paid something with the are the paying random, yeah.

Or release.

We'll reuse it.

We're going to move out of the cloud.

These will be two years ago.

Yeah.

So that's still on the four series from the agenda.

Okay.

Give us notes.

Six minutes and one thousand dollars for the two voting.

Okay.

All right, I'm I'm okay with that.

No way.

Yeah.

Actually, I thought that was access to those.

Yeah.

No, three little dots.

Where am I?

No, do I?

Don't click on anything.

Um maybe the three dots are there.

No.

Don't see it.

Yeah, just go ahead and delete it.

Okay.

Well, what where should it be?

Um, on the tool bar, you're using the output client, right?

Or are you using the website?

Whatever you guys decide.

Um click on something in the email signed up from training.

Well, good thing because I wasn't sure what it was.

Okay, I think we're going to get started in just a minute, so about two minutes, and we'll get started.

It's five thirty-seven to be exact, so we've been a little over fifteen minutes, so um I think we're ready to get going.

Do we have anyone signed up for the public forum at this time?

At this point, we'll start with the kids, but I was just curious.

This is pretty exciting, and Amy, I'll let you speak to it.

Okay.

And then I've all love for um Mr.

Moffitt to join me.

I believe is this our third year that we've done this.

So many of you will remember this is our third year that we've um, I don't think partnered with the Nampus School District advanced photography class, thanks to Mr.

Moffitt.

And so you'll get to meet some of the students in just a minute, but um, I like to call it the wall at City Hall.

This uh wall was very bare until three years ago when um we reached out to I think Cindy Ardson and the uh CTE and asked if they would be willing to bring some of their photos from their very gifted students into City Hall.

So we get to be blessed with our photos for the year.

And Mr.

Moffat, if you wouldn't mind, I'd just like to really thank you for this gift that you've given the community and for the students as well.

Well, I think it's it's more the other way around.

Um we want to thank you for giving our kids the uh opportunity to have a venue, a public venue to showcase some of the work that they do.

And we've got great kids doing great things in the NAPA school district, and and it's great for them to have an opportunity to get their work out in front of the public.

So we want to thank you for that.

I have to say, I love the photographs in this hall.

It is such a it's a bright spot in the day, it's relaxing, they're beautiful, and so it is such a common thing to pause in that hall and just observe.

It's relaxing, they're beautiful, and so it is such a common thing to pause in that hall and just observe.

Even if I've walked by them every day for months, I love it.

I it's really, really such a great asset to our city hall.

So thank you for the last couple of years, and this whole new group is so exciting.

I love it.

Yeah, great.

Would you like to come down and present the certificates?

And then we'll do a group photo, and then there was a vote by the mayor and council.

So you all get a certificate, and then there are three ribbons that will also be awarded to the students.

So after she gives you the certificate, if you can smile at me, because I'll take your picture with the mayor.

Okay.

And if parents want to take pictures, they can too.

I've read not read these names, and so I'm probably gonna mess something up.

So Catherine Hildreth.

There you go.

Great job.

Here we go, and let's take a picture.

Okay, here we go.

All right, here we go.

Do you want to stand?

You can stand right there by Amy that way.

You do you want to do it again?

Yeah.

Yeah, that might be better.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And then do you want to just stand?

Can we do a group photo?

So stand right up here and then we'll keep going.

Okay, weatherly low.

Thank you so much.

Aidan Alexander Moore.

Great job.

Kayla?

Palmero?

Paul.

How do you say your name?

I just messed it up.

Hi Lam.

Okay, thank you.

I guess I'll give it to you.

There we go.

Great job.

Drake.

Radic.

This is great.

It was so nice to meet you the other day.

Random meeting at the grocery store.

It was so good.

Oh, shall I give you your certificate?

I forgot it.

Sorry.

Yeah.

Uh-huh.

Fabian Soto.

And last but not least, no award.

Let's do a group photo.

Okay.

Okay, here we go, guys.

Council.

Council down together.

And then let's scooch over just take a few steps this way.

Keep cuts and off the easy.

Yes, keep cutting easy.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Here we go.

One more step.

Good.

Okay, let's do me first.

Here we go.

Anyone?

Some.

Okay.

Okay, awesome.

Now, but while you're there, let me hand out these awards if that's okay.

Now remember, you all are amazing, and I'm so proud of you all.

And I don't like having to choose what.

That is so crazy hard.

The whole staff stood out there and looked at it.

Because all of them are so good.

So it's really hard because I like I like them all.

So can you tell we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings?

But okay.

So our first.

Well, I guess I should do the first last.

Okay.

So our third place winner was Takio Sanders, okay, with NAMPA's fire.

I don't know if our fire saw that.

That's a good one.

Okay.

So second place is Fabian Soda with old Nampa.

And Baby and had three that made it to this level.

And then first is also not here, I don't think Parker Young with Generation of Flight.

Yeah.

So thank you.

Well, great, great job, all of you.

It was really hard to decide.

Loved it.

So thank you guys.

Congratulations.

We're going to join these photos all year.

Thank you, guys.

I realized my mic wasn't on.

I accidentally turned it off earlier, sorry.

How are you today?

Real good.

How are you doing?

Good.

You do have to give your name and address though, just so we don't mess up.

Melissa Sue Robinson, 15 Fifth Street North.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'm talking about two that three that two things and I'll keep it under three minutes for sure.

Uh the first thing is we need to reintroduce that goal bond.

And it needs to be sold.

No matter what you have to do to sell it.

Uh get the media involved.

Uh get a lot of um news uh media involvement in it, you know, uh maybe even putting ads in the Idaho press striping or whatever you have to do.

Um second thing is the NAPS City Council.

It's on YouTube only.

You have people out there that doesn't that don't have access to internet, but they're voters.

And uh so I I recommend that we put in uh cable a special cable channel and have a city council meetings on the cable.

With the gold bond, that's the most important for the safety of the the Napa public.

Thank you.

Good idea.

You're welcome.

Okay, thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Is there anyone else signed up?

No, madam mayor.

Is there anyone else this evening that had intended to speak?

Yes, go ahead and come forward and give us your name and address.

I don't have three minutes.

Good evening.

I I I might have I might be doing this a little early, but it's to just guess the sugar district.

Uh my name is Samantha Cross.

Okay, so that's a public hearing, and yes, it is early.

And so you're absolutely correct, and I'm so sorry, because now you're gonna have to wait.

No, that's fine.

Are you okay?

I just wanted to make sure that I was was on the record.

Yeah.

You are you're correct.

Thank you.

So I'm glad that you're gonna testify later.

Thank you so much.

Okay, guess what?

We have another pause.

We have not had a pause like this.

I don't know when.

Right.

With never not that I can think of.

So yeah, we got through everything quick and now we have to sit and wait because we cannot start until six o'clock for our first public hearing.

We have to wait until six o'clock.

So uh we're gonna take a break until six o'clock, and it is five forty-seven.

Thank you.

Guys, thank you so much for coming and sharing your incredible pictures.

They were so good.

Thank you.

Okay.

But you can ask for permission.

I need to be careful.

And um there's audio room.

Obviously, if you're putting it on the ballot before the people, uh, yeah, just we educated when we did the least water thing.

We educated.

We were a lot of people and stuff that the legislature gets really concerned about what they perceive and it's also everybody after everybody.

So I didn't see your schools do a lot of education on the supplemental leaves.

You're a lot of educator.

So you can't see that.

Okay, I think we're ready to get started.

It is six oh two, and so time for our public hearings.

And um public hearing eight one and eight two, John, and I'll read them before we start, but you're going to do these together, is that correct?

In one presentation or in two totally separate presentations.

Okay, so right now for the record, eight one and eight two are both action items, and they will be presented together.

Um there are public hearing to consider a ten percent increase in domestic water utility rates and fees for FY twenty-six and irrigation rates and fees for FY twenty-six.

John Spencer's here, and thank you for presenting us to us this evening.

Thank you.

Um as I get through my slides.

So the water division all together, we strategically manage water resources.

We focus on customer service, water quality, water reuse, and water conservation.

Currently, we maintain about a $2 billion in domestic and irrigation infrastructure.

We have $5 million in annual revenue, and currently 41 employees.

So this year we have or FY25, we served 12.7 billion gallons of water.

And 3.3 billion gallons was domestic.

Of that 2 billion in infrastructure, we have 115 wells and pump stations.

That's both domestic and irrigation.

We have 1,200 miles of combined water and irrigation pipes.

This provides capacity for growth, fire flow storage, and pressure regulation within the system.

Some of the infrastructure improvements that are completed every year.

We have a filtering program, approximately $37,000 annually, and that's a filtration system for the surface water irrigation to help with the folks who have pressure irrigation in their yards.

We try to filter out as much as we can from the surface water.

We always look at our pumps and we have it on a schedule where we maintain eight of them a year.

We also do the electrical upgrades in the pump station.

And this year in FY25, we had 2.8 miles of replacement with ARPA funds.

We actually have more than that on the books.

We had 4.5 total.

That would be a lot.

Sorry about that.

And then we have 1,420 water samples that we take every year to make sure that the water that we're delivering is safe and meets federal and state standards.

We've gotten up to 8,000, over 8,000 valves exercised, 1,300 hydrants flushed, and almost 5,000 backflow assembly certifications.

So currently this is a comparison for the other cities within the Treasure Valley, kind of where we're at and where we fall.

In the domestic water, we're second lowest.

Meridian is lower.

And then you can also see there we added water renewal in there to show total water and water renewal costs.

This is the our cost to the citizens today.

And you can see where we kind of fall within those that we could compare irrigation rates to.

And 40 miles of pipe that need replacement now.

So you can kind of see that on the on the map.

Those in red are pipes that are over 50 years old.

The ones in blue are 30 to 50 years old, and anything outside that is uh within 30 years, they were installed.

So you can see kind of the core area downtown is is the most vulnerable.

Um our goal is to replace five miles a year, and currently we we're approximately two, which means we're deferring three miles per year, and it's roughly 1.2 mile million dollars per mile of pipe.

So you can see that deference of about 3.6 million.

And then the irrigation side, we have about 154 miles of irrigation pipe that are at or near end of life, and 18 miles uh need replacement now.

We would like to replace five miles, that's our goal.

And currently we're only at about a mile.

Um, so we're deferring up to four miles of of those replacements a year, um, which would roughly be 4.8 million dollars a year of deferred maintenance.

So as you can see in this map, um we show irrigation mainline breaks and domestic uh mainline breaks in FI25.

There were uh 47 major domestic and irrigation line breaks.

Uh they cost anywhere between 4500 to 200,000, which was uh the fix at uh north side.

So total cost for line breaks in FY25 over 400,000.

And this is just a picture of that pipe in uh north side that that caused uh all that trouble in the 4th of July weekend.

Uh and and it's a cast iron pipe, and that's kind of that that that central area that was shown on that previous map.

That that's typical of the pipe we see in that area.

So the city really needs to spend about 12 million a year to replace aging pipe, and currently we're spending about 3.6 million.

So that means we're deferring 8.4 million annually.

So with that, um to turn it over to Chris Gonzalez.

Um he's with and mentioned earlier, he's with FCS, um, and I'll be running the slides for him.

There are a lot more slides in here than um he was going to speak on tonight.

Um, so bear with me as I get through the ones that he's gonna skip over.

Chris.

All right.

Yeah, I am.

Uh thank you uh for having me.

Um I'm going to kind of fly through the the race study basics.

We'll get into the uh the meat of the uh of the presentation, which are the scenarios, and we're focusing on the revenue requirement analysis, otherwise known as the financial plan, uh, to uh determine how much revenue each utility needs to cover its costs.

Uh let's move ahead to slide seven.

Or actually, that's it differently.

Yeah, um, keep going.

Yeah, so let like yeah, yeah, perfect.

Okay.

So the first scenario I'm gonna talk about for the domestic water side is the full master plan CIP.

And so, based on that capital plan, the water utility was going to fund uh approximately 158 million dollars in projects from 2025 through 2032.

Uh 87.4 million of that was to replace about 18,000 feet of aging pipe per year, or about 145,000 feet of pipe through 2032.

Um about 8% of that cost is attributable to impact fee projects, it would presumably be offset by impact fees.

Uh but a significant portion of that, about 132 million is going to have to come from rates.

And so if we move on to the next uh slide, uh this is the financial plan that we would project get you there.

And so we'd be looking at basically doubling rates uh over the next two years.

So a 62% increase in 26, followed by uh a 40% increase in 27, and then we would be able to go by with kind of the typical inflationary type of adjustment of four and a half percent per year.

Uh and for a typical bimonthly bill, uh we're looking at about a 20 hour or about a 40 dollar increase in the bill over the next two years, and then going to more three to four dollar increases.

Now, uh naturally that would be cause for concern.

So we looked at a different scenario.

If we go to the next slide, this is uh we cut down some of the main replacements.

Uh and so here the reduced capital plan only includes about $97 million of projects, $36 million of which would be to replace pipe.

Uh we're projecting about $59,000 feet of pipe through 2032, which would be uh just over 40% of the target established in the master plan.

Uh and so the burden on rates uh would go down from 132 million to about 69 million uh over the planning period.

And so if we go to the next slide, uh then we see the financial plan that supports that capital program, uh a 10% rate increases uh per year uh from uh fiscal year 26 through fiscal year 2030, and then reverting to uh four and a half percent uh annual revenue adjustments after that.

Uh and so then for a typical bi-monthly bill, you know, we're looking at sort of three dollars and fifty cents to four dollars uh and fifty cents kind of for the next five years, uh, and then going back down to uh more like two two to two fifty uh increases per year in the monthly bill.

Um let's go ahead and move on to the next slide.

Um this is just kind of showing the projected fund balances.

So yeah, if you look at the dash blue line, uh we were showing that the uh domestic water fund balance uh would get drawn down basically to the minimum balance that we uh assumed for the analysis uh and by the end of 26 and then sort of recovering from there.

Uh the green line uh uh at the top, that's the recommended scenario.

Uh so the the fund balance gets drawn down a lot more gradually because we've spread out the main replacements and and reduced what we're going to get done by 2032.

Uh let's move on to the next slide.

Now we're on the irrigation uh uh utility, and so the full master plan uh laid out about 142 million dollars in projects from 25 to 32, uh, and about 32 million of that was to replace uh roughly 8,000 feet of aging pipe per year, or about 63,000 feet uh through 2032.

Uh about 40% of the projected capital cost uh is attributable to impact fee projects and would be uh covered uh by impact fees, uh leaving uh developers paying about 18 million uh hookup fees another another almost 8 million, and so rates would be paying just under 60 million dollars uh for the capital projects through 2032.

And so uh next slide, please.

Uh this shows the uh financial plan under this scenario.

Uh we would need to do 100% annual rate increases for 26 and 27 uh to cover a short-term spike needed to uh fund the priority one master plan projects by 2027.

Uh and then after we you know meet that hurdle, uh we could actually decrease rates because we don't need to generate as much cash anymore.

And so there'd be a about a 59% decrease in 2028, uh and then four and a half percent uh annual rate increases after that.

Uh to be clear, we we wouldn't recommend this type of uh erratic rate pattern.

Uh this is where we would want to smooth things out and and push some of the projects out.

And so uh if we go to the next slide, uh this is the reduced uh CIP uh $69.9 million dollars in projects through 2032 and a net rate funded burden of about 31 million uh over that planning period.

Uh and so to support that, if we go to the next slide, uh now we're looking at a 10-year annual irrigation rate increases from fiscal year 2026 through uh 2030, uh, and then four and a half percent per year after that.

Uh but for a typical residential uh property with uh 10,700 square feet, uh we're looking at more like around $20 increases uh per year in the annual bill because the assessment is is done annually.

Uh next slide, please.

And so here for the irrigation utility, uh the again the blue dashed line shows under that full master plan scenario, we're drawing the balance almost to the minimum requirement or minimum target in 2025, uh, and then trying to you know recover from there and fund some projects as needed.

Uh you know, the green line, the rate increase is spread out a little bit more due to reduced spending on main replacements.

And so I think after that, uh let's go on to the next slide.

I think here was the water renewal forecast.

I think we're gonna skip over that.

We we had projected that the inflationary adjustments will be adequate in the in the future years, but we'll I think there'll be some more discussion of that uh in the year ahead.

Um so next slide.

Uh this is kind of showing a forecast of the uh combined domestic water and water renewal bill.

Um I I think the main thing under the the recommended scenario, we're looking at uh 2026 uh rate an increase of 432 in that recommended scenario.

It's about three percent uh over the the existing rates, uh and then the increases become more like uh you know eight or nine dollars in the bi-monthly bill combined or an increase uh of about uh six percent per year from 2027 through 2030.

Uh and that's uh keeping the the increases for the uh water renewal rates at four and a half percent.

That's kind of the assumption we made for this comparison, uh, and then the 10% uh increases for the domestic water bill, you know, average out to an accumulative increase of about six percent per year.

Uh and then after 2030, uh reverting to a strategy of four and a half percent increases each year.

Uh okay, so let's uh move on to the next slide.

And then we already saw the set the sample bill comparison.

Uh let's move ahead.

Uh and then the irrigation bill under the recommended scenario, uh, kind of like I mentioned before.

Uh, we're looking at roughly 20 dollar uh type increases in the annual assessment uh each year through 2030, and then uh 2031 and 2032, uh we start doing the four and a half percent increases that we've assumed uh is kind of a long-term uh long-term rate adjustment that will give some capacity to uh make progress on the future main replacements.

Uh let's move on to the next slide.

And then uh we already saw the bill comparison, so let's uh skip ahead of that one.

Um we'll skip ahead of that one.

Uh and then I think that was most of it.

Um I think is there the next step slide?

Yeah, right there.

Okay.

Uh and so the things uh to look at next.

Um there's a different take on cost of service.

Uh and so you know, the one that we focused on tonight is how much revenue does each utility need to cover its costs.

Uh, and then the uh another way we could look at it is well, how uh should the city increase rates for different customer classes?

So primarily residential and commercial.

Uh if you look at the domestic water uh utility, for example, uh you know, there we've got you know the cost, yeah, fixed costs that don't vary with water usage, we have costs associated with providing capacity, we have cost of fire suppression and kind of all those things.

Uh customer classes use the system differently.

And so allocating cost to them based on that way.

We could come up with uh a class specific rate increases uh as an alternative uh if there's interest there.

Um we also I'm sorry.

Okay, and then um aside from that, uh the hook of fee update and the impact fee update, which uh the city uh uh has to adopt together.

Um and so uh those are uh going through the process, and and I think those will be brought to uh council uh council at a different time.

Uh and so I think with that that was the end of the uh formal presentation, but happy to speak to any questions.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chris.

And so again, just the request is for a 10% increase in domestic water rates and a 10% increase in irrigation water rates for this year.

And I stand for questions.

Council, do you have any questions?

Yes, Councilman Haverfield.

Um just one.

How did you arrive at a quarter acre uh basically the 10,700 square feet is uh almost a quarter acre?

How many subdivisions are being built with uh quarter acre lots on it today?

Mayor Councilman Haverfield, um I don't I don't have that number.

Um what was decided was to choose uh a rent a number to be able to compare uh the different cities.

Can I jump in, John?

Yes, please.

Yeah, yeah.

So when we put that together, we uh looked at billing data.

So the detailed billing data for the irrigation, the pressurized irrigation system.

And we saw yeah, here's the total square footage of residential parcels divided by the total number of residential parcels, uh, and that was the average uh square footage per parcel.

Now, uh is it representative like of uh the you know lots that are currently you know being uh developed?

Uh uh I can't say that for sure, but it was intended to be an average uh to be as representative as possible.

I'm just you know thinking as far as existing lots, they're not that big.

Uh new lots that are being developed aren't being developed to that size at this point.

So I was just wondering how you came up with that as an average uh for comparison purposes.

Are there other municipalities that are uh using irrigation systems that we're comparing against?

Is that what we're looking at here?

Yes, the the comparisons are to other municipalities that do have pressurized irrigation.

Um, and then also as I mentioned, the uh city of Boise who uses uh a number of their customers use uh domestic water and it's metered, uh so we tried to keep that comparison as well.

So the water renewal rates uh that are added to the um the water rates, uh these other locations, Dry Creek Ranch, Marsing, Melbourne, they actually have irrigation systems in place so uh so that is just comparing the domestic water and uh water renewal rates.

The irrigation rates are not included in that exhibit.

Well, I'm sorry.

Um did I jump ahead?

Maybe I did the exhibit with um irrigation rates stands alone.

I'm looking on your slide 44 is the slide I was looking at as Councilman Halberfield.

This is comparing domestic water and the green, uh sorry, in the blue and then uh water renewal or wastewater rates.

Okay.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions for John at this time?

Yes, John.

Are there any opportunities for grants to help us subsidize so we don't have to do a full 10%?

Mayor councilman councilwoman Dangula.

Um we have not seen a lot of grant funding for water infrastructure.

Um we did take advantage of the ARPA funding, uh and that's why we were able to get up to the 4.5 miles in this past fiscal year out on on the street to get replaced, but we have not seen um replacement funding um in in the form of grants.

Yes, I know we kind of laid out the next steps and what that would potentially look like.

And I'm thinking that I'm probably similar to Councilwoman Janula of the options we have to not do the full 10 percent.

If we were to do 5% or 2.5% or seven and a half percent, what are the scenarios that we could play with rather than the full 10?

Or is it it needs to be the full 10 percent or it needs to be nothing at all, and we'll progressively move forward as we will based off of the chart.

I have a hard time doing the big peak and then committing ourselves to the big decrease, unless we can have something in an agreement that we're going to decrease, but then we can't bind a future council to that agreement.

I know I'll be in council.

Actually, I won't be, I'll be potentially gone in 2028.

So I hope a future council will honor that decrease at that time.

So that's those are the thoughts that I have.

I like the projection of it will be coming down.

This is something that we need to do in the interim to be able to have projects completed until uh fiscal year 2028.

But so I threw a lot at you.

What do multiple options look like?

And is there a way that we can commit to a decrease in 2028?

I'll give you those two to start.

Mayor Councilman Griffin.

Um the Board of Appraisers recommended the 10%.

Um currently in the proposed in the budget, um, we requested up 4.9 percent.

Um ultimately the decision is up to council on rates of uh any any increase in rates.

Um it's what it would result in is uh continuance of deferred maintenance.

Um and we we provided uh a longer term um, but we're really only requesting for the the FY26 here.

And for a follow-up question, if I could, there's going to be a comment tacked on to that, so I'll try and avoid the comment as much as I can.

I'm just trying to think about uh fleshing this out what this looks like.

School district levy passed, so there's going to be an increase there.

We took four gone.

We don't know how much it could only be a couple cents, but there's going to be an increase there.

In addition to now water, there's going to be a potential 10% increase here.

Um the county, I don't know what the county's going to do.

Is there going to be an increase there or not?

What other levying districts are going to do?

It stacks up pretty heavily pretty quick.

It's not just, oh well, it's 10% here, 10% compounded amongst all the other increases that we're seeing.

It's tough for me to not have to pick apart.

So the deferred maintenance, what I I think we briefly hit it, the deferred maintenance.

If we didn't do this tonight, what does that look like?

Can we really highlight and emphasize if we voted no on this tonight?

Are we going to have more water breakages like north side throughout the city?

Yeah, I'd like the worst case scenario if you could.

Mayor Councilman Griffin, I would love to be able to predict the future.

But I would say that with the aging infrastructure we have with the age of uh a lot of the cast iron pipes that we do have in the ground.

Um I would my best guess would be yes, we would see more and more breaks that we see like we did at Northside.

Councilman Haverfield.

So can you tell um tell us as far as the replacement areas?

I didn't see the where there was uh identified areas that were uh being considered as far as as a part of this that are tied to road improvements.

So you have surface improvements along with the subsurface intrudement improvements, how much of that is city controlled versus ITD?

Uh is that uh analysis been done and is a part of this study that I just didn't notice Mayor Councilman Haverfield.

Um we have not delineated specific lines for replacement under this uh request.

Um we just know that we have significant miles of uh aging pipe that needs to be replaced.

Um I've been working with our director of transportation, Crystal, on how we plan out these projects with replacing not only if we're gonna replace uh irrigation lines, we also replace uh domestic water lines, and then how does that pave back of the road look like?

So we've had those discussions on how we can move forward with um replacing what's needed to be replaced and then also working with um paving back the road and what that looks like.

I guess that's my question maybe to Crystal as well.

Then if surface improvements are happening at the same time, you're looking at subsurface improvements, we're not duplicating, tearing up something, putting something underneath it, and then replacing it and then or not tearing it up.

Um just to make sure that we're doing things properly from a standpoint of uh prudence and in the uh reinstall and the uh mitigation that you're looking to provide here for aging infrastructure below surface.

Um I'll let Crystal speak to that, but I'd like to say that I will assure you we have a one-dig policy.

You have a new term for it that I didn't use today.

Your new term instead of a one-dig policy is oh, complete uh for the record, Crystal Craig, Director of Transportation and Mayor, Councilman Haverfield, thank you for the question.

Um we are looking more at a complete streets approach where we we just dig once.

Um I will say many of the miles of pipe that is aging and need replaced right now is underneath failed pavements.

Um and it's in our our more urban areas where you see curb gutter sidewalk and pedestrian ramps.

Um I only have so much transportation funding to go around when it cost when it comes to repaving to repave about a mile of road, it's about a million dollars just to do a rehab without touching the the stuff below it.

Um's new policy, he's been really great working with us that now when they replace a pipe in one that is in one lane of traffic, instead of trying to do just like a four-foot trench above, they're trying to replace the entire 12-foot roadway above it.

If we replace the entire width of the roadway at once, it also triggers ADA improvements, which increases the costs pretty significantly to the roadway projects.

So these are pooling funds then that you're able to draw from so that you can tie it into street improvements along with the subsurface improvements, then sounds like you're you're putting the money aside so that you can do it all at one time.

Is that right?

Mayor, Councilman Haverfield.

So we can't use enterprise funds on the streets per se, but if there is enough money that I can allocate to do the entire street at once, we do a combo project with both colors of money, is what I'm gonna call them.

Um if John is just going to do uh a pipe project itself, he will replace the roadway above it uh that is in the lane of travel that the pipe is in.

Thank you, Krista.

That said, we one of the things that we've been discussing, and we did it today with our legislators is that we don't have nearly the kind of funding that we knew we need to have for our roads.

And so when we say that we're saving or pooling money for that, I mean we're just way short the whole way around.

And so while we have a one-dig policy, um the need is far greater than the policy.

I struggle with this kind of increase, especially on irrigation.

I will say when I see over the next four years it being a hundred dollars a year increase.

That accumulative effect is massive, uh especially on fixed incomes.

However, if we don't do it, the impact is massive.

Because then we get into what we saw uh that was water versus irrigation, but still it's very, very it's difficult.

We've just got a difficult situation here.

Councilman Griffin.

Well, I've got another two-parter, and I apologize, so I'll throw the first one with the first one at you.

Was the north side intersection that did fail?

Was that I I don't know when this was completed or what we had prior to.

Was that part of the red zone where council we really need to consider our project here?

It's going to fail, and did it actually fail at that time with the crystal ball that we don't have, uh just looking past, because I think it's one of those things that we can go back and say to constituents or whoever else in the community and say we were told north side was going to fail for a long time and then it did.

Is that something that if we do do this, we are going to continue seeing failures in the infrastructure if we don't fund north side's a perfect example.

Obviously, it's a perfect example at this point, but was it something that we had the forethought beforehand to replace and we just did it?

So, Mayor Councilman uh Griffin.

So it is in the area that we are aware that there are older pipes, that's older infrastructure in the ground.

So we don't have the capability of determining which one will go.

There is um there are people who have come to talk to me about AI and saying we can put all your data in and provide you with their best guess.

But it it falls within that area that we we know is challenged with uh aging pipes.

So this would have fallen into the red area, correct?

Red or blue, and had it prior to this survey.

When did this get completed?

This was completed after the uh north side break.

And okay, that answers my question.

And the follow-up part two on this, Mayor, if I could just for educate myself as well as I'm sure people listening online.

The difference between domestic and irrigation.

Is there ability to just increase on the domestic side?

What was the pipeline that burst on on north side?

Let's start there.

Councilman Griffin, the pipeline that um burst on north side was a domestic water line.

And the is this a combination of both domestic and irrigation or specifically domestic that we're looking at targeting areas?

This map uh solely is for domestic.

Um the next slide uh indicates the irrigation lines.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions for John at this time?

Madam Mayor.

Yes.

So on the deferred maintenance um you're showing about uh or or total spend, you're showing 12 million dollars a year is what you need.

Is that ongoing for eternity or is it uh what do you need for initial amount to get your deferred maintenance caught up?

Your dollar amount.

So mayor, councilman Reynolds.

If we were looking at our full capital improvement plan, that was the that was um kind of what Chris went through as the the first plan where in on the domestic side there were talks of 62 percent, 40 percent in the first two years, and on the irrigation side it was a hundred percent and a hundred percent increases.

Um that would get us to the point where we could then um fund the capital improvement uh projects that need to be uh completed within our master plan.

Follow up, Mayor?

Yes.

So I agree with you on not knowing when things are gonna break.

Um I've seen pipe in the ground two years that breaks, and uh I've seen pipe in the ground 100 years uh from wood to steel to you name it, even C900, you just never know.

But uh what uh this question would be for Doug.

Have you looked at the analysis on this as far as uh funding ongoing?

I I hate seeing deferred maintenance carried over again and again and again and again.

And uh have you looked at the analysis about how we get away from that where we can fund this on a regular basis to take care of what we need to.

The emergency repairs are really, really costly, and if we can avoid that at all, right?

That would be great.

I have participated with Tom and with Jeff Barnes and others as we've gone through the studies over the last six, seven years, looking at how far behind we are.

And I've uh watched the council try very vigorously to defend the the financial impact on the citizens of Nampa.

Um every year, because of that of that concern, we keep pushing apologize for that.

We keep pushing the maintenance ball further down the road.

Um there will come a point in time where that will catch up to us.

I believe I've heard Tom and Jeff say that the number of breaks were increasing over the last two years.

That it's it's it's a arithmetic progression that they are increasing, meaning that we're getting further and further behind.

Um, but you could have a good year, you could have a bad year, but we are getting further behind.

If the amount of money we're putting now does not even meet the deferred maintenance portion, that means we're pushing more, even after the 10% increase, you're pushing more into next year.

We're not even catching up.

So what what we're all we're trying to do is with this working increase is try and minimize the amount of uh impacts we're pushing down the road.

So it becomes a question for the council what's the best for the city to bite the bullet now?

I I can't say, or take the chance that we don't have any more breaks.

That's a difficult answer to difficult question to answer, but the pipes are getting older in the ground, that's all we can say.

We know that breaks will continue.

And Madam Mayor, I have one last question.

So on the for lump sum, I still trying to clarify lump sum.

If we had 50 million dollars, are we gonna cover this on lump sum or 100 million dollars?

Where are we at with that to wipe this deferred maintenance out of one shot?

Mayor Councilman Reynolds, I think the number is quite significantly larger than that.

If we look at this slide, the 154 miles uh at or near end of life, and it's roughly 1.2 million dollars per mile.

Um I'm not good enough to do that math in my head, but that that's the number for the irrigation side.

Um then on the domestic side, that 161 miles of pipe is what needs to be replaced.

Times 1.2 million a mile is 193 million.

If I'm doing the math correct, it's pretty straightforward.

Okay.

So it's expensive money we don't have.

Correct.

Yes?

A last follow-up for me on how we stand compared to other cities, municipalities.

Are a lot of I know NAPA is one of the few that has the infrastructure that's as old as it is compared to Meridian with new growth and even Boise with new growth.

I think Boise is probably more similar or called well.

Where do we stand comparatively?

Are we way, way, way behind in the sense of deferred maintenance, or is this an issue in all the cities, and we're doing a good job just in my mind.

Have we done a good job of maintaining?

I I'm trying to not blend two issues because I know of another issue that has some deferred maintenance that we've kicked the can down the road, but on the infrastructure side, do we have deferred maintenance that we've kicked down the can down the road and other cities have just kept maintaining and don't have similar issues?

Is this common or is this not?

Mayor Councilman Griffin.

Um I don't have a very good understanding of what the other municipalities and their infrastructure and the the level of replacement they've done or their needs.

Um to one I can speak to from just the information that I received.

Um Meridian seems to be in a much better spot than us.

Um their growth, um, a lot of the pipes in the ground are are newer.

Um, and they did go through their older part of downtown and replace uh a significant portion of their older pipes.

Um the other cities I can't speak to.

Thank you, Joan.

Okay.

Um mayor, yes.

Um I'm struggling with these numbers a little bit because I'm used to seeing them in miles, and we're seeing them in feet.

So I'm calculating, but luckily for me, that one random number that our teachers always remembered or taught us that we'd have to know was there was 5,280 feet in a mile for whatever reason we all know that, so I'm doing okay.

But that's because you were under common core.

Um, I think Doug, maybe this one's for you, but I'm just wondering if we were to do this increase, how do we ensure that these funds are used for these projects?

Or does it just go into the enterprise?

No.

Super valid point, very, very valid.

I in fact, um I I think uh we should find a way to make ourselves accountable to that because operation costs can increase too.

I think if the uh the funds were increased, we should probably have a report back on uh with the departments of exactly how those monies will be spent, what projects will be spent on to the degree we can, but I I think we should make that a priority to be accountable to that spend.

How does how does that work?

In the budgetary process.

Okay, yeah, in the budgetary process, we can put it out and list it out.

This is the increase.

This is how much it costs, this is the areas we're going to work on, and then you you measure last year's budget to this year's budget and make sure that the increase from year to year is used on the construction projects.

Okay.

It's done through the capital improvement plan.

And so having the capital improvement plan tied to this, I think it's relatively easy to do because we've got that spelled out, and we know you'll be able to speak to which projects.

And then at the end of the year, you can look back at it and see do we actually do that?

Thank you.

Yes, and Mayor and Councilwoman Changula, it would not only be just pipe replacement, but we also have all the pump stations that need maintenance and upkeep.

Um that we've we've done a good job not deferring maintenance, but as they continue to age, um, as we saw this past year, we had one challenge with the domestic well where we had to do some emergency repairs.

So we have to consider not only pipe replacement, but making sure that the domestic wells are kept up and maintained adequately so we can properly serve our customers.

So actually, what I'm thinking is, and Heather, you're here, and thank you so much for the work that you do on the budget because she's the one very responsible for the public works budget and what comes forward.

If council were to approve the increase, whatever that is, recognizing what the revenue anticipated revenue is, what projects you're going to be doing, I would anticipate that's brought before council during the budget process this next year to say with this increase and this is the plan.

And so you're going to be able to track what anticipated revenue is, you're going to track which the highest priority areas are and your methodology for how you're going to approach it.

Yeah.

So I think there'll be a good system in place.

I'm not going to be here for that, but I know that you guys will do it and you'll do it well.

That there'll be a good capital project plan and it'll be budgeted and tracked financially.

Yeah.

I appreciate the expertise that we have here that can do this and do it well.

And the stewardship also.

So, yes.

Comment uh I support the the increase and what you've got put together.

Uh I would hope that we can segregate the increased dollars by a separate accounting number, so that uh those dollars don't go towards just general type of operational operational expenses, and that uh so the taxpayers taking a hit, and so knowing that those funds are going direct to the replacement of pipe and stations, etc.

So that it doesn't get led over into other things.

Uh I think that's really important.

NAMPA has uh by the charts that we've seen over the years, NAMPA has worked very diligently to keep the user rates lower.

NAPA began raising on the sewer in order to get the sewer plant rebuilt and uh and and that side of it, and so that part is raised over the years.

Uh NAMPA chose leadership told chose not to go high on those increases and to stair step them and finance it.

Uh and now we're faced with replacement of pipe, etc.

Uh the reality is we have to deal with this issue.

The expense to do it as we did on July 4th weekend is uh I'm guesstimating at least three times what it would be if we were doing it under a plan replacement program uh but you'll have to speak to that in a moment.

So I'm recommending that we go forward with with the uh increase, even though it's difficult from a cost point of view.

Um but otherwise it's putting our head in the sand and hoping nothing breaks, and I just don't think that's realistic.

That's not physical science.

So we will step into the public hearing and hear what the public has to say, and then we'll come back and make a decision.

So uh do you have any uh response or comment to Councilman Bill's comments?

Mayor Councilman Bills.

Um I did some rough math today, and that repair under uh a replacement project, that section that we repaired would roughly have cost us about $30,000 instead of 200,000 because part of that cost was the road lifting.

So if we had not had a break, you wouldn't have been replacing all that pavement, and that's where a lot of the work we did ourselves internally, and we did have overtime, etc.

But when you ruin a road and you lift all that pavement, and then you have to come in and do the road repair, then you've expanded your costs significantly.

Correct.

Right.

Correct.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay.

Let's move into public hearing.

John, we'll have you back to answer any final questions.

Madam Mayor, no one didn't advance sign up for public testimony.

Thank you.

Is there anyone here that would like to testify on this issue tonight?

And this testimony is both for the irrigation and the domestic water increase.

Okay.

Seeing no one, counsel, do you have any additional questions for John?

I do.

Okay.

Yeah, you your mic isn't on.

Thank you.

Don't you love it?

There you go.

Thank you.

Um, I'll try that again.

The domestic water capital forecast that uh in pay in slide 29, it has 158.3 million capital projects.

Is that a solid number, or would we be able to throw some of that over to reduce the 10 percent increase?

Mayor Councilman Rodriguez, that number is based on the um master plans that um we we go out and and get that information from consultants who go through a uh they do a um a model and then they determine um what are priority projects, they prioritize those and give a cost to those.

So those costs um are costs that we obtain in our master plan.

Okay, so um in in the 12.2 million, the projected cost of tribute the attribute to impact fee.

What if the impact fee increases by growth?

Would it still be that same amount or would be able to use more of that for new development, not necessarily for maintenance?

So, Councilman Rodriguez, with impact fees, the if there's more development, there are more impact fees that would be used towards um growth fees or growth improvements.

So that leads to my second question then.

Um do you have an idea based on permits based on approved annexations and subdivisions of the increase in revenue in water in domestic in renewal and irrigation?

Councilman Rodriguez, I have not done that analysis.

Um I would have to get all that information from planning and figure out what those projected numbers would be.

Okay, based on that 10% increase.

Thank you.

So the new construction though, hookup fees and different things are allocated to certain things.

A lot of what you're talking about is and impact fees have to go to growth, right?

Cannot be used for anything else.

So what you're really talking about is our replacement and renewal, which isn't funded another way, right?

I mean it is funded through growth, but we're behind on replacement and renewal.

Correct.

So okay.

All right.

Any other questions for John?

John.

Within the slides, I can't remember because I was trying to I was looking down.

Do we have a comparison of what an average gallon usage of domestic water?

I know we have the square footage based off of the irrigation side, but actual water consumption compared to other cities, what our rate is compared to those other municipalities is whether it be a 5,000 gallon a month, 8,000, 10,000, uh compared to the other cities within the valley.

Mayor Councilman Griffin, I don't believe we got that information from the other cities.

When we reached out to the other cities and got all their information, um we we had to come to kind of a consensus of what volume we would be talking about so we could compare rates uh equitably.

So I don't know as far as per capita in other cities uh the volume of domestic water or irrigation water that's used.

Thank you.

One thing that we can speak to is the fact that we have reduced our consumption both on irrigation and on domestic water use in both areas, and I don't remember off the top of my head the percentages.

You may know off the top of your head, and I can't remember, but we have reduced consumption in both areas.

Yes, Mayor, that was good per capita per capita.

One was 5.4 percent and one was 2.7 percent.

Thank you.

Now which one is which?

I don't know that I remember that.

Thank you.

Um I think I would stand for a motion to close public hearing at this time.

So move.

Second.

All in favor?

Okay.

What is the will of the council?

Mayor, I'd make a motion uh on item 81 or is the uh domestic water to approve the 10% increase as presented by Cond.

Okay, so I have a question.

Um, do we want this action item to be as we're approving that to go ahead and authorize or do we want a separate motion to authorize the mayor to sign the resolution for FIS to increase domestic utility water rates?

Can that just be one action item?

Just do that one.

Mayor, I appreciate the question.

Where they are distinct here, one for a rate for domestic water versus irrigation.

I would do an individual vote for each each of them.

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear on my question.

Um the authorization to sign the resolution.

Can that be the action item for that this public hearing?

For each item domestic yes.

Yes.

Okay.

So actually, if you I'll revise and say one to uh the motion is to approve and authorize the mayor to sign resolution for the 2026 increase domestic water utility rates of 10 percent affecting December 1st, 2025.

My second's no good.

Thank you, and that's exactly what I was looking for.

Uh is there any discussion?

I'm sorry.

I just had a comment before we vote.

It's uh it's unfortunate.

I don't I hate to see the the have to have this increase, but uh it's just one more reason why we have got to be better about planning 20 years down the road and um not uh letting these things catch us so we can end up in the hole.

I have to say I'm gonna I agree with you.

I have so many neighbors on fixed incomes, and moving into fixed income, it's very very concerning.

Um but at the same time we have to deal with this.

And so when you kick the can down the road, you hand it to your kids and to your grandkids, and we can't do that.

One thing that we can continue to review is each year we're authorizing one year, so on the um domestic water, it's $19 and something I can't remember right off the top of my head.

Um it's the accumulative thing that starts getting you year after year.

So um it is concerning, but I understand why it needs to be done.

So any other comments before we vote?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

No.

Jingula.

Yes.

Hammerfield.

No.

Griffin.

No.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Madam Mayor, it's a tie.

Wow.

Okay.

So I I guess I'm gonna ask a question before I'm gonna answer if I'm allowed to do that.

So we had half of the council say no.

What is can is am I allowed to have a discussion?

Mayor, it's not really a code section that says this.

Um this is a vote.

And the discussion time is over.

So I okay I'm probably not.

Yeah, probably not would be my advice on this, yeah.

Okay.

I wasn't expecting this.

I'm gonna vote yes on domestic water.

Vote is 4-3, motion carries.

Okay, the next one uh the or irrigation rates uh I'm gonna make a comment and then the motion if that's okay with council, and if there's comments thereafter the motion, fine.

Um I realize the rates are difficult, and uh the increases on irrigation is extremely difficult over the next couple of years.

Uh so part of the decision has to be made is whether irrigation gets uh turned off.

If the pump station goes down or line blows, so then you have to weigh out okay, do I pay the money or do I take a hit with my landscaping?

Uh do I hook up hoses to my domestic water to keep things going?

The city's done an excellent job over the years of uh backing up when there's a down deal when the peak time is going.

And uh so from my side uh as difficult as it is and difficult to approve, uh I think it's equally uh irresponsible if we don't do some type of increase and staff's recommending the 10 percent.

So that's what the motion will be for, is uh make a motion then that uh we increase 10 percent irrigation rates and fees for fiscal 26 and authorize the mayor to sign the resolution for fiscal year 2026.

Second, it's been moved and seconded.

Discussion.

Mayor, uh in that alluding to your uh potential question that you were gonna ask, I I just lean back to the position of what I was alluding to in my question to John originally.

Um I think it's it's hard to balance in weigh being good stewards of future residents, and I'm not I'm not trying to isolate or be disparaging in any way or current residents here and now, and the tough perspective that I have, whether we like it or don't, we have districts that we represent, and in mine I have a handful of senior communities that are already feeling the pinch.

That's prior to 114 per 100,000 from the school district levy.

That's prior to whatever other levying district.

I'm not gonna list them all off.

Um this is not uh an uh an insignificant amount when I looking at it across a full year.

So my perspective and opinion is as trying to steward the financial needs of residents.

I also live in an area that's also growing and developing significantly, and for us that are working not fixed incomes, it's okay, it's just cost of doom business and living.

There's going to be inflationary costs.

I think the percentage is what gave me pause previously and what gives me pause now, uh, just trying to represent the full totality of my district.

You know, uh I'm gonna go back to my last vote, mean yes to support it.

So on domestic water, if we don't have water to drink, we don't have anything, and that's a really difficult one.

And um when John shared that that one break was 200,000 on a domestic water break, which would have cost us 30.

So if you think about the utilization of funds and taking those funds and maximizing them by doing the repairs, it's gonna cost us a lot less down the road.

The challenge is is that if we don't have, I mean, if you don't have water, you just don't have water.

You have to have water, and so um it is very difficult.

I struggle with it, especially if we're gonna get back into a Thai vote and I'm gonna make the decision.

When I say it, I mean very candidly, my budget's gonna be tight.

I'm gonna feel this.

All my neighbors are feeling it.

And you think about that because the um our incomes aren't rising when we're on fixed incomes.

However, the alternative, what is the alternative, and that's the difficult thing that I'm struggling with as a city, because if we don't fund where we have to have improvements, and I'm sorry I'm prolonging this, and I know we need to make a decision, but I weigh it very seriously, because I know what it's gonna do to people.

Sometimes it's the difference in what the food that they eat, literally, when you uh because their income hasn't gone up, the cost irrigation is a little different, but you still have to, I mean you have to have it.

Um I don't know what the option is, and I know John just went through it, but I don't know what the option is.

It's a it this is a difficult situation.

This is the challenge with being a larger older city.

Well, it's also a challenge that we didn't bump the rate slightly more for the last 10 years.

Uh and and keep setting aside replacement monies.

So we've we've tried to stay inexpensive for the citizens year after year, and uh it's admirable on one side, but it catches up.

It's short-sighted on the other.

And so um now we're at a point where we need to we need to make uh increases, and uh folks are gonna be upset, understandably, but at the same time uh to not start planning and replacing is further uh putting the residents at risk somewhere there's gonna be another north side, and uh those those are difficult.

I'd much rather do things under a plan replacement than crisis management continually, and to spend seven times what it would cost to do a replacement, so that that's really ineffective use of uh the user monies from my perspective.

So Madam Mayor, yes.

So I in the last four years of being on council we've had to make some tough decisions, and especially the last couple years, and uh I've often said, wow, could there have been a better time to be on council when we didn't have all these tough decisions to make?

But somebody has to pick that can up and throw it away.

We have to quit kicking it down the road, and those tough decisions have to be made.

I don't like that we have to re make this decision and raise the rates, especially for those on a fixed income.

It's not fun, but we cannot end up in a situation where we have millions of dollars in repairs if we don't have irrigation suddenly or domestic water, and um so I think the really fortunate person sitting on those dies tonight is Councilman Haverfield.

He gets to uh retire and not have all the headache and the worry of these tough decisions.

Um I feel like it's really important for those of us that are going to be here to continue to keep making those tough decisions even though they're unpopular, and uh take care of our city so that our our uh future of our city and doesn't end up uh in a really bad situation because it wasn't funded properly.

Any other discussion?

Okay, I believe we had a motion, is that correct?

Motion and a second, I think we're ready for roll call.

Rodriguez.

Ohmerfield.

Uh no.

Griffin.

No.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Two in favor, four opposed, motion fails.

Okay.

As that motion fails, what is the will of the council?

Is there another backup motion?

Mayor, I'll make a motion to do a five percent increase.

The second the motion.

It's been moved and seconded to do a five percent increase.

Is there any discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Griffin.

No.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Yes.

Five in favor, one opposed.

Motion carries.

Okay, so let's do another action item though, real quickly, because we didn't do the authorize the mayor to sign the resolution.

So let's go ahead and do that.

Make a motion to authorize the mayor to sign the resolution.

This is for fiscal year 2026 increase.

Mayor.

Irrigation utility rates of 5%.

Yes.

If I'm not incorrect, I believe we would need to bring a new resolution forward or authorize an amended resolution.

Because the current resolution shows the 10% correct John.

Well, the motion is to authorize the mayor to sign a resolution for the fiscal year 2026 increase to irrigation utility rates of 5% affecting March 1, 2026.

That is the motion.

I think we're good.

Thank you.

Okay.

Was there a second on the motion?

No.

No second.

You seconded it.

Okay.

Discussion.

Bills.

Did you you made the motion correct?

I'm enabled it.

Natalie did.

Thank you.

Okay.

Discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Haverfield.

You need clarification.

We already approved the five percent increase in the irrigation rates and fees.

This is on the resolution.

We just didn't read the full thing for the resolution, so I'm just redoing a vote to officially make it the resolution.

So yes.

Griffin.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Yes.

Five in favor, one opposed.

Motion carries.

Okay, thank you.

That was a long one, guys.

But thank you.

Okay, we're uh 8.3 was the parks um public hearing.

We are postponing that to a later date.

So now we're moving to 8.4.

84 is an action item.

It's the variance of uh NAMPA City Code 10-4-5B requiring a continuous landscaped berm fronting right rights of way within the GB1 Gateway Business Zoning District on a 1.69-acre parcel uh located at 16033 Equine Drive for Ryan Johnson representing Christine Roche uh Ag West Farm Credit and the original concept is to allow for a landscape swell to preserve the drainage and utility easements function.

Is our applicant here this evening?

Yes, I'm I'm on one.

Okay, thank you.

Um if you could introduce yourself, give us your name and address, and uh tell us about your project.

And my name's Ryan Johnson with Architects West, Coraline, Idaho.

That's 210 East Lakeside Avenue, Corlane, Idaho.

Thank you, Ryan.

And you'll have seven minutes.

Right.

Uh what we're looking for is a variance right now.

The uh the coded change from our initial submission in 2021 to require a sway uh a berm in lieu of a swale.

Uh the site currently slopes from the back of the site to the front of the site, which aligns on Franklin.

Uh, so it naturally flows towards the area that a berm is required now.

Um the adjacent sites, including a shared drive aisle, all slope towards that front swale, and it kind of uh it in short it makes the project infeasible to regrade the site and share a dry aisle if uh if we can't if we have to relocate a uh stormwater swell elsewhere.

Do you have anything that uh council?

I'm Nate Marcuson here uh with Ryan Johnson.

Uh there's uh also utilities that run.

Uh and I just wanted to highlight that uh when the property was purchased, it was in the understanding of the deed that uh that the site had a a swale easement and a storm drainage conveyance easement uh along with utilities to require a berm where that swale goes actually is in total conflict with the the deed in easement or the deeded uh uh property.

So we're we're here to answer questions for you now.

Okay, thank you so much.

Council, do you have any questions for our applicant?

Okay, so I'm seeing shaking heads no.

Um so we're going to have our staff member come in and do their presentation.

We'll do the public hearing, and then we'll come back to you guys for any further questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Christy.

Hi, thank you, Mayor and Council.

Uh Christy Watkins, principal planner for the city of Nampa.

Um, as stated, this is uh variance to uh not require a barb landscape buffer at 1603 Eckwine Drive.

The subject property has a recorded 35 foot stormwater utility easement on it currently.

This easement was intended to collect and treat surface water from the site and adjacent parcels.

The literal application of the 20-foot berm and um sorry the 20-foot berm requirement in 1045B would conflict with that easement.

It would block the drainage and it would eliminate access for current and future utilities.

This is the street view of the front of the vacant lot on the top, so you can see how flat that is currently, and then the street view of the property to the east, which is across Ekwine Drive, and how flat that is currently, and then this is the street view of the property that is adjoining the vacant lot that's going to be improved, and you can see how how flat that is.

You can even kind of see how the drainage soil goes down a little bit there by the sign.

Um, the bottom image shows how they will be sharing that uh access between the two properties and how that drainage will need to work together on both of those properties.

This is just a construction drawing here of how that easement and how the drainage facility is going to be designed.

So the uh future land use map shows this area as commercial.

The entire area surrounding this property is GB1, which is gateway business, and Franklin Road is considered to be an arterial 10-4 requires berming along arterial roadways in the GB1 zone.

That was just recently changed to be a requirement in the last I think three years.

Um as he stated, those original properties that were approved there were not under that same requirement.

These are the applicable regulations for a variance, these five criteria must be found to be met in some way for the approval of this variance.

Staff has found that these criteria have been met, and that is based on the fact that the other properties in the area have all been developed with no berming requirement, and because of the existing utilities or utility easements and the drainage easements that are in the area.

This is the berming requirement from 1045.

So it is the intent of these requirements to bring these properties into compliance as they make significant changes or improvements.

Um with this property that's a little bit more difficult than just a vacant piece that doesn't have any encumbrance on them.

Um there was I think I flipped that there were no comments made on this particular request.

There were no concerns from engineering or any other utilities.

These are the minimal conditions of approval.

The findings of fact we've stated as we've talked about these various different um images that you've seen on your screen.

So after weighing all the variants, facts, and comments, it's clear that there is a need for this variance due to the unique situation that's created by having the existing situations there, the the drainage swell, the public utilities, the shared dry aisle, all of those things would make it difficult to place that berm and would actually cause a bigger problem.

Typically, the property owners in this district can expect to be permitted to develop their property in accordance with these established city codes.

Um however, enforcing that law as it is written would deprive this property owner of that right, and there are no safety concerns that are apparent as a result of granting this variance.

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

Thank you, Christy.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions at this time?

Very straightforward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So this is a public hearing, and Madam Mayor, no one requested to speak on this item.

Thank you.

Is there anyone here that had intended to testify on this particular public hearing?

See no one.

Um there is an opportunity for our applicant to come back and provide any closing comments.

Or council, do you have any questions for our applicant?

Okay, for our applicant, we do not have any questions for you.

Do you want to make any comments?

No, ma'am.

Okay.

So I would stand for a motion to close public hearing.

So moved.

Okay.

All in favor?

All right.

Okay, what is the will of the council?

Mayor make a motion to approve the variance in C C 1045 point B as presented on the screen.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

See none.

Roll call.

Renriguez.

Yes.

Ingula.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Hills.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Well, that was easy, guys.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Council.

Thank you.

Okay, 85.

85 is a variance from Napa City Code 10-8-5A requiring a minimum 15-foot rear setback and a five-foot side yard setback in a single RS6 single family residential zoning district.

A.18-acre parcel located at 28 North Midland Boulevard.

This is for Michael Cook.

The original concept is building an addition to the existing home which encroaches into the side and rear yard setbacks.

Is our applicant here this evening?

Go ahead and come forward and give us your name and address, and thank you for sharing what you're trying to accomplish.

Thank you.

My name is Mike Cook and I live at 28 North Midland Boulevard.

I own the property.

And I began this project by going to the city, making sure that I knew what was entailed.

I checked and made sure I knew what the setbacks were and made uh sure my project would fit my needs and that it would fit where I wanted to go.

At the time that I applied for the permits, I was told that the setbacks, because I lived in an existing house and in Westview subdivision, which is the really old subdivision, that those set setbacks were five feet and five feet.

So I moved forward with the project.

I then got the proper permits and began my addition.

After my excavation was done, I was laying out my footings, and my neighbor threw a complaint to the city.

Thought that my uh building was a foot too uh close to the property line.

Um I sold my neighbors uh their home at 30 North Midland Boulevard about two years ago with the understanding that the fence line was the property line.

So I was surprised and taken back by their comments since for the past 30 years that the fence line was the understanding of the property line.

Uh they have made numerous comments in the past two years indicating that they understood and agreed that the fence line was the property line when they purchased the property.

I uh started this project in good faith, and uh thought I was well within the setback limits.

However, trying to be a good neighbor in the event that she was correct, I moved my building an additional foot and a half away from what I believed uh the property line was after I had erected the building.

She had the property survey, and it seems that there was an error in the property description, and with that error, it seems that the property line had moved more than a foot.

My neighbors uh did not want to talk to me uh about making the corrections to the to the property description.

Uh they just wanted uh the newfound property, which was now causing me to be a couple of inches into the setback.

I owned the property at 30 North Midland Boulevard that my neighbors now own, and I had it remodeled to fit the needs, which include our future needs.

My wife and I are both uh in our later years and realized that in the future we may need someone uh staying with us to take care of us.

We're talking about planning ahead.

I don't know.

Anyway, if you don't plan ahead, uh like you know, causes problems.

So we also have many relatives that come and visit, and out of necessity we've had some children and grandchildren that have stayed a little longer.

Pardon me.

That have stayed a little longer than just the visit.

So with that in mind, we did the remodel on 30 North Midland Boulevard, which we still owned.

Uh however, my wife uh found that she liked the backyard and the layout of the smaller 28 North Midland.

So we moved back next door, but we still owned 30 North Midland home, which would still fit our needs.

Two years ago, we found it necessary to sell 30 North Midland.

Pardon me.

We find our new home now does not fit have the room that we required since we still have new numerous guests and visitors.

And unfortunately, well, fortunately, we're still growing old.

So we decided to do the needed addition to this home.

We are only making our home meet the current needs and our future needs by making it comparable to the other three homes around us, including 30 North Midland.

As you as you will see with the planning and zoning paperwork that will come up.

None of the departments have any objections to the variants.

In fact, uh Rodney Ash Ashby, the planning director, uh told me that he was going to approve it until he found that he didn't have the authority to approve the back setbacks.

The only objection came from my neighbor that lives in 30 North Midland.

I have always tried to be a good neighbor.

And I will continue to do so.

And I just thank you for your consideration for the approval of this variance.

Any questions?

Thank you very much.

Council, do you have any questions at this time?

Yes.

Mike, I thought you were moving to Wilder.

Oh no, that was my daughter.

Oh, okay.

I just thought you could have saved yourself a lot of headaches if you went ahead and done that.

Oh, yes.

Um or if I hadn't sold the property to this certain individual.

But that's fine.

No problem.

Thanks.

Thank you.

We'll have you.

Well, I'm sorry, do you have a Mr.

Kiff?

Can you point out um where the house is of the neighbor that's complaining?

Oh does that look right where that cursor is at?

Wait a minute.

Somebody took I dropped it, and somebody okay, thank you.

It's that property.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay, we'll have you back at the end.

So we'll move to the other part and we'll have you back.

Thank you so much.

Madam Mayor, City Council, Rodney Ashby Plenty and Zoning Director.

Um I there's a lot of um uh emotions about this and feelings.

Um, I I have to just stay as as neutral as I can with this, so I'll just try to um stay with stick with the facts of what I know.

Um of what I've heard though is just based on the applicant's comments.

I haven't had a conversation with the uh complainant, and in fact, the public hearing for this public hearing, I haven't received any comments from uh any neighbors.

So um let me just move on here.

Here's the site plan that he had submitted for building uh building permit.

Um the applicant is requesting a variance to the five-foot side setback and the 15-foot rear setback.

Uh the proposed new setbacks would be four feet eight inches on the side or the north and three foot six inches on the rear or the east.

And um there's some a little bit of confusion about five foot setback in the rear versus the 15-foot setback that you adopted a little while ago.

So at that time we talked about um five foot being for existing homes.

So the concern for me was we just adopted the 15-foot setback.

This is a new home being built.

So when my staff reviewed it, reviewed this, and they saw that it was five feet from what they thought was five feet from that rear setback.

They said, okay, this is this is consistent with what we had talked about, um, accessory structures for existing homes could be five foot setback from the rear.

Um but this is not an accessory structure, this is an addition.

And so when I went through the staff level variance, I found that it not only did it go uh to five feet, but it actually went to three foot six inches from the rear property line.

So regardless of whether it's 15 feet, you're looking at for a rear setback, or if it's five feet, they're still within that setback.

And so I just to make it easier.

I just said, okay, 15 foot setback.

Let's get a let's recommend that they get a variance from that 15-foot setback.

I hope that's clear.

So to the north there, four foot eight, to the east is three foot six.

And because of the way the property or the home is laid out on the property, it's a little challenging to determine what is the rear rear versus the side setback.

So again, this is why it's before you.

Um I do not have the authority to grant variances to rear setbacks.

So the comp plan shows this as medium density residential.

The zoning is RS6.

It's surrounded by single family residential and RS6 zoning.

So the applicant was issued a building permit for the addition to the house.

And then after construction began, the neighbor to the north notified the city that the location of the addition was too close to the property line.

The applicant had not verified the property line location after splitting his property and selling the relatively newly created property to the north.

The neighbor who brought the newly split property, bought the newly split property, contracted survey of the property and found that the property lines were significantly different than the property owner of 28 North Midland had assumed.

So applicant requested staff level variants for side yard setbacks.

Staff found that the building encroaches into the rear setback as well and denied the staff level variants due to not having authority to approve a rear setback variance.

But as he stated, I was going to approve the side setback, but when I found that it was in the rear, I could not.

Did they not see plans or was there not uh can you explain to me what happened there?

Yeah.

So that's a great question.

So this is the site plan that was submitted for the building permit.

So when they discovered that they when they began that construction, they were told if you can see on there, they're showing five feet from the back and from the side.

So they the applicant and the drawings that were submitted as part of the building permit said five feet.

So everybody said, Yeah, this is good, we're fine, let's move forward.

And then when they did the survey, when the neighbor did the survey, then it was discovered that they were actually closer than was expected.

So the issue is the five feet, not the 15 feet.

Yeah, that that was my explanation just a second ago.

Like the 15 feet.

I'm just trying to follow here because it's we're arguing it's four inches.

Correct.

Well, it's actually six inches on the the rear.

And yeah.

Oh, okay, thank you.

Um a foot six inches, actually, there on the rear.

Um, if you were to say that that's um that should be five foot setback.

So it regardless of whether it's five foot or fifteen, we're still having to have a setback because it's within that five feet.

Thank you.

Apologies.

Okay, and then uh the applicant applied for the city council approval of a variance of the rear and side yard setbacks.

Um here's kind of a visual of that.

Um the blue line actually is just a little bit off on GIS, um, but you can see the property line right next to it.

Where the fence was is where everybody had assumed that the uh property line was, but it it's not, it's just the property line was south of that fence line.

Could I ask a quick question?

Yeah, is the setback is it five feet from the fence line?

So it it's up to interpretation there.

So when you pass the ordinance for um 15-foot rear setback, is that what you're talking about?

15 versus 5.

I know this was already here before we passed that ordinance for 15.

But let's say if it's the five.

When they did their building permit, they were doing it off of the fence line.

Is it five feet from the fence?

It's definitely five feet from the fence.

It's more than five feet.

That's where the air, it's more than five feet from the fence.

It had to do with when the survey, it's such a common thing.

Correct.

Where you think the fence is on the surveyed line and it's not.

That's correct.

Okay, so it is more than five feet from the fence line.

It just isn't off of the new surveyed line.

That's correct.

Mayor?

Rodney, can you clarify something for me?

If you go back to that photo, yep, that.

So this is why I asked which house was complaining because I thought we were talking about this structure on the south side.

Is that that's not what we're talking about?

We're talking about a new structure going in up over in the north side.

Correct.

Yeah.

Okay.

Go back to that site plan that I showed.

Um, this, if you think about where that was, the bottom where it says existing shop is the one you were just referring to.

Okay.

Um, so this is to the northeast corner of the property.

So are they re kind of looks like there's a little shed there already?

Maybe I'm not seeing that to the it yeah, they tore down the or they took down that shed, and they're putting a new addition where that shed is.

Thank you.

And I'm going to jump the gun.

The neighbor to the east hasn't said anything about the 15 foot or the five foot or the 3.6 foot difference, or they have.

I have received no comments.

So really the issue is regarding the north portion, but with looking at the northern portion, we also need to consider the east eastern portion and just get rid of both.

Yeah, both are setbacks.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

So here's some um some pictures that that he provided indicating that on the on the far left there, there's that fence.

Um it was, I think he said six and a half feet from the from the fence, and then um he did a property line distance, and that's how we got those numbers there.

So variances.

Um, you've heard this bill before, I'm not going to go through it again, but just trying to treat everyone fairly is kind of the the message here.

Here are the five criteria that need to be met in order for you to approve this.

And then um just clarification there.

Here's where the language says that I don't have the authority to grant a I I grant a lot of staff level variances, but I don't have the authority to do that for rear setbacks.

And then um there's the existing setbacks, as I've stated on the bottom there, 1085A.

So NAMPA building department conditions, um, the addition shall meet essentially they're saying it needs to meet code and needs to comply with all the overhangs and setbacks.

Um they'll need to resubmit for approval with the accurate measurements from the property lines and the details for any required fire ratings.

So the number that they gave that said five feet from property line was incorrect, they need to show the correct one.

So here that's the only comments that I got from any agencies or um uh public, and then all cities so I just put those essentially into conditions that they they comply with those conditions, and then here are the facts.

We've talked through this already.

Um I can't see any reason that this would increase traffic.

Um maybe there's more people living in there.

Uh his intention was just visitors, uh, his family, um, but maybe in the future, but that could be done anywhere.

So I it on any property they could expand and and that would increase number of people living.

So I couldn't see any reason for that.

Um, the safety concerns or the health or welfare, that's a little bit subjective, um, but I couldn't find any uh facts that would support that it was causing a safety concern.

Um we've gone over the history so you know about that.

So this is my proposed conclusion.

After considering all the variance facts, it is clear that the need for a variance is a unique situation created as a result of mistakes made in the drawing of the legal description when the property was sold, the shape of the parcel created because of that mistake, and because of the orientation of the existing home on the property, which is at an angle on the property which made it difficult to determine side and rear yards.

There appears to be no significant impact to the safety or welfare of others in the area with the granting of this variance.

Finally, this variance grants the applicant the ability to utilize his property in a similar way to what others in the same zoning district have the ability to do on their properties, whereas without the variance, he would be unable to adequately expand his residence.

Enforcing the law as it is written would deprive this property owner of that right.

And that is it with a couple of potential motions, and I'd stand for any more questions.

Thank you, Rodney.

Council, do you have any questions?

There?

Yes.

And it likely will be for the applicant, but Rodney can answer it as well.

Just because the construction has already begun, that fence was ripped down already, or is that going to need to be ripped down after finding out that we're four inches off what was originally?

Mayor, I can I can speak to that.

Um the fence is actually on the neighbor's property now, so that is her fence.

So she has the ability to decide what to do with the rest of that fence or to build a new one.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Rodney?

No.

Ruston.

Okay.

Before or after the public hearing.

Uh we can do it after.

Okay.

Okay.

So this is a public hearing.

Do we have anyone?

Madam Mayor, we do have two people signed up.

Our first speaker is Paula Wolford.

Good evening, Paula.

As you come forward, please share your name again, your address, and you'll have three minutes.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Paula Wolford.

I reside at 30 North Midland Boulevard.

I am not the homeowner, uh, but I do reside in the home.

Um I just would like to say that I do agree this whole situation is very driven by emotions on both sides.

Um we have been met with some aggressive responses to the communication that we've tried to provide.

Um my main concern is that on the other side of us, because I don't know if you were able to see, we kind of live back in a corner.

We're not directly off of our road, so you go down an easement to get to both of our homes.

The one up above us, we had uh property line dispute that way as well, which is what in started the survey.

Um this was brought to the attention of Mike prior to construction to help him in case the property lines were off so that he wouldn't start construction and then something go wrong where we're in a situation where we are now.

But because of the other property line, there was a shed that was encroaching onto our property, and we have been denied homeowner's insurance because of that encroachment.

And so at this time, we are still trying to work through that.

We have been making improvements to change the fence line.

That neighbor has made adjustments to his shed that is so he kind of cut the end off, so it's no longer on our property.

Um so we are still working towards that.

But my main concern is that if he is granted the variance where it is not the five feet, if our homeowner's insurance is still going to continue to deny us because now we're not within the code that is written.

Um there is of course, like fire safety.

I you know, a few inches may make a difference or not if something were to happen.

Um there is like I mentioned before, a new fence that we have put up and been working on that.

So we've been kind of trying to make the fence be up to the property line while still on our property to re-establish the accurate results of the survey.

Um we again have been met with a lot of emotion on both sides.

Um I work from home for part of the time and I'm trying to establish a new internet connection because our current one isn't great.

Um, but Mike is denying access to the in internet company to go onto his property to get to the manhole to connect to our manhole, and so I'm unable to do some of my work, it's affecting my daily life, which is why I'm here to speak because of my concerns for the heightened emotions, the aggressive behavior, and then the potential for not having homeowners' insurance.

Um, you know, I haven't forbid something to happen.

We could lose everything and not have any way of gaining any of that back.

And so I just wanted to bring my concerns before the council today.

I don't wish any Madam Mayor time.

Thank you.

Yes.

So can I ask you it's a building on an adjoining piece of property that's they're denying you homeowners insurance because of its proximity to your property line?

So the entire home that on 30 North Midland Boulevard was denied because the one at 32 had a shed right there where he's highly had his mouse.

That shed had encroached into our property and caused the homeowner the homeowner's insurance to deny coverage because of the encroachment.

So is it still there today?

As of today, that one is not, but our concern is that if he's granted the variance that is under the five feet, that they will still look at it the same way as the encroachment and continue to die deny homeowner's insurance.

It's not proximity to your home, it's just proximity to a property line.

Correct.

Right.

They would deny you homeowners' insurance.

Right.

It's the encroachment onto the property line that they're denying homeowners' insurance.

There's a big tree right there as well.

And that tree has posed the same problem where it encroaches onto the house and causes a denial claim.

So the shed that was there is gone now.

You can get homeowner's insurance as it stands.

So an eight-inch difference in a property line dispute is enough for them to deny you your homeowner's insurance?

That is our concern.

We're working towards trying to get that information.

Um the this whole thing has kind of been a big back and forth project all summer with a lot of stop and go and a lot of expense along the way for every party involved.

And so it's not been something that's been very fast.

But our concern now that we have that encroachment gone, as we're looking into trying to opt into the homeowner's insurance again.

Um we've taken care of the tree and the shed, that if there is that considered encroachment because it is less than five feet, we may still be denied homeowners' insurance.

Even if the even if the fence stays where it's currently at, which is on your property.

I mean, it's not like they're building.

I again I I guess I understand where you're coming from, but I'm a little bit confused that eight inches would make that much of a difference to a an insurance uh provider.

The encroachment on the um shed was based on the original property line prior to the new survey, and the encroachment was three inches over the property line.

The one to the north northwest.

Right.

That little white area right there.

Um what what you can see, the property line there, you can see that's actually over.

When the original, when the home was purchased, it was based off the fence line, which is farther over towards the home.

That um shed encroached over three inches, which is what caused the denial of homeowners insurance.

But it just to going off of what you're saying, that was a totally separate issue.

And you're saying that you're concerned, but this is not encroaching over a property line.

Then you don't know for sure that there's gonna be you're just saying that you're concerned.

Correct.

I'm just bringing a concern because the cut the city code is written that it needs to be five feet from the property line, where if it's less than five feet, the insurance company may consider that an encroachment to the property line and then deny coverage.

Yeah.

Mayor, yes.

Can we hear from Rodney on that?

Mayor, I yeah, I think I can clear that up if you're okay with that.

Um so the building code um is different than the planning and zoning setbacks.

So we have a setback, we have easements, and we have building code.

Building code um, you can go right up to the property line if you treat it a certain way.

So you have fire protection walls or whatever.

Um but typically a typical setback for building code is three feet in a residential structure.

So uh three feet from the property line is gonna not require extra treatment for uh a wall for a residential building any closer than that, they'd have to increase the fire protection rating on the wall.

Um, but it doesn't typically, and I can't speak to to an insurance company's, you know, I can't speak for them, but um with without any exceptions, I I can't see any uh experience where they would deny uh a um homeowner's insurance based on something being three foot six inches from a property line.

Thank you, Rodney.

I appreciate your clarification.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Yes, do you have a do you have a question for I do previously the shed that was on the uh on Mike's property?

I'm gonna refer to Mike because it was not the the shed that we saw on the aerial imagery.

So there was a shed where he was it abutting that fence line and they never mentioned that shed that was previously abutting that fence line in your denial for homeowners' insurance.

The shed was up to it but not over.

Where the on the other side it lean the awning part of it encroached over the fence line.

So again, his home isn't just so we know.

Mike, I can't have you talking during, so thank you.

But feel free to take notes and you can speak at the end.

And then we'll just make sure you're not asking the applicant questions, please.

So it had gone over the property line.

The property of the northeast shed went over the property line.

So now my question goes to Rodney.

Ronnie, is this new build home going to be going over the property line at any point?

It is not.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay.

Madam Mayor next speaker is Kavina Chandler.

Good evening, and thank you for giving your name and address.

Thank you.

Kavina Chandler, 30 North Midland Boulevard, Napa, Idaho.

Thank you for letting me speak.

Um, our neighbor uh behind us has what he is working tonight, but told me to remind you if I could that he sent an email and he sent a chat to whatever that um website is, which I'm not aware of.

He is online watching and trying to speak.

Um first thing I would like to say is that when we bought the house, um Mike submitted all the paperwork for all four properties, and he submitted the property descriptions for all four properties that he previously owned.

Um his son for context owns the other house encroaching on our property.

Um, and we're between the two.

Um I ask you a quick question for clarity.

Rodney, can you show on this picture we're looking at which property is your property that you're talking about?

Just to make sure I understand.

The co yes.

Okay.

That this should be.

I'm the complaining neighbor.

Pardon?

I said I'm the complaining neighbor.

Okay, so that's you.

Okay.

That's me.

Um so in April, uh 2029, or I'm sorry, on the 29th of April, I spoke to Sean, special investigator, and asked him wasn't actually a complaint, it was uh questioning him on what my expectations should be for this building that was being put up and was a two-story building.

This is about 30 feet from 30 feet from my front door.

This um where you see the silver car, that is my front door.

Um he came out and shut the project down due to lack of permits.

Um then June of 26.

I wrote, I know Mike has said I didn't have any communication with him, but I wrote him.

Uh Mike, it looks like you're almost ready for concrete.

And before I want to let you know that we do have a surveyor coming, and here in accordance with the boundary description and fence needs to be moved.

The fence needs to be approximately a foot closer to your house to meet the measurements in our boundary description.

We do not want to have to have you dismantle or any work you are currently doing when the survey is completed.

So this just seems the wise thing to do.

If you had a survey done that I'm not aware of, please let me know.

In addition, please also uh make sure your building is five feet from our property line as stated in our boundary agreement as we signed both of the purchase.

Also, I do know that the special investigator in April told him that he should get his own survey done it.

I'm sorry.

Okay, so we're at time.

Um but just a minute, so um we we stopped it when we were asking questions and having discussion.

Is that correct?

That is not correct.

We did not stop it during discussion.

Okay.

So go ahead.

Mayor, you're welcome to add more time.

I think that's a normal practice we have if there's some back and forth.

Because we did have some back and forth questions, so go ahead and finish if you could.

Um he replied, I took precautions for the event of the property line isn't the fence line and made sure our building was six and a half feet from the my side of the fence, made sure we were all within the setbacks.

Thanks for the heads up.

So he both and I have this if anybody wants it.

Um that was one thing.

The um on August 13th, the survey was complete, and it is pretty accurate to the picture that you see.

Um so um we went ahead and took the fence down, and we have put in a new fence.

Um the encroachment problems for insurance definitely are in uh a concern.

We have not been able to obtain anything but lender insurance at this point because of encroachments on both sides of our property.

Um the other thing is um fire safety.

This easement is the only way in and out of our both of our properties.

Um we already have um both with his vehicles and ours, several vehicles, and parking is an issue.

We are already parking in the easement.

Sometimes they are parking.

Uh his neighbor who lives in the little shed in the backyard, she parks in the easement.

And um we've expressed concerns about that, and he told us originally that people were moving in.

So I don't know why that's being said that it's just for visitors.

Um he did break ground before the permits were set, and um I also did send email communications to a Janet Waybright on the 24th of September stating concerns and sharing all documents uh with the survey and everything.

I'm not sure um if she is with planning zoning, but it was in response to a letter we received to do that.

Um so I think those are my major um concerns, and I mainly just want to uh address the fact that um Mike Cook knew he was told by the special investigator and warned by us to not start this project before the survey was finished.

He was encouraged to get his own survey, which he did refused to do.

And um his front door, there is a front door of that um second building.

There's a front door and a window there.

So it's pretty clear which is the back and which is the side of that second story building.

Um I don't know if you have any other questions.

Yes, you had mentioned both both sides on your denial letter for insurance.

Was that the encroachment specifically talking about Mike's property or his son's property to the east or west of you?

It mentioned encroachments and it specifically mentioned um the tree and the encroachments from the buildings, the building.

So it didn't mention uh specifically which encroachments other than those two.

Just said encroachments, and they had denied you for that, but you have since been able to get homeowners' insurance.

Since we bought this property, we have not been able to get homeowners' insurance, and um we are stuck on lender insurance.

This has already caused us one problem when we had a water leak.

So um it is a really big concern.

Thank you.

Does anybody want this communication copy?

No, you read it read into the record.

Okay, we'll be thinking thank you very much.

Mayor?

Yes.

That was maybe, or should I wait till I why don't you wait till after a public hearing if you don't mind make a note and then we'll follow up?

So Madam Mayor, we do not have anyone else requesting uh to provide public testimony.

Is there anyone else here this evening that had intended to testify on this matter?

Mayor.

Okay, seeing no one.

You have a question?

Oh, someone was online.

East was messaging a chat or had sent an email.

I hadn't seen the other.

Is there someone online?

Mayor, I'm guessing that that was probably on YouTube, just the live stream.

I looked on YouTube and commenting was shut off, so I don't know where I I'm not sure where that would go either.

Yeah, I don't yeah, that's very difficult.

So there is no one on Teams, is that correct?

That is when we see that.

Okay.

Okay, unfortunately, they may be at the wrong location rather than our teams.

So we didn't receive an email correct.

It wasn't I don't have one.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, and you've not received anything.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Is so I asked there's no one else here that wanted to testify this evening.

This is an opportunity for our applicant to come forward.

And you have I think it's uh just five minutes to provide any response to comments that had been made if you have some responses.

Okay, thank you.

Uh-huh.

Uh as far as the encroachment, that was um that's all on my son's property, which she's taking care of, and a couple of years ago, um she did approach me and said that she was going to lose her insurance, so she indicated to me that she had insurance, but it was because the tree that is between her and and my son, uh yes, was uh on her on her roof.

I was trimming the trees because it's my responsibility off of my garage, and uh uh I own the driveway, and I was um uh uh trimming all those trees, and she kind of demanded that I trim her trees since it was my son's property and I wanted to be a good neighbor.

I went ahead and so she didn't lose her insurance.

I trimmed those trees for her.

Uh last year, um I was out trimming the trees again, and uh she said, if you'd like if you could trim the our those trees again, we'll help pay for it.

And I said, okay.

So I trim the trees, and afterwards uh I said, I don't need anything for me, but the equipment costs so much.

She said, I never said that I so I just wrote it off.

And but I had helped, you know, trim the trees and stuff for um as far as the the internet, the comment.

Um that's an incorrect comment because I went out to help the people get her internet, and she has access where the silver car and the trash cans are in that corner.

Uh no, over to the left to um no the front, yeah.

Right in front of that, right there is um the her access to the internet, and it's TDS.

The line comes up that side of the driveway to her thing, and then comes over to another one at my place, and then it comes to my house.

So I did not deny her, and I was trying to help her get her internet.

Um, and the guys that put in the line didn't even know where it was.

And I I told her I sat there and watched them put it in.

They can't they've since come out and discovered that it was right where I said it was, and her access is right there.

So she doesn't have to cross my property at all.

Um the cars, she has seven cars, I have three.

So again, I reiterate that I've tried to be a a good neighbor with her.

Um I've tried to help her.

Um this is the only thing that I'm getting in response.

Um as far as uh the shutdown.

The inspector did come out and he said it'd be a good idea.

He never shut me down.

He just said it would be a good idea if you got your property surveyed.

And with the expense and everything, and I was looking at a timeline.

Um there's no surveyor that could come right out and whatnot.

So I moved my uh my building over the foot and a half to try to make sure that I wasn't encroaching.

Um so it's like three and a half inches into the setback with the property line the way it is.

And again, I I don't know of any insurance company that would deny her because I'm into the setback.

Not I'm not encroaching on her property at all.

Um that a mayor time.

Yeah.

I'm through.

Any questions?

Council.

Okay, so Councilman Haverfield, followed by Councilman Griffin.

Just a quick question, Mike, are you acting as your own contractor or do you have someone?

No, I have to uh TDS contracting that is my contractor.

TDS.

Yeah.

Okay.

There's a general contractor that's doing the construction for you.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

Councilman Griffin.

The comment was made that you had broke ground prior to being receiving your building permit.

No.

I got um the building permit before I started building.

Thank you.

That's re-establishing.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

So this hasn't been formally platted.

This was sold and divided up by meets and bounds descriptions.

Yes.

Legal description.

Yes.

Okay.

And uh you're responsible for all that.

In other words, the the drive aisle off of Midland and the two or three or four properties that have originally, yes, I owned all four of the the property plus the driveway.

Um the legal descriptions were written up.

Um responsible for that because I owned the whole thing.

I wasn't really concerned that much.

I think the the title companies, you know, were the ones that were actually giving me the measurements and everything.

And we just we I should have had it surveyed uh originally, but I did not.

Right.

You you put in the the improvements as I understand you to say, and you built the fences, whether on property line or not on property line, if I understand, right?

Because you built all the houses.

Right.

Okay.

Except for the the very back fence.

Uh back in um 86 when I brought the bought the property, the uh owner of the property, yeah, that fence that back um uh property owner had uh constructed that fence and that'd be the easterly fence.

Yes.

And that was an existing when you bought your property and started for it.

Correct.

Thank you.

Excuse me, any other questions for our applicant?

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

I do have a question.

I'd like to ask Mark Swer.

Mark, uh, over the building department, do you have access to the records for this particular one that you can speak to?

Were there any records noting that this construction was started before it had an uh anything in this system?

Uh Mayor, um city engineer will look at that up right now.

Okay.

We do have that information.

I think that might be beneficial to know.

Thank you.

Mayor?

Yes.

While they're doing that, um, just because I know we addressed the homeowners insurance, but there was still a question that they had about fire safety.

If we could have fire marshal just maybe speak to that.

I know you did submit a letter, but just putting it on the record for the meeting to answer their question.

Madam Mayor, members of council, uh Jeffinger.

Insurance fire marshal.

NAPA fire district.

Um yeah, I did submit some comments earlier on it, and we we as a fire district do not have an issue in terms of the fire safety and the questions that they may have.

Um if you take a look at the drive and the distance, they do have a fire hydrant, it's directly across the street, so for water supply, we don't have concern there.

Um for access, the access is fine for our fire trucks, completely right off of Midland Road.

Um as of the building of station six, they now have a decreased response time of two minutes.

They previously were five over the 520.

At station four, they're now coming from station six, so they're roughly just over three minutes.

Um so that's an improvement, and I would be totally okay if they have concerns for that in their insurance.

I would be okay writing something to their insurance in that to help them with that concern.

Um but as far as access goes, as far as our fire crews go, um, we train specifically for homes that are like this.

We have several of these throughout the city as well as within the district, um, where we kind of have a joint easement agreement, a couple of homes tucked back in between off of a immediate road.

Um the access is fine.

We have the sufficient uh crews as well as um uh firefighting um apparatus to be more than sufficient in there with where the new addition will be.

Um I do not have concerns of that auto exposing onto the other property in terms of the distance that it's from if uh you were to have a fire in this area due to the improved uh response time that we will have.

So I do not have any issues uh fire-wise or concern with with this property and with the addition that uh they're looking to submit.

So that'll stand for questions.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Thank you very much, Mayor, yes, uh Mayor and Council after review of the of the records.

It does not appear uh that any work was conducted that would require a permit.

Okay, so there were no violations of uh work that was done outside of a permit.

That is correct.

Okay, thank you very much.

I appreciate you checking.

Okay, so um yes.

Uh Reston, are you aware of uh a couple of Supreme Court cases came down this uh earlier this year?

Uh referencing uh boundary by acquiescence, boundary by agreement.

Fence lines being the established boundary.

Mayor Councilman Bills, um I have done some litigation on that.

Some in this room know about that, and the the law on boundary lines is about as clear as mud in Idaho.

So um, but there is some developing litigation in that field.

Um it's a it's pretty much an exercise in history rather than law.

And going back years and years to fence lines, and was there a dispute when it was established?

Um we've had courts here who we think should clearly rule one way, and they've gone totally a different direction, and so there's not a lot of concrete direction on that area of law.

Was it Idaho Supreme Court?

Is that what you're referencing?

Yeah, there's two cases.

Um the past year, year and a half.

Um are you familiar with more information?

I feel like I'm missing the big picture here.

What the it what was the gist of it?

It establishes if a fence has been there for 10 years, seven years, twenty years, then the fence line is the new property line, or what I don't understand.

There is not enough time.

Yeah, okay.

So under the under the cases, so some of it was that uh the the fence line became boundary.

And I think on another one, it was kind of the opposite pointing case.

Yeah, and so which one was um the issue is here for me.

Yeah, you but we haven't closed public hearing yet, right?

We have not.

And so let's make sure.

Are there any additional questions for the applicant or anything?

Okay, so make a uh close public hearing.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Okay, there you go.

So the difficulty for me here on this deal is understandably um the applicant for the variants is the one who created the descriptions and created the separation of property.

And the fence is possibly being installed and then in the wrong spot creating the difficulty that has ensued.

And that had to be reined in.

Is that that did not happen?

That's what I just clarified.

Could you guys repeat what you said?

Yeah, there was no activity that was uh that was conducted that would require a permit.

So no work was done prior.

So putting in the building.

The permit was issued before the foundation was put in.

Before the foundation was poured.

Um the the foundation, but no work that would actually require an inspection by the building department was done prior to the building permit being issued.

Thank you for the clarification, my air.

So I just think it's an unfortunate circumstance and uh it's it's tough.

I understand needing the variance, but uh this this could have been handled better.

And here we are helping to clean up something.

So uh not have had a survey out to not have had things clear when you sold the property, and then when you add on another addition is kind of but it helps uh solve an issue.

It's tough for me to I mean construction's already happening now we now we need the variance and similar to the one that we had over off of Greenhurst here a year ago.

Make an adjustments, so seems like we have a pattern at times.

Okay.

Councilman Griffin.

For motion.

That's fine.

Second.

I would like to add a comment if I could.

Uh I this is the 50-50 issue.

Either way, we lose on this, and I think it's uh unfortunate what has occurred.

I think it's difficult as well.

Uh given the insurance issues.

I hope you know, and legal can speak to this after I'm done.

Uh hopefully we can give you a copy stating that's a variance and that overrides code, and hopefully the insurance takes that as that's the governing rule for the property, and they don't do that.

I hope they don't do that in the end.

Uh but I do believe uh some arbovidas might be very helpful along that line and maybe help put a shield in a block and privacy forum on behalf, and I hope uh the neighborly issues cease and y'all can sing kumbaya at the end of the day, but I uh where I come from on this per issue, I I believe that uh Mike's project should move forward.

Any other discussion?

Roll call Rodriguez.

No Bills, no Reynolds.

Yes, everfield.

Yes, Ingula, yes.

Griffin?

Yes.

Or in favor, two opposed motion carries.

Okay.

I recognize that we have two additional public hearings.

I would like to pause for five minutes.

Quick bathroom break uh for council, real quickly, because we've been at it for over two hours.

Um we're gonna take just five minutes.

Let's be quick, counsel, and we'll be right back.

Thank you.

I think we could see the moving more times, right?

I don't want to be down.

I want to use it.

So it's like we watched it through.

So I know the last one.

But my son is very hard.

Yeah, we can slide very hard and go.

So I think that's a lot of things for like all that are just jurassic part.

Um, right.

I know I've been on that right.

Good right.

Yeah, I guess.

I think we're ready to get going, so here we go.

We're gonna move into eight six on the agenda.

Okay, council, here we go.

We're missing a few, and we're gonna get started.

There we go.

Okay.

86 is an action item.

This is annexation and zoning to RS8.5.

It's a single family residential zoning district.

And a potential development agreement for a point zero through eight acre parcel.

It's 7736 Birch Lane.

This is for Joshua and Michelle Ruman.

And the original concept is an annexation of an enclaved parcel so that all the parcels owned by the Rumans.

Hopefully I'm saying your last name correctly.

Okay, good.

Are within city limits.

And I think our applicant is here.

If you'd like to come forward and give us your name and address, and then tell us what you want to do.

Thank you.

Joshua Ruman, 7734 Birch Lane.

We're requesting annexation of our back lot.

Go from county to city.

Thank you.

Is that it?

All right.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Christy Watkins, principal planner for the city of Niampa.

Um the action requested from you this evening is for annexation and zoning to RS eight point five for this small parcel at the back of 70 7736 Birch Lane.

Um they own both of those parcels, and they would like them all to be under one jurisdiction.

And that has also been the direct request of Canyon County Development Services because they don't want that parcel under their jurisdiction either.

So this would solve um some issues, would make everything consistent, and all of those codes would then apply.

So in can you click on my computer?

I think I might have moved off of it.

There we go.

Um so in September, Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this request.

There are city services available to this property.

It is currently uh comp plan medium density residential, so the RS eight point five zone is appropriate for that designation.

Okay.

Okay.

So as you can see, it is completely surrounded by the RS six zone.

Um however, the property is there it is 16,552 square feet.

So the RS 8.5 would allow that lot to be in conformance with our code.

Um there was no correspondence received on this.

The engineering department stated that they don't have any issues with this and that they would work with them to connect utilities for that property if it was ever desired.

Currently, they're just using it for their own storage purposes, so that's not a desire.

There's four criteria to be used in determining the appropriateness of annexation.

The landowners have consented to annexation.

The property is contiguous to the city limits.

The comprehensive plan includes the area within its area of annexation, and the property um does not have any roadway frontage, so it doesn't have to uh meet the MOU for the highway district.

For zoning, there are three criteria that are used.

Um it does meet the comprehensive plan.

The uses are appropriate with the areas around it, and it is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary because it allows for efficient use of existing property and would put all of these parcels under one jurisdiction.

Those are the conditions of approval as listed in your staff report.

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

Yes.

So the land uh does it have access to East Declaration Drag.

I didn't have it pulled up quick enough to ask you.

Councilman Bills, it does not currently have access to declaration drive on the back side.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yep.

So I have a quick question.

And maybe I'm just missing something.

As I'm looking at the close-up aerial view of the property, it looks is this it?

I'm sorry, it doesn't look residential.

Am I missing something?

Uh Mayor, this is just their storage for their personal things.

So there might be an RV or something back there in this picture.

Um they're just using it for their own personal equipment that they have on their lot.

It's not commercial.

It's not commercial.

Okay.

The aerial view almost does not.

I'm trying to find the residence in here because it looks like it has a lot of.

Well, the residence is to the front of that in the yellow.

Uh so on this picture here.

Uh the residences to the front on the yellow.

The the where the square is that's being annexed, that's just an empty lot.

There's there's no permanent buildings on that property.

Oh, got it.

Okay.

Is down here, yeah.

Okay, but we're talking about this other property.

Yeah.

That's in a residential area.

Okay.

And how is that property going to be used?

For their own personal storage.

It's just in the county right now, and the county can't, they don't even have access to it, and so they've actually requested that they annex into the city.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

There's no plan for sewer water access to this parcel.

Uh councilman Bills, no, there is not at this time.

Again, they're just using it for their own personal storage.

Is there any requirement to fence this property if it's used as a storage lot versus residential or mayor?

Um it's it's just residential and it's gonna stay residential.

They can fence it if they want to, but there's no requirement for it to be.

I believe it is partially fenced already.

It is fenced.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

Nope.

Okay, thank you, Christy.

So this is a public hearing?

Madam Mayor, no one has requested to provide public testimony on this item.

Is there anyone here that had intended to testify on this item?

See no one.

Our applicant, would you like to provide any closing comments?

And council, do you have any questions for our applicant?

I'm not seeing any questions.

Okay.

If there are no questions, I would stand for a motion to close public testimony.

So we'll move second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay, what is the will of the council?

May I move to recommend approval of the annexation and zoning to R 8.5.

Could we put the motion on the screen?

Okay.

So you you move to approve the project as stated on the screen.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

See none roll call.

Ingula, yes.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Everfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Welcome to Nappa.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carry.

Welcome to District 2.

Thank you.

Okay.

Our last public hearing this evening is 87.

This is an action item.

This is a development agreement modification at the NAPA Gateway Center, now referred to as the Sugar District.

This is modifying ordinance number 4661, instrument number 2022-018840, in order to revise the concept planned and eliminate the cap of 750,000 square feet of building area for 14 parcels addressed as 04975-5075 and 5175 East Commerce Street, 1200, 1260, 1510 North Happy Valley Road, Zero Stam Lane, 1406, 1250, and 1232 North Galleria Drive, 000 Happy Valley Road.

This is for uh Jeff Wardall of Clark Wardle LLP representing multiple owners.

The original concept in the amendment is to retain existing retail space, eliminate the condition of a maximum of 750,000 square feet of building area, reflect existing lighting, and require new lighting to meet city codes at the time of development.

Thank you for being here this evening, and you know share your name and address.

Madam Mayor, Jeff Wardle, my address is 251 East Front and Boise Suite 3 Tan.

I'm council for the Gardner Company entities that are the owners here at that issue.

Some of you council members may remember we were here in front of you four years ago with a modification to this development agreement.

And at the time that had contemplated the demolition of some of the retail buildings out there, we were going to demolish approximately 50,000 square feet of retail.

The market certainly has been a challenge in the retail sector, but we have identified uh additional unique uses that want to be there.

And so the decision was made not to demolish those units which were those the inline buildings just south of what was the House of Design building that you had approved as part of that for modification to allow that to be uh light industrial tech development.

So as outlined uh we are here really for just four technical modifications.

The first is to modify the site plan to eliminate the uh provision that was going to provide for the demolition of those retail spaces and then clean up in light of where we are today and the status of this to remove some square footage, the square footage limitation, modify the lighting requirements to reflect current NAMPA code, and then also just to conform the uses to the approved exhibit.

As indicated, the three textual amendments are to strike the 750,000 square feet of building area.

The second one is to tie and reflective of the fact that we are anticipating and undertaking uh uses that are not traditionally retail but that are permitted within the use, and so the the nature of the lighting to better serve uh the community to better address lighting impacts on adjoining properties and some of those other things have been revised to reflect that we will comply with your current lighting provisions as opposed to the traditional approach on a complete retail project, and then just to clean up uh language that should have been addressed in the prior one.

There's been no other modification other in the the Third Amendment that's in front of you, other than to exhibits B and C as well as exhibit A, because there's been some reconfiguration of parcels.

So just to provide 30 seconds of background, you know, the prior approval in that you made in 2022 was included this site plan which contemplated the demolition of those of those buildings.

We're not going to demolish them.

In fact, we've got tenants uh that are in them.

And we have invested in in refreshing the entire project and are excited about where we we go forward.

So that actually reduces a portion of the site that had been designated for potential residential development.

Now I anticipate the question may come up about the development of the residential.

Uh those were approved pursuant to conditional use permit back in 2022, but just due to market conditions, we've elected not to go forward.

Those conditional use permits were allowed to lapse.

If we come back with residential necessitating a conditional use permit, that will be heard and addressed through the processes that the city of NAMPA has.

So with that, we would request that you approve this site plan, and then just to provide you with some background, as you as you know, we've also included some additional hospitality uses at the site with the opening of a new hotel and some additional recreational uses that have gone into the existing retail.

And it's unfortunate what transpired with House of Design, but we continue to have interest from that type of light industrial manufacturer that views that as a good site for clean industry.

So we appreciate the planning and zoning commission recommending approval, and I'll stand for any questions.

Thank you very much.

Council, do you have any questions?

Question.

Yes.

So the removal of the 750,000, 750,000 gap.

What's the goal?

Uh Madam Mayor, Councilmember Bills, and our conversations with staff.

The concern and the difficulty there just was that contemplated 750,000 square feet of retailer commercial.

And as we've talked about reusing elements as we've talked about these other provisions, there's all of the protections because we still, under the development agreement, have to come in with a plan for parking.

I mean, for for traffic if we modify something.

And it just has come to the discussion with staff and with the with the applicant that it's become increasingly difficult to just evaluate how much retail space has been constructed and what that 750,000 square foot number provided for.

And the consequence of that is that if we keep it, uh we will have to demolish some existing buildings to be able to build out what has already been contemplated and approved at the site.

So I think it's just, you know, Councilmember Bills, it's a reflection of the fact that as we're now approaching 20 years since this project was first approved, uh certain elements of it, you know, have have necessitated a revisit.

And we we certainly don't think that the 750,000 square foot cap was intended to preclude it from being a mixed use and bringing in some type of residential at some point in the future or precluding its build out, but to keep it at 750,000 square feet, you know, we may end up at a point where we can't do anything.

And so in conversation with staff, that was the direction that we took is that rather than try to continue to master plan it, try rather than try to have those discussions that we eliminate that cap and just know that each of these future uses that will be subject to uh a future traffic study, because that really was what I think was the purpose 20 years ago when that 750,000 cap was established.

A follow-up question are you aware of planning the city of Napa is doing in reference to modifications to intersections and happy valley?

Uh Madam Mayor, Councilmember Bills.

We've we've been part of the discussion.

We've been part of the discussion and we've recognized from the beginning that at this location uh traffic and circulation will always be a concern and consideration.

And so that's why I can you know with a straight face make this ask because the need for future traffic studies and future traffic mitigation are still built in the development agreement.

Okay.

Just wanted to have the clarification.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Yes, um questions.

I I'm I'm sorry, uh Mr.

Wardle.

I've yielded some questions in the past as far as um future access along uh the interstate south, obviously, of the interstate with a frontage road or anything to access those properties that that butt up against the interstate.

Are you aware of any frontage roads that are being planned down to Robinson?

Uh Madam Mayor, Councilmember Haverfield, I'm not.

It doesn't mean those discussions haven't been held, and I would just note that the that up in that does this have a yeah.

No, it doesn't have to be a good idea.

It's not showing up.

Uh Rodney, can you just circle the upper right hand corner?

So there's a significant detention facility there, but there is also that stub road that goes down.

And since all of these roads were dedicated to the city at some point in the past, if the ultimate configuration over there to the east necessitates access through there, I think there's certainly there's certainly ability with an existing right-of-way to make those connections.

But I nobody has visited with us about the need for that because I just don't think it would result in any condemnation of anything we have.

I think it would be a cooperative arrangement, obviously, uh, and you would have to be a part of the discussion because it would be a cross access if it's not a city property or city road.

Well, and and it is a city road that that stubs there, and there was originally to you to your point, there was a cross-access easement that was granted there to the east.

But yeah.

Your hotel, isn't it more towards the frontage?

Uh Madam Mayor, Councilmember Haverfield, the hotel is basically where the black dot is there behind north of the former Macy's building.

Right.

So it it already fronts on the existing public street.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Again, I've I've just uh had people express interest in that other frontage potential uh up to Robinson, but it would take uh obviously access and then but it would relieve some of the potential stress of road traffic to this area, maybe to the east a little bit instead of having to go back to the STEM and then uh going to the east.

And uh certainly I don't think we have any objection or concern with that because it was always contemplated that there would be some additional access to the east, but I just note that there is that significant detention facility there that uh serves the the totality of the project.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

Thank you.

I'll be back.

Thank you so much, Rodney.

All right.

Thank you, Mayor.

And Council Rodney Ashby Planning Zoning Director.

I think he did a really good job of covering a lot of things, so I think I can move through here pretty quick quickly.

So the NAMPA Planning and Zoning Commission considered the request and voted to recommend approval with the alteration that exhibit A number three would remain in the development agreement, but with all other proposed changes.

This item was removed inadvertently by the applicant when renumbering the agreement.

So that that concern from staff basically went away.

Some iterations of the development agreement.

And again, as he stated, those CUPs will be necessary still if they move forward with residential on these properties.

So these are the areas that I picked out, and he already addressed these, but these are the conditions in the development agreement that he's addressing with the requested application.

So again, the history continues on down to uh NAMPA Planning and Zoning Commission recommending approval.

Community mixed use is the designation in the comp plan.

Uh BC zoning, and oops, sorry, went too fast.

I I think we're all pretty aware of what is in this area.

It's come before you several times, so I'll jump forward.

Um development agreements, their agreements between the city and the applicant, and so you can modify them as stated in code.

All right, there are safeguards in place if they don't comply with the conditions that are in the development agreement.

We can withdraw that development agreement and require that they amend what was done on the property or bring it back to what it was.

Um again, code allows us to do uh changes when there's a substantial change to the conceptual layout terms, provisions, or conditions, and that's what the situation is here.

This is that number three.

They are putting it back in, so we can basically skip over that one.

Um I highlighted the two words that are changing here, original.

So they're just saying any any modifications to the original development agreement would be referenced here, not just the original development agreement.

So that's the second change.

Uh the concept plan.

So this was what was proposed and adopted with an amendment, recent amendment.

Um this is the new, and you can see in red there is the area that would go to commercial or stay commercial, and they already have tenants in there that are functioning in those spaces.

Uh number five, a maximum of 750 square feet of building area shall be allowed on site, is proposed to remove be removed in its entirety.

And I would just kind of reiterate what I heard the applicant say.

There are some restrictions already because of the amount of open space that's required for uh multifamily if multifamily were to develop.

There's the parking that's required for any development on that on the site, and those two kind of uh restrict how much can be done because of the parking and the open space.

The lighting um you can see the proposed language here.

Essentially, they built it to our to the development agreement standards, and anything new would just be required to meet our new lighting standards, and then finally remove auto sales new and used from the list of allowable uses is proposed to be replaced with the exhibit F, which is in already in the development agreement.

Um, so it's not just called out on a specific condition, but it's an exhibit with all the other land uses that are in the development agreement.

So we did have some comments.

Um one from the NAMPA forester and existing trees being removed.

Um shall follow NAMPA City Code.

NAMPA code compliance.

There were some violations with weeds on some of the properties, and so they asked for those to be addressed.

Standard comments that you see they indicated that this will be one mile from NAMPA Fire Station 5 with an approximate response time of four minutes.

And here are the proposed conditions of approval, one of which, number two, uh just says that those code violations will need to be addressed before we uh finalize this development agreement modification.

And here's a couple of motions for your consideration.

I'd stand for questions.

Rodney, thank you very much.

Council, do you have any questions at this time?

Okay, thank you.

This is a public hearing.

Madam Mayor, we do have one person that signed up, and that is Samantha Cross.

Samantha, thank you for coming forward and giving us uh your name and address, and thank you for waiting all evening.

It's been a long wait.

Thank you.

I warned my boss, so she knows.

Um I'm here to speak on behalf of oh wait, sorry, I'm Samantha Cross.

I live at 1207 North Autumn Wind Drive, Napa, Idaho.

Um, I'm here to speak on behalf of the Autumn Subdivision HOA.

I am the president, so it be to me.

Um I'm gonna be speaking for them.

This isn't like my personal opinion, this is a majority opinion of those who live in my subdivision.

Um a lot of things got addressed already.

I didn't realize that there was already a plan to not move forward on the construction of residences.

Um, but if it did, my people are concerned about privacy and infrastructure.

That is their main concerns.

Um, especially for the lot that lives on the city wall.

So there's the city wall.

I can't get a library card.

It's you know, we get that we're kind of uh funky situation.

Yep, we're that subdivision right there.

Um so we're up against where the multi-family homes were going to be originally put.

Um people were we were originally concerned when the development came to us with the idea of putting three-story townhouses.

We got that reduced to two, um, and then we got really concerned about the infrastructure, but I think that got addressed that we they're not in a moving forward with it because of the road infrastructure.

Stam lane from Happy Valley to Robinson really needs a middle lane, a turning lane, but because we have the levees on the right side of our road, I don't know how much you can push into that to create a third lane.

We already get really clogged um in the morning and at around 5 p.m.

But as it was discussed, there needs to be some traffic um surveys before you guys move on with any development.

Um I'm gonna keep it short.

That already got addressed.

Um an idea among the people of my subdivision is that we use the land for a park.

We don't have a park in our area.

There was supposed to be one put in the development that is across the street, south of the um main shopping area.

There's a multifamily and single family residential area there.

There was supposed to be a park put in, and it didn't end up happening.

It's now a water um catch uh which is useful.

We do need it, um, but there are concerns that we we are having an increase in people in our area.

We don't have any safe places for the kids to hang out.

We constantly have kids running across STAM, which is a very busy road, um, because we're for Happy Valley and then Garratty, not even like five minutes down the road.

So there are some concerns about the infrastructure towards not just the residents but like the kids and the people who are visiting.

Uh so that's just something to think about.

But most of our concerns were honestly addressed with the residents not moving forward with construction.

Um any questions?

Good job, Samantha.

Any questions?

Thank you for being here to represent your HOA.

Thank you for sitting here for so long and being very concise and listening well tonight.

Oh, thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Good job.

Thank you so much.

Is there anyone else here this evening that had intended to testify?

See no one.

This is an opportunity for our applicant to come back and provide any closing remarks and or answer any questions.

And council, do you have any questions for the applicant?

Seeing none, Jeff, this is your opportunity for closing remarks.

Uh Madam Mayor, Council members, I'm gonna be very, very brief.

Uh I just want to clarify to the property owners to the east that yes, we did not go forward with the 2022 plan.

That does not mean that we will not at some point in the future bring back an application, but any application for residential on that site will require a conditional use permit, and we can address all of those issues at that time.

The only changes that are being made tonight are to change the site plan to reflect the preservation of 50,000 square feet of retail space and those other technical language revisions that we've made in the conditions of approval.

And with that, we've just asked for your approval.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

So no questions?

I just have one question.

I'm just curious.

It's not a question, but I'm just curious.

What are you going to do with that cinema building?

I mean, I I know you can do a lot with it.

It wasn't there, but Madam Mayor, uh, Councilmember Rodriguez, we have given a lot of thought to that cinema building.

Uh we continue to look for adaptive reuses of it.

Uh, unfortunately, in the era of the uh $1,500 85-inch TV at Costco, movies, movie theaters have become really, really hard.

And just to note, uh, that was a very unique arrangement that the prior developers made to have that theater there, and the consequence of that was that when the theater departed, uh, they rendered it unusable to just put another tenant in there.

That was part of the contractual rights that they had.

So uh we had thought about demolishing it.

We've thought about turning it into office space.

We've had performing arts groups approach us about it.

So we we continue to evaluate what best that we can do because an active site is a better site.

Just curious, thank you.

Thank you.

When did Edwards close down?

That one long ago.

A long time ago, I'm gonna go to the case.

It was it was a long time, three years ago.

Sell it to Cinemark, they do a good job.

Okay, yes, uh, Mr.

Wardle.

Um they do have heated seats.

That meeting that you're referring to from four years ago.

I just want to say that was I think it was my second council meeting ever.

And your face has burned a memory in my mind because it it did not, I think it would denied and the frustration.

And I remember sitting here thinking, I did not get that right, and I need to study so much more than what I know right now.

So luckily I'm four years in.

I know more than I did then, but I apologize for not knowing what I knew that night.

It all turned out okay.

So thank you for that.

I'm sorry if I contributed to any of this gray hair, although it looks fabulous.

I apologize for doing that to you.

No, it's that's more the city of Voice.

So thank you for being here and bringing this forward.

Thank you.

And you know, I just a quick comment uh as I thank the Samantha for coming and articulating.

That's not an easy thing to represent an HOA and sitting here all evening.

But thank you for it.

If you do come back, recognizing that's not what this is about this time.

But if you do come back, thank you for working with them because as you know, any time uh projects like that come before, and I won't be here, but it's always good to have had those discussions.

And there was an interesting point made for your residential at the time.

If you come back with that, trying to find figure out where to put some outside space.

Makes me think of the village.

You know how many times people sit outside and visit and they're looking for open space with residential just to sit outside because you like to sit outside and and have a place for the kids to play while you're having your coffee or doing you know whatever.

So I look forward to seeing the fulfillment of this property.

Thank you for the investment.

Really appreciate it.

It's not been it's been tricky, but thank you.

Well, the irony of all ironies is that our firm has handled and represented every owner of this project in various iterations over 20 years.

So uh we we would like to see it fully built out at some point where we don't have to ever come back and do it.

And Gardner Company, this is a long time hold, and they they recognize the importance of it, and that's why they've invested in it.

That's awesome.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, um, if there's no other questions for our applicant, I would stand for a motion to uh close public hearing.

So move, second.

All in favor?

I what is the role of the council?

Madam Mayor.

Yes.

Move to approve the project as shown on the screen.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Hammerfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor.

Motion carries.

I believe we have concluded all the business we had this evening, and I just stand for a motion to adjourn.

So move.

Second.

All in favor.

Thank you.

You missed it.

I got 30 seconds.