Test test.

Test test.

Test test.

How's it working?

So is it on the room, but not for the other game?

None of them are gonna work.

I think this is not good.

You hear me on YouTube.

There's the thirty second delay.

Okay.

Thank you.

I could keep talking.

It's a test, test, test.

Did everybody have a good Thanksgiving?

Did you?

I hope so.

I hope you all had a good Thanksgiving.

I had a good Thanksgiving.

It was nice.

Yeah.

So it's garbly.

It's clear on your computer.

Okay.

Okay.

So we're going to go ahead and get started.

Okay.

Here we go.

So because we are, and this is just for council as we get started, and welcome to our city council meeting on this Monday, December first.

And Council, you um have our battery powered mics.

I'm going to ask that you keep your mics off until you speak, and then we'll remember to turn them back on.

That way we save the bat the batteries.

We didn't we've we've got some back here charging.

I'm anticipating it to be a late night.

And so we're gonna try to save batteries.

So we have our our microphones.

So as you all know, we have a tradition here, and that is that we open our meetings in prayer.

And Pastor Dan, thank you so much for being here.

As you can tell, I think we need prayer tonight.

Yes, I'm yeah, honored to be here.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, and thank you for all you do in the community.

Thank you.

Really appreciate it.

Council and staff and everyone.

Thank you.

I'm gonna read one verse out of Jeremiah 29 7 in the New Living Translation.

And it says, and work for the peace and prosperity of the city where I sent you into exile.

Pray for the pray to the Lord for it, for its welfare will determine your welfare.

Let us pray.

Dear Heavenly Father, we come before you today in humility and dependency and thanksgiving, seeking your wisdom and your presence in this meeting.

Your word instructs us in Jeremiah 29 7 to work for the peace and prosperity of the city which you have called us to live in.

And we're blessed to live in Nampa.

We lift up NAMPA and all who call it home, grant peace within our neighborhoods, unity among our people, prosperity that blesses every family.

Give our leaders clarity of mind, purity of motive, and the courage to do what is right, just and compassionate.

Lord guide every decision, discussion, plan made in this chamber.

Let your wisdom steady our steps and your love shape our actions.

May this council serve not personal gain, but the welfare of those entrusted to their care.

Bless our first responders, our educators, our workers, our businesses, our churches, and every household.

May your protection rest upon our community, and may your grace lead us into greater peace and flourishing.

We pray to you for the city.

And trusting that as it thrives, we too will thrive.

In God we trust.

For the glory of the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus, and we ask by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Amen.

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

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

Pastor Dan, thank you so much.

Appreciate your prayers.

Thank you and have a blessed meeting.

Thank you.

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Here.

Here.

Bills.

Here.

Reynolds.

Here.

Haverfield.

Here.

Griffin.

Here.

All present.

Do we have any proposed amendments to the agenda?

I am not aware of any.

Any recommended amendments?

See.

I'm sorry, Mary Clean.

Yes, um, regarding uh passage of ordinances two, two, three, three, that every ordinary shall be read at council meetings.

Uh I would like to extend that to three different days.

So I don't know whether I need to make a motion on that or not.

I'm not here.

Okay, go ahead and pull the mic up to you if you would thank you.

Thank you.

Uh regarding the the uh passage of the ordinances, uh we would that we that we pass every council hearing.

I'm looking at two, two, three, three passages of ordinances and says every order shall be read at council meetings on three different days.

So I don't know if I need to make a motion for that, or it's already or not make a motion to have them read.

So uh I'd like to have them read every on three different days.

Do I need to make something different than that?

So, what you're asking is that we pull one two from the consent agenda, um, and then it would be considered outside of that.

Yes, ma'am.

I believe so.

Okay.

Um that's a good question.

What is your reasoning for that?

We've never done it before.

Well, I I there was some ordinances that were involved in the packet, and I just want to make sure that the they're complete and and and that the subject of modification.

And I just want to make sure by the time we get to them that we're they're spot on, they're right on.

Well, mayor, yes, we're gonna see if this works.

It's a lapel mic.

Let me know, James.

Test it.

Test it now, test, test.

Test, test.

There we go.

Thank you.

Um Councilman Rodriguez is referring to is a city ordinance two, two, three, three.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Um this model is a pretty similar format that you see at the state level that it gives the option to each council specifically to uh NAMPA that you can read it on three different days.

Um, but there is a threshold vote one half plus one of the whole number, the council may dispense with that reading.

So just like the state law reads that hey, if you want to dispense with it, they give you that efficiency to run your administration.

Same thing is baked here into our code.

And so if there is a vote tonight of one half plus one, which would be we have a quorum of uh membership of six here, so with uh I guess four affirmative votes, you could dispense with reading it on three different days.

And so if I'm understanding your motion is you would like to follow the three reading days, and that could be as our ordinance says uh trumped with a uh one half plus one vote to dispense with the reading of it over three days.

Well, yes, and and you're absolutely right.

According to the ordinance, it says that at each meeting the ordinance shall be open to discussion and amendment may be referred to a a committee and shall be passed to the next reading unless by a vote of the council some of the deposition is made.

The uh ordinance shall be finally passed by majority vote of the council called and recorded yours, yes or nays.

So that's that's it.

So where does this where does this specifically apply to Victor?

Yeah.

What do you mean?

Are we talking every ordinance or are we talking a specific ordinance?

Uh for right now, I'm I'm just going to go for the uh I guess I can make it easier, David, is just to say that it would be regarding the ordinances for the vote idle center.

How is that?

Okay, so for the Ford Idol Center after public hearing, any decisions you want to break it out into three separate times that we meet and vote.

Is that correct?

It says that every ordinance shall be read at council meetings.

So I guess that's what it means, right?

I'm gonna refer to legal.

Well, if I may furnish you the information.

Just a moment.

So Mayor, this is an item that is noted for public hearing.

There will be a time at which, if it is approved, an ordinance is part of that motion.

Um, and at which time that would be the proper time to address how it is read.

Um second isn't needed.

The default, as in state law, is that it reads on multiple days, but our legislature and our council some time ago allows for administrative efficiency.

And so by a vote of one half plus one, you can dispense with it, which is commonly done here at all of our uh city council meetings.

So it'd be no different than what we traditionally do.

Uh but the proper time to do that would be at the time of the action item itself, not not right now.

So if we dispense with the the reading, right?

Three readings, that applies to everything else on the council agenda, and then because this is a public hearing, that does not apply to that.

He could actually ask that we not, because there is a request to pass under suspension of rules, and if the motion is made without that request, then it would go to the three readings.

Is that am I understanding that correctly?

Mayor, you're right, like we usually would do on an ordinance, it's passed with the suspension of the rules.

Um, and so when it comes up at that time, that's when that discussion and vote would take place.

Okay.

So we'll have to give some thought to how this is gonna proceed with that.

If uh 841.

Um if that goes to three readings, if we can move to 842843844.

So that's some work that you'll have to do during the course of the meeting to see how we proceed under that because there's only one uh first reading of ordinance.

Um that is correct, it would apply just to that that's been notified tonight.

I'm not working.

Okay, yeah.

Right.

There and that was just for clarity.

The clerk just said in unfinished business, we have four ordinances.

By agreeing to the consent agenda as noticed, everything else will move forward as is, only as Victor is requesting.

We could uh we just do away with a request, or we have a vote on that at the time.

And then when we get to unfinished business, that same vote can be made to dispense with the the three-day readings.

Okay.

So I think it's understood.

So I guess the question is that is not we need to make sure it's clear that where the proposed amendments to the agenda, it does not affect the public hearing, that it only affects everything else on the agenda.

Otherwise, we have to take all of our unfinished ordinances and and we typically approve them by suspending the three readings and three different dates.

Okay.

So uh so I need clarification then moving forward.

Are you saying that all ordinances that are read uh would be automatically if they're approved, they're automatically with the suspension of rules.

Is that what this is all about by having this in this location?

What Victor's trying to do, and I'm sure you've had some counsel on this, is that he does not want the ordinance to be approved tonight.

And so what he's hoping happens is that we don't approve the ordinance, though it has to be read three times, so it takes us into January.

So that's the intent with that motion.

What we're trying to clarify is that if we um adopt the consent agenda as stated, that we can move forward with the rest of our agenda items and the reading of the ordinances without having to tell those out for three separate meetings.

So I asked the question, I didn't get an answer.

Does he need a second to his request to pull it out out of consent agenda?

Mayor Mayor may I I did answer that, and no, a second is not needed because that is the default.

A motion can be made to um augment or change the standard, which is a three-day reading.

That's fine, that's what I understood.

But the but the issue here is now we're having discussion.

The request was if we wanted to pull these out of the consent agenda and talk about it.

So we're talking about it now without the continuation of the uh uh adoption of the consent agenda with that modification.

Mayor, if I may I think procedurally where we're at right now, a comment was made about an item that's not on consent agenda.

The opening motion was are there any amendments to the consent agenda?

The item that's being discussed is not within that consent agenda, so the timing of it is untimely.

It needs to come up when the item comes up, Mayor, and Councilman Rodriguez on 841.

That'll be during our public hearing after the public hearing is closed.

And so the the question can be asked, just the timing of it needs to wait until the proper point in tonight's meeting.

And so consent agenda will continue forward unless there's any adjustments to that consent agenda.

The consent agenda one two says the city council dispenses with the three-reading rule of Idaho Code 5902 for all ordinances.

Okay.

So that is a specific portion that you're wanting to amend.

So he's asking that that get pulled, because I think the way I'm reading it is it's all ordinances, and this is an ordinance that would fall under public hearing.

So what that would be yeah, you're right.

That means on each ordinance that comes up each time tonight, one by one, rather than it being consented in advance, you will take that up on each ordinance as it's presented at the time it's presented.

Okay.

So I think then the motion that you're making is that we exclude one two on the agenda from the approval of the consent agenda, which we can do, and then we will have to vote each individual ordinance if we choose to.

Mayor, I think you stated it correctly and accurately.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilman Reynolds and then Councilman Haverfield.

Madam Mayor, if we pull uh one, two off the consent, uh, which is like we typically do, wouldn't we bring that back to uh number two on our agenda and then vote on that separately?

We could, yes, but that's what we should do.

I think okay.

So at this time we have pulled one two off the agenda, it will come back and have a discussion about that.

And if there are no other further amendments to the agenda, I would stand that we adopt the agenda with the one amendment.

So moved.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda with the exclusion of one two.

I would uh stand for a motion to approve the consent agenda as stated.

So moved.

I'm sorry, I need it.

I forgot.

All in favor, aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, consent agenda.

There was a motion and a second.

Second.

Okay.

All in favor?

Any opposed.

Okay.

So now we are going to take one, two and come back and have a discussion.

This is number two on our agenda, and it's the items moved from consent agenda.

And so uh this would be a discussion around the fact that we are uh there's been a motion to to pull that.

So Madam Mayor.

Yes.

I move that we leave uh one two intact as it's written on our agenda.

I would second that motion.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded that we um go ahead and approve one two on the agenda, which is the city council uh dispenses with the three reading rule of Idaho Code 5902 for all ordinances.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any additional discussion?

Seeing none, roll call.

Rodriguez.

No.

Jingula, yes.

Haverfield, no Griffin.

Councilmember Griffin.

Um he just put a chat, yes.

Okay.

So that was yes, yes.

Bills, yes, Reynolds, yes, four in favor, two opposed, motion carries.

Okay.

Okay, we don't have any agency or mayor.

Yes.

I just wanted to confirm if you heard me on the previous vote, or if that was only from the chat.

What was your vote?

It was the yeah, yes, we do have that.

Thank you.

No, you want to speak.

But we couldn't hear it, we just got it from the chat.

That's right.

Okay, moving forward, I'll just do it this way.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Rodney, planning and zoning.

Mayor Council, there this is a quick update for you.

There were two final plates that were on your consent agenda today.

Um, and so I won't spend any time on that.

There was a uh second extension for a final plat approval for wager's dairy subdivision that uh the commission approved for another year.

And then there were three public hearings.

The first one was a conditional use permit for a kennel license off of Sunny Lane, 721 Sunny Lane, and that one was approved.

The second one was a preliminary plat for a commercial subdivision.

Um this one is off of um this is 11364 and zero West Carter, near the southwest area of Carter Road and Middleton Road, and then that one was uh approved, and then the last one was a rezone to for a small project, uh, just a single family home that was um that was rezoned from RA to RS6 for a proposed future lot split so they can build a second home on that property.

And that one was off of Amity and Power Line, and that one was also uh recommended for approval, and that will come before you in February on February 2nd.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Okay, thank you, Rodney.

We're gonna move to our new business items.

5-1 is an action item and it's to confirm the appointment of Heidi Track to the Napa Library Board for a five-year term expiring December 31st, 2030.

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Is Heidi here tonight?

She is here.

I'm sorry, J Heidi.

Is Heidi here this evening?

Okay, I don't see her.

But we'll get to you in a second.

Okay.

5-2 on the agenda is an action item.

This is to authorize the reallocation of $64,000 from wastewater upgrades group F, the Moses Moses drain project, and award the bid and authorize the mayor to sign the contract with JCN contractors.

Um for the water renewal facility rotary press project as part of the wastewater treatment plant phase two upgrades.

This is for a total of 698,000.

It is approved in the FY26 budget.

So moved.

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

By three is an action item, and this is to authorize the reallocation of 147,103 from the wastewater upgrades group F, Moses Train Project, and authorize the mayor and public works director to sign a task order with Jacobs Engineering for the water renewal facility rotary press project as part of the wastewater treatment plant phase two upgrades for a total of 147, 103 dollars.

And this is approved in the FY26 budget.

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Call in favor, motion carries.

54 is an action item, and this is to authorize the mayor to sign and initiate a change order with the Idaho Transportation Department for State Highway 55, farmway to Middleton project in the amount not to exceed 170,452.

And this is pending approval in the FY26 budget amendment.

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Yes.

Just a quick confirmation of what budget that will be amending from John.

John Spencer is making his way up and he'll provide answer to that.

Thank you.

Mayor, Councilman Griffin, John Spencer, Director of Water Resources.

Uh that will be from the irrigation budget.

So in the breakdown of everything, it'll be an enterprise fund rather than the general government fund just to confirm.

Councilman Griffin, yes, that is correct.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any other questions or discussion?

See none roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Call in favor, motion carries.

55 is also an action item, and it's to authorize the mayor to sign a contract agreement with Mid-America Golf and Landscape.

This is to install the new irrigation system at Centennial Golf Course.

It is not to exceed $3,819,759 and 18 cents.

It has been approved by our city attorney and it is approved in the FY26 centennial golf maintenance budget.

So moved.

Second.

Okay, so we have a motion, a second and question.

Cody.

Or whomever you would like.

Got your name down on this one.

Evening, Mayor, Council, Cody Swander, City of Napole Parks and Recreation Director.

Yes, Councilman Bills.

So the question is uh wanted uh encourage if it isn't already in there that there's a bid unit for rock removal.

Yes.

Uh because I I didn't see anything, and obviously if they remove, but it needs to be in the contract what per yard their rock removal and haul is going to be ahead of so it doesn't become TNM.

Okay, that's can certainly be um before we get the signature from the mayor.

That is a unit price we can ex uh we can expect from the contractor.

I'll request that.

I don't have it, I don't have a unit number at this point.

So when we bid it, we didn't bid what rock removal unit costs would be.

There the bid came in as um with the expectation that there may be a need for a change order for rock removal.

I didn't get a unit price.

I don't know if that's linear feat or how that's actually determined.

So the no typical is it's by yard to remove and halt and uh it should be known because otherwise that can become a spending bill if it's not called out at this time part of the contract.

That'd be my encouragement.

So possibly uh amend the motion and the uh second to include a uh rock allowance specification to the agreement if it's so inclined.

Mayor Cling.

So you're talking a unit cost is what you're asking again.

Yeah.

That's common.

Okay.

Uh councilman bills, Madam Mayor.

Um the uh the bid that they submitted, did it say rock removal on the bid?

It it does include rock removal.

Yes, it's not so I would there's no dollar amount.

Well, there's no way to quantify it, but that's on them.

If they sign a contract that says they're gonna remove the rock, then they have to remove the rock.

Well, and I looked at the documents, I don't think it's that cut and dry.

And that's the reason I'm I'm bringing it up, but I think there's uh potential uh problem.

So uh what was your language you would like to have?

Well, I think I think uh before the contract is executed, I think it needs to be confirmation with the uh contractor what the unit cost is for removal and haul on rock.

Councilman.

But I what I saw was a the that there is the anticipation of rock removal and the contractor will be paid for it, but there's no unit pricing, and that's gonna be an ambiguous uh you know in in my mind with the metillennial footage, it could get pretty spindy and become quite the change order.

So that's that's what my caution is.

Could we so Cody, you have a comment?

I was gonna ask, is it most prudent for me to come back with this topic at a later feature uh council meeting date once I have those uh unit price numbers?

So postpone the action on this, go ahead and let you get it and then bring it back at a future.

I feel more comfortable with that.

If that doesn't cause you a problem, that would draw you less from be my opinion.

Okay, so do you want to withdraw your motion?

Oh withdraw my motion.

And second, okay.

So we will postpone the action on this until the next meeting.

Cody, thank you.

Thank you.

Five six is an action item.

It's to authorize the merge to sign a contract between the city of NAMPA and the NAMPA Police Protective Association for a term of October 1, 2025 through September 30, 2026.

So moved.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

See, none roll call.

Yes.

Sorry.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

We don't have any proclamations this evening, so we're going to move to public forum, and we're going to start with a recognition of Mati Ramos.

Mādi, come on up here.

Um I am so proud of Marty and the work that she's done.

I think I met you um say maybe 10, 12 years ago, I'm not sure.

She's made such a difference in our community.

And as a leader in Idaho's Hispanic community, she was recognized with one of the highest honors given by the Mexican government.

Mati is the executive director of the Idaho Hispanic Foundation.

And she's received the prestigious, would you say the name of the award?

Otley.

Thank you.

I would say it wrong.

And it's for her long-standing work supporting Latino families across the state.

And so because we were not able to be, I was not able to be at that.

I wanted Mahdi to come forward and I wanted our community to hear this, and I wanted counsel to know this.

And Mati, if you could share with us just a minute and show us your award, I would love it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

You were up until like a few months ago, it said Debbie Clean Chamber.

It's been that long.

But anyway, um this is this award means a lot to me just because my parents are from Mexico, and I've you know, always strive to find the ways to bring unity through our communities.

Um serving and um and helping have always been a way to do that, right?

You you serve with somebody, it doesn't matter who they are next to you, you're serving.

So this recognition doesn't really uh belong to just me alone.

It's it really is for all of our community, this community that has always been so caring and giving and open and supportive to help and allow me to serve everyone.

So um Otli in Nawal means path and building pathways, and so it means you know, you help build pathways for people to really prosper and to really thrive.

So it means a lot, and it means a lot to be here with you guys because I love our city.

I love NAMPA, and I love everything that we do to bring that unity and that trust and that community feel into every organization and every uh place here in NAMPA.

So thank you very much for the recognition.

Uh you know, I I first met Matty when she was with the school district, and she was the vision behind our community resource centers.

And she began with one, and it grew into I don't know how many there are today.

Yeah, there's five, yeah, yeah.

But that was because of Māori's passion and vision.

And then you've continued to grow and serve, and I just want to say thank you so much for uh you're you're an incredible community member beyond you represent the Hispanic community, you advocate, but you are Nampa.

And and we're so proud of you, and I'm so happy for you in this award.

Thank you so much.

Yes, they've given me a silver medal.

I know I felt like this is great, we can't wait to see it.

I've got a silver medal from the Mexican government and then a big certificate to put on my wall.

So we would love for you to come forward.

Can we do a picture with you?

So, Council, let's come in and let's get a picture.

Okay, so

Okay, so thank you for being here.

We appreciate it.

You don't have to stay.

Unless you particularly want to.

Yeah.

So we have a few minutes for our public forum.

Do we have go ahead?

Yes, it is public forum time.

So let's go ahead and move forward with that.

Madam Mayor, we don't have anyone else that would like to speak at public forum.

Okay.

Well, um, with that.

Yes.

Let's move on to our unfinished business.

There we go.

Okay, we are going to move to number nine on the agenda.

This is unfinished business.

91 is an action item.

It's the first reading of ordinance for annexation and zoning to RS6, single family residential for a duplex in the RS6 zoning district at 7694 Birch Lane.

This is a.97 acre parcel.

This is for Robert Robert and Margreth.

Bizzooli.

I think I said that correctly.

And it is requested to pass under suspension of rules.

And ordinance of the city of Napa, Idaho, determining that certain lands commonly known as 7694 Birch Lane, parcel number R2095801100, and 7700 slash 7704 Birch Lane.

Parcel number R20958011B0, located in the northwest one-fourth of section 11, Township 3 North, Range 2 West, Boise Meridian, totally 0.97 acres more or less, lay contiguous to the limits of the city of Napa, Canyon County, State of Idaho, and that said land should be annexed into the city of Napa and be zoned RS6 single family residential on.97 acres more or less.

Declaring said lands by proper legal description as described below to be a part of the city of Napa.

Determining that said annexation and zoning has the consent of the landowners.

It is contiguous to the city limits and it is consistent with the comprehensive plan, directing the city engineer and the planning and zoning director to add said properties to the official zoning maps of the city of Napa and to designate said properties as RS6 single family residential as set forth herein on the official zoning map and other area maps of the city, providing for conditions of approval, providing for recordation, providing for separability, providing for an effective date, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict here with, and directing the city clerk to file a certified copy of the ordinance of the map of the area to be annexed with the Canning County State of Idaho and the Idaho State Tax Commission for certain Idaho Code Section 63-215.

Mayor, I'll make a motion to pass under suspension of rules.

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.

92 is an action item.

This is the first reading of ordinance for annexation and zoning to RS 8.5 zoning district to connect to city sewer services.

This is for a 1.29 acre parcel at 1224 East Iowa Avenue for Jerry Lyle.

And it is requested to pass under suspension of rules.

Thank you.

And once of the City of Napa, Idaho, determining that certain lands commonly known as 1224 East Iowa Avenue, parcel number R11804, located in northeast one fourth of section 34 Township 3 North Range 2 West Boise Meridian, totally 1.29 acres more or less, like contiguous to the limits of the city of Napa, Canyon County, State of Idaho.

And that said land should be annexed into the City of Napa and be zoned RS 8.5 single family residential on 1.29 acres more or less, declaring said lands by proper legal description as described below to be a part of the city of Napa.

Determining that said annexation and zoning has a consent of the landowners.

It is contiguous to the city limits and it is consistent with the comprehensive plan directing the city engineer and the planning and zoning director to add said properties to the official zoning maps of the city of Napa and to designate said properties as RS 8.5 single family residential SF4th herein on the official zoning map and other area maps of the city, providing for conditions of approval, providing for recordation, providing for several abilities, providing for an effective date, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith, and directing the city clerk to file certified copy of the ordinance and the map of the area to be annexed with Canon County State of Idaho and the Idaho State Tax Commission pursuant to Idaho Code Section 63-215.

Madam Mayor, I move this pass and just suspension of rules.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

93 is an action item.

This is the first training of ordinance for annexation and zoning to RS7, RS 8.5, RS12, RS22, zoning districts, and a potential development agreement.

For a total of 57.16 acres at 12529 Midway Road and Zero Iowa Avenue.

For Conger Group representing Karen and Bob Anderson, and it is requested to pass under suspension of rules.

And once of the City of Napa, Idaho determined that certain lands commonly known as 12529 Midway Road and Zero Iowa Avenue, parcel number R 33108, and R 33115 located in the northeast one-fourth of Section 36, Township 3, North Range 3, West, Boise Meridian, totaling 57.16 acres more or less.

They can take us to the limits of the City of Napa, Canyon County, State of Idaho, and that said land should be annexed into the City of Napa and be zoned RS 7 single family residential on 23.4 acres more or less.

RS 8.5 single family residential on 9.94 acres more or less.

RS 12, single family residential on 1.13 acres more or less.

RS12, single family residential on 7.83 acres more or less.

RS22, single family residential on 14.86 acres more or less, declaring said lands by proper legal description as described below to be a part of the city of Napa, determining that said annexation and zoning has a consent of the landowners.

It is contiguous to the city limits and it is consistent with the comprehensive plan, directing the city engineer and the planning and zoning director to add said properties to the official zoning maps of the city of Napa and to designate said properties as RS 7 single family residential, RS 8.5 single family residential, RS12 single family residential, and RS22 single family residential as set forth herein on the official zoning map and other area maps of the city, providing for conditions of approval, providing for recordation, providing for several ability, providing effective date, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith, and directing the city clerk to file certified copy of the ordinance of the map of the area to be annexed with the Canyon County State of Idaho and the Idaho State Tax Commission pursuant to Idaho Code Section 63-215.

Mayor, I move that we uh pass under suspension rules.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

9-4 is an action item.

It's the first reading of a corrected ordinance for vacation of a 500 square foot portion of the alley right-of-way between lot 1 and lot 12 of block 109 of Griffin and King's addition to a neighboring two parcels in the RS6 zoning district located between 401 and 323 7th Avenue North.

This is for Jason Redmond, and it is requested to pass under suspension of rules.

In order to the City of Napa Canyon County, Idaho, vacating a 500 square foot portion of the alley right of way located on each of the properties generally described as 401 and 323 7th Avenue North Napa, Idaho, 83687.

Parcels number R1503822100 and R0877601000, consisting of approximately 1,000 square feet more or less, located between lot 1 and lot 12 of block 109 of Griffith and King's edition in the northeast one-fourth of section 22 Township 3 North Range 2 West Boise Meridian, more particularly described below in Napa Canyon County, Idaho, and directing the city engineer to alter the use and area map and other applicable maps accordingly, providing for an effective date, providing for separability, and repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, and parts thereof in conflict here with Madam Mayor.

I move this pass and submission rules.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

That concludes the uh business items that we have.

Um we cannot start our public hearings until 6 o'clock.

And it is officially 5 51.

So we're going to take a short break.

We will start at six o'clock.

Yeah, thank you for the reminder.

If there is anyone here that has not signed up, we are asking you to sign up in advance, not waiting till the end.

So there are the staff is out front and they're there for you to sign up.

I'm gonna prefer not to ask for people to come up at the end.

I want you to sign up if you're good.

If you're going to speak tonight, please sign up, and they'll be out front.

So we have a break for about nine nine minutes or so for people to sign up if they haven't signed up, and then we will be back.

Um I would like for Jennifer for Parks and with IT, please test your equipment during this break so that we're ready to go.

Make sure that everything's working and that we're all ready to go.

And James, you can make sure everything's working to the extent.

Okay, we will be back.

Okay, I think we're ready to go.

I don't get it out.

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

Are we ready?

Okay.

So we have four public hearings this evening.

And I just want to, I do want to mention something, and that is when we are sitting up here in a public hearing, it is not okay for you to text our council meetings.

The last meeting we were in, we had text coming from the public to a council member.

Not okay.

And so any texting that takes place, whether it's on a personal phone or work phone, will be a public record and will get pulled.

And so just know that it's not okay to do that.

Um anything deliberation that we have has got to be public.

And so we actually try not to there shouldn't be any sidebar conversations, anything like that should be made public, right?

If there were a discussion going on between two council members, but uh any texting happens, and I will say there's moments I have to text my caregiver at home.

I've already warned them I won't be texting to see how things are going.

And it'll be a late night, so hopefully, um, and I told staff if you need me, walk up here and get me.

So uh because I I stand by the same rules everyone else does.

So our first public hearing this evening.

This is the Parks and Recs department, and they're requesting to approve fees as presented for the NAMPA parks recreation programming, the cemetery Harvard Recreation Center and the Golf Divisions.

Jennifer, I believe you are the one providing the staff report, and here we go.

Hello, Mayor.

Hello, City Council members.

Thank you for allowing me to come and uh speak to you today.

I'm Jennifer Ayala, I'm the business manager for Nampa Parks and Recreation.

So each year our staff reviews the fees for their area and makes a proposal for fee increases.

Our managers are here tonight to answer any questions you may have about the fees um that have been proposed.

Additionally, for the golf fees, we do present these to our golf commission, and they have reviewed and support the fees as presented tonight.

So some of the reasons to propose a fee increase is to cover inflationary and operational cost increases.

Uh it's also to meet our financial obligations and to remain self-supporting at both the golf course and the Harvard Recreation Center.

In some cases, our contracted instructors that we work with request a fee increase.

Um and we also look to the future to make sure we're able to fund upcoming capital projects, such as the Centennial Irrigation Project, new golf carts, um, new mowers, things like that.

Um of the fees we'd like to highlight are the memberships and the day passes at the rec center and the golf courses.

I've uh put a slide up here to show you memberships.

We're proposing an approximately a five percent increase at the recenter, and day passes at the rec center a nine to twelve percent increase.

At the golf courses, um our memberships were proposing a three percent increase to the memberships, and day passes approximately ten percent.

The cemetery we're proposing no increase this year, and the rec department, um, our youth sports, uh, basketball, volleyball, uh, baseball increasing eleven to twelve and a half percent.

Uh that is not a comprehensive list of all of the fees.

We have included a list of all the fees in your packet.

Um I also have maybe the fees.

Well, maybe I can.

Um there's a list of all your fees in the packet.

Um there you can see on the spreadsheet that the call list is a percentage increase, so each um item is listed on there.

We've also included the effective date, some fees will be implemented at different times throughout the year depending on advertising and timing of the event.

Also included in your packet are policies for the rec center, golf courses and cemetery.

We like to bring these policies for your review.

There are no proposed changes to those policies this year, but they're just included for your information.

We've also included at the end of your packet fee comparisons for the golf course.

We want you to know that our staff in all departments research and determine the market rate for their services uh that we offer, and we make sure that they that we are within that market rate.

I know this is a public hearing tonight.

There may be people here to speak about the fees.

Do you have any questions for me at this time?

Council, do you have any questions?

I did.

I did have a sample of what's included in your packet too.

Would you like to just for clear transparency highlight those areas that are going to be increased?

Um yeah, I can absolutely.

So right here is our uh in our passes to the NAMPA Rec Center.

So as you can see, uh each item is listed at the top.

Individual membership is going up uh 4.89 percent, family membership going up 4.99 percent, um, senior individual going up 4.85%.

Uh I'm sure you don't want me to list every single one on here.

Um the day passes are on page three, and those are also at the rec center day passes.

Sorry.

Um, those are going up, you know, nine percent, twelve and a half percent for uh youth seniors going up twelve percent.

It's hard because it's going up one dollar.

So that's where you have to kind of the percentage varies based on what the original rate was, but it's going up one dollar per per um entrance.

Thank you.

So that's that that was something I was hoping you would bring.

So for example, and I'm just looking, for example, the youth day pass.

Yeah.

For the senior day pass, it shows the 16.67% increase, but the increase is 50 cents.

Yeah, the taught day pass is going from $3 to $350.

It's a 16% increase, but it's because it's such a small dollar amount.

Correct.

And so I think that's important to call out that it may look like a large percentage amount.

For some of them, it isn't as much.

Now, some of the the annual passes, it is somewhat material.

And then the golf courses are further down in your packet.

Pages 19, page 19 starts Ridgecrest golf course.

Um, as you can see, the day passes are going up nine to ten percent, roughly around there.

And then um starts our centennial golf course fees.

So if you have specific questions about any of them, I'm happy to answer them.

Um we do try to keep within the market rate.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Council, do you have any questions?

I don't see any questions.

Okay.

So thank you.

So this is a public hearing.

Yep.

And Madam Mayor, we have three people that have requested to provide public testimony, starting with Marty Aubrey.

Good evening.

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

Yes, if you have something you'd like to hand us.

And then I'm sorry, we're laughing at Jennifer's face that showed up on the screen, so sorry.

Um could we actually show this down there?

Thank you.

Okay, pass this down.

Well, actually, I'll keep it and she'll hand you.

We'll let her sit down and she'll get started.

Is this gonna show the time?

Yes, it will.

Yes.

You're on top of it.

Yeah.

First time.

You'll do great.

Okay.

So thank you for going ahead and stating your name and address.

Marty Aubrey, 621 South Middle Creek Drive, Nampa, Idaho.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'm here to uh propose that you uh have a trail fee for single rider golf carts.

You have different green fees, but you do not have separate trail fees.

I just purchased a single rider golf cart from Centennial Golf Course a couple of months ago.

They weigh 190 pounds.

It's a three-wheel model.

There are three of us that have these carts out there.

And that's all.

Okay.

Now, in researching this, I found there's lots of different single rider golf cars.

There's the scooter type, aluminum frames, 77 pounds.

They have the skateboard type, 100 to 120 pounds.

And now they have the new e-bike and e-scooter types that are 60 to 80 pounds with a bag rack for your golf clubs.

At present, their standard golf cart weighs 800 to 1100 pounds.

A four-person golf cart, which I just saw out there two months ago, extended 1600 pounds.

You put four adult riders in it, you're over two thousand pounds.

The reason I mention the weights is that's what does the damage to the golf course.

Okay.

It compresses the ground.

That that affects the drainage of the ground.

It stresses the grass and the new aggressive tires and the lifted models that weigh heavier, they thin the grass.

That's why you have little signs around the greens and the T's telling you to stay off because of the golf carts.

A two, three, or four-person rider has to go back and forth across the fairway, putting twice the stress or whatever on the grass.

The reason I mentioned the weights is you propose in your fees five hundred and thirty dollars for a trail fee.

1750 a day for a trail fee.

You do not have any other trail fees.

We come out as a single rider, you're expecting us to pay that kind of amount.

Okay.

So if you take a tenth of that, which a lot of our carts weigh a tenth, that would be $53 a year or $1.75 around.

Or a fourth would be $132 for a year, $438 around, or $265 a year and weight seventy-five around, that would be half.

I mean, it comes out to 30 rounds if you pay less than 30, do the daily.

If you pay play more than 30, you'd pay the yearly.

And I says, what about a single rider golf cart?

And I quote, he said, We do not have a single rider golf cart.

We have found they do no damage to the golf course.

So you can bring it out here for free.

Okay.

Madame Mayor time.

Okay, so real quick.

Any questions?

Our our timer's not working.

Part of the work that was done today, unfortunately.

So I'm sorry we you didn't have any notice that you were out of time.

Um I want to start by saying, Council, do you have any questions?

I really appreciate you coming forward.

I would like to ask that our golf team, I don't know if you've had a conversation.

You have.

Okay, I'd like to take this into consideration and then have you guys come back and speak to it.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for coming tonight.

Really appreciate it.

You did a great job.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Madam Mayor, he's gonna grab our timers and re and restart them.

So we'll go ahead and step into our next public hearing and what I'm gonna ask our next speaker.

But um, I'd like to we'll give him a 30-second warning.

Yes, we will.

Okay.

Okay.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Randy.

Oh, excuse me.

Balden Ragsdale.

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

Okay, thank you.

I'm Meldon Ragsdale at 16780 North Gentry Drive in Napa.

I came here with the intent of waiving my time so other people with more to say would have time to say it.

So I've been told that I can't do that anymore, even though it's been done in the past.

So surprise.

Um one thing I would like to do is throw my support weight between the comments Mr.

Alvridge and Mr.

Aubrey are making.

The second thing I would like to talk about is that the fee increases for the seniors are crucial.

Even though they seem modest to you.

When I started playing at Centennial, my sewer water bill was $70 a month for uh every two months, and now it's $170.

Well, my Social Security hasn't gone up that fast.

And uh I would think that using a market rate to assess and justify rates would not be appropriate in the sense that you're not surveying other municipal courses.

It's the uh seniors and the public that built these courses.

They have uh probably five percent of the business of this course.

And if you take that over the time that we've had since we built this centennial course, it's about one year is an entire revenue.

So we have a lot of sensitivity to price, and would hope that you'd take that into consideration in the future.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for coming and sharing your thoughts.

Thank you.

Okay.

Madam Mayor, our final speaker is Randy Aldridge.

Good evening, Randy.

Thank you for sharing your address with us.

Well, I should have a seat up here.

I've been here how many years in a row?

Four or five?

I think just a few.

It's been a bit.

I mean, my God, we raise this thing every year, these people who wants to raise them.

You know, Jennifer didn't really say how much profit the golf course made this year.

Oh, excuse me.

Address 10306 Mill Grain Street, Napa, Idaho, 83687.

Randy Old.

Anyway, she didn't show how much profit the golf course made.

When you make a profit and you start raising the public golf course, it's kind of uh I mean, public people, like uh Butch said, our paychecks don't go up.

Um I'm asking the members here.

Are we trying to bleed out the people have set income retirement?

Because we get them pretty close.

That's what I hear from my members.

We're getting close where they don't want to drive over and play at Centenno anymore.

Okay.

I don't think I need to say too much more about a few things, but there's one thing I need to bring up.

And this is not easy for me, but I made a mistake.

And I don't like to admit that sometimes, but the city asked me to be on a board to help hire a manager for the golf courses.

I think it was a mistake.

I didn't, I didn't, as personally, did not do any research because we won't when we bought the golf courses.

Everybody was, yeah, ooh, ah, you know, this do this.

And I was I was one of them.

But after I paid attention and look at things and study things, did some research.

Public courses don't have managers.

Country clubs do.

On a city course, you got a pro who can do the same thing what the manager does.

Both courses here.

When I'm talking about, I'm talking not talking about one course.

Both courses got pros can do exactly what this manager does.

You have a cook can do the same thing what this manager does.

You got a uh person who does the finance for the city who did it for years.

And then my question to the to the commission here.

I need you need to take a look at this how much money we're putting in this manager.

That money could be saved for different things, different things for both golf courses.

Or if something needs to come up, we can use some you got a little stock money there.

That money, you what you pay the manager is a waste, as far as I'm concerned.

We made a mistake.

Um I was one of it who made the mistake.

Nothing, nothing is is it's the position.

It's not nothing personal to this person.

It could be a woman, it could be a man.

It was the wrong thing to do because I think there's too much money goes into that manager.

It could be used for something else.

Madam Mayor time.

Okay.

Randy, thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Can I say one more thing?

You may say one more thing.

This I this might bring tears in my eyes here.

Debbie, you have been a one hell of a mayor.

Thank you.

One hell.

Thank you.

I thank you.

Thank you.

I wish I can hug you, but you've done wonderful things for the city.

I think everybody should stand up and applaud that because you have been wonderful.

The gentleman who's going to replace you've got big shoes to fill.

And Merry Christmas to all of you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, that is all that we have uh signed up this evening.

So with that, um, I would like to ask our parks department, Cody, if you could come forward and provide response to a couple of the comments this evening.

Um I would appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor and City Council.

Again, Cody Swander, City of Napa Parks and Recreation Director.

Appreciate hearing the comments from the public.

I know fees are never a popular um topic when you bring uh forth raising them.

Um however, I feel like it's necessary to keep operations running.

Um I know annually feels like maybe we're being hit a lot.

However, I think you saw from Jennifer's proposal, not every fee is touched every single year, um, but annually uh annual adjustments make um for smaller increases rather than waiting for several years and trying to make a larger increase at a time that may feel more of an impact for our for our customers.

We value that that sensitivity and and we do our best to offer a good product and still operate um uh specifically the golf courses and the Harvard Recreation Center in the Black using user fees, just as the city council has long um instructed us to do as a department.

So we're proud of that fact.

It does come with some pain points of keeping up with inflation and rising um employee costs and things that go along with with operations that we that we see.

Um regarding some specific comments and the golf course fees, um, the the single rider golf cart idea is new.

We are like many courses that have a single rate for golf carts, and we are very happy to look at the option of adding a single rider at a reduced rate for those um fee riders that utilize those, as the gentleman said.

So I have seen those things, and they're significantly um less impactful, I imagine, to the course as some of the bigger golf cour uh carts are.

So I think that's something we can absolutely look at for uh adding and including in our fee structure so that um people that are using those utilities are paying a lower rate.

Um regarding um Mr.

Aldridge's comments about uh manager position.

Um I stand behind the mayor in the previous parks and recreation director's decision to bring on a manager at the time when that decision was made.

And um I feel like our manager has done good things for the department.

I understand uh Mr.

Aldries' um interest in saving funds.

However, we still would need a uh golf pro certified by the PGA to be there.

Um would that come as some cost savings perhaps, but not at the entire cost of a of a single FTE that we have now.

Thank you.

So I was just looking in my packet for the uh price comparisons.

And so do you mine is so dark, it's a little bit hard to read.

I can't just off the top of my head say what they are.

I know you've got the price comparisons.

So would you like council?

Do you need to see those?

I know it's in our packet.

Do you have any questions on that?

Okay.

Any questions for Cody?

Okay, thank you, Cody.

Thank you.

Jennifer, do you have any closing comments?

I mayor, city council.

Uh, I just want to reiterate um Randy's comment about uh profit.

I just I just want to clarify that we are we are not for profit at the golf courses.

Um we our goal is to cover our expenses.

And so there are some years where we make more money than spend money, and then we put that into our fund balance so that we have money for these capital projects.

So just tonight um we brought before you to do an irrigation project for uh the contract is set at 3.8 million dollars, and none of that is coming out of general fund money because we have been able to bank money over over the course of the years.

It's not for profit, it's for us to reinvest into the course.

And if we're not able to charge market rate for our golf course, then we would have to come and ask for general fund money.

That's just the reality.

So I just want to add that comment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council, do you have any questions for Jennifer?

Okay, Jennifer, thank you.

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

So move.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay, this is an opportunity for council to have a discussion.

Yes.

Who is that to?

I'm sorry, Councilman Griffin, that's to you.

Yes.

Okay, thank you very much.

Apologies.

And I have a little bit of an echo, so if I delay, I apologize because I'm here myself back and forth.

Uh I would request, however, we will need to make the motion.

I think the information about the cart fees for single riders was uh good to consider and a way to implement it, would be great to move forward doing that.

More specifically, though, I would like to see, and it's a similar idea that I presented last year.

If we could have all the other fees absorb the increase of the senior citizen fee bracket rather than constantly increasing on the most popular group that attends, I understand that's where we need to collect our most funds, but the senior citizens every year, like I said in last council meeting, are feeling the draw from every angle.

The least that we could do is have the working class, the 20 to 55-year-olds pay their way for golfing and let the senior citizens get at least a breath of fresh air, especially on a city-owned golf course.

So if there's a way to make the motion or a way to structure where we do not have the increase goal to the senior citizen class, and rather increase more significantly on the other groups, that would be that would be my preferred way forward.

Sebastian or Councilman Griffin, thank you very much for your comments.

I would like to ask um Cody, it's gonna be up to you.

Who could maybe respond to that?

The possibility of that, what the impact of that is thank you for the opportunity.

Uh Councilman, I think that um we've always taken a f uh a cross-the-board approach with our fees and um impacting um all the groups some was kind of the the mindset.

However, anything is possible, and these fees are are for you as a council to decide.

So if we are given direction one way or another, we will we will react that way.

Councilman Griffin, we've got both golf and we've got the rec center.

And so the senior pass increase at the recenter is how much I can I don't I've got it in front of me if I find the right page.

Okay.

It's $23 is what the pass is for seniors at the rec center.

The increase.

The increase, uh correct.

You said $23 increase.

That's couple.

No, the sorry, I'm talking out loud.

Okay.

So a $23 increase.

How much is the increase um for the seniors uh in the golf pass?

Say that again.

$36 at centennial.

Is the increase?

Yes.

Okay, which is pretty substantial, more substantial.

So there is a difference in between the recenter, and I to I can so identify with the seniors and being on a a uh limited budget and trying to figure out how to do, although it is a something you get to do, right?

So um anyway, I just was curious how much it was at the rec center because the same thing happens, right?

Whether it's a rec center for health or whether it's golf.

Okay.

Council, do you have any questions?

Comments?

Yes, Councilman Haverfield and then councilman Reals.

I was just gonna say I I like his idea, but it might be self-serving since I'll have a little extra time on my hands going forward.

Councilman Reynolds.

Cody, what's the uh estimated revenue?

This might be a Doug question for the golf courses with the increase based off of what you have now for players.

Great question.

I think Jennifer has that answer, Councilman Reynolds.

Uh yeah, Councilman Reynolds, I can answer that question for you.

Um if we raise all of the all of the fees as expected, we did do a significant increase on the day passes, so most of uh the raises coming from the day passes, but 34,000 eight thirty-three uh expected based on our sales from this past year at Centennial.

Thank you.

Do you have any idea what the cost increase in your budget was from last year to this year, expense-wise?

With no added anything, just your increase in fuel wages, just all of that.

Do you have any idea what that is?

I I do not have that number, I'm sorry, Mayor.

Okay.

That's fine.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor.

Yes.

I just have a comment.

So I think we're still on the uh golf course paying interest on the money back to us.

And I want to say that amount was around 200 and some thousand dollars.

265,000.

So my memory served me fairly decent.

But I have a real hard time raising fees out there when we could make it so the golf course wasn't paying us interest on the money they borrowed from the city, and we could use that to fund other things that the golf course has needed, including keeping our fees low.

So I I have a problem with that.

So council, I have a quick question.

Could we if we didn't, so the full increase is 34,833.

So if we deducted that from what they owed us, um to where we didn't have to do an increase, would that be a mechanism for us to be able to not do the increase but reduce the amount that they're to pay back the city?

I'm just listening to what you you said and just a thought.

But Madam Mayor, I was against that from the beginning.

I didn't feel like uh entity within the city should be paying interest on money that came from the city to the city, basically.

Um and I really feel like for our golf courses to be successful, we need to leave that money there as an enterprise fund and let it um continue to support the golf courses and or whatever needs operational needs that it has and keeping our fees low.

This is uh looking at the fee comparison to some of the other golf courses.

We are getting up there to where we want to have things in NAMPA that drive people to NAPA.

Most importantly, our citizens that live here.

We want them to be able to recreate and play here and not have to go other places.

So I that is an avenue of of one option uh for that interest money.

I don't know what the rest of the council thinks about that, but I would like to see us do something there.

We're all facing difficulties to go to the grocery store.

Anywhere you go, things are going up in uh huge leaps and bounds.

So any way we can do to take care of our citizens that way, I'm in favor of that.

So just for clarity, you're talking about just the interest, right?

Because there's a percentage of that debt that is just the interest.

So waiving the interest to help offset the okay.

Thank you for the clarity.

Council, are there any other comments?

Mayor, yes.

I personally wouldn't be in favor of that, only because when we did that transaction, the communication that we gave to the public was that that was the arrangement that we were making.

So to stay consistent with that, I would be hesitant.

But I mean, if we had Doug run the numbers and it made sense, then I could possibly get on board.

But that was what we told the public we were going to do, and I'd like to see that through.

But I would be in favor of um potentially dropping the the increase for seniors um or in the increase for seniors that are NAMPA citizens.

I don't know if that's an option, but something there I'd be willing to negotiate.

Thank you.

Other comments from council?

Mayor.

Yes.

I actually love the idea of finding out a way to hold the fees for NAPA citizens specifically.

I don't know if there's a efficient way to ID or be able to do that.

Or if that's a mechanism that's already in place, but I think that's a fantastic idea.

On the idea of absorbing the interest costs, I think we're I have a difficult time not wanting to increase the fees, but having that as an opportunity.

So I I understand councilman's rental council member Reynolds perspective on this, but to move forward, I think we maintain the interest and just look at how we can absorb those things and increases elsewhere.

Mayor, could I add a comment quickly?

Yes.

The interest portion for 2025 was just over 40,000 out of the payment.

The remainder was principal.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

Thank you.

Cody and Jennifer, would you like to did you have a follow-up comment?

I just the comment was uh we were discussing is that we do not currently just uh to Councilman Griffin's uh comments.

Uh the golf courses do not currently um check residency, we don't have a resident non-resident rate.

We really don't in any of our uh programming across the department.

Um one of those I think reasons is a lot of specifically at the golf courses, there it's a self-funded, it's not relying on general funding, so it's always been one fee for everybody just historically.

So clarify that or answer, I guess, to that question is we currently don't have a process.

Okay, thank you.

Any further comments?

Yes, councilman?

Yep, I I I would leave the interest thing alone because uh it was set up to be self-supporting, and uh that includes carrying costs.

If anything, I would support a uh reduction five, ten percent on the on the fees to the to the senior community and acknowledge that part uh if that helps and if that allows you to stay cash flowing.

Uh but we relied heavily on parks and uh to cash flow those operations, and that was part of the conditions of getting involved in them from my perspective way back when so I have a question.

We're talking about golf, but we have recenter um memberships for seniors just the same.

So would we apply the same principle for seniors?

Because I will say fit because I think you gotta go across the board regardless of the facility.

If you're gonna offer a senior discount, it's a senior discount from my perspective.

That's and I think Parks is gonna need to uh determine you know what what can be workable and yet um not put them in the red.

Yeah, um, just for clarity, mayor councilman bills that we do offer senior discounts.

There that that is a price break for senior non-senior at this point.

Um, you know, I think we're talking further increases to everything is where we need the clarity of would it be the golf courses only or would it be all senior day passes and memberships for rec center and golf courses?

So the day passes were greater increase, almost 10 percent in that range.

The membership rate was three percent for golf, and how much was it for the rec center?

I don't remember five.

Yeah, five.

Okay.

So um thank you for the clarity on that.

So the question would be what what is the thought of the council with that information?

And then it's one thing that we are that's very, very important, and that is that you're self-funded.

So if there is a recommendation, I know that both entities have like we're spending three million dollars right now, and so it took us a long time to get three million dollars to spend on that.

So uh it sounds like it would be about a $34,000 if we'd had zero.

Well, that's your total increase.

So if you changed council, I just trying to get us to a decision so we can move on.

We're talking three percent in the seniors golf and five percent seniors uh pass.

So if you were what is what are you thinking as far as are you thinking zero or you're thinking a percentage?

What are you thinking on that?

What is your budget allowed?

Any discount or not?

Because just like the discussion that's coming up later this evening, it still comes down to operations and we need to run these different uh venues uh in the black.

Both operation uh mayor and councilman bills, both operations at the golf courses and the Harvard Recreation Center we treat very much like private business or or um the way that uh funds come in and and are expended.

So absorbing uh you know uh not taking an increase on expense or on revenue would just create us to tighten our belt elsewhere throughout the year.

I think if we just were to focus on um the seniors, it's something that could be absorbed with some pain.

I think if you know these fees as we've presented are what we feel like we need in order to stay in a healthy growth pattern and and keep um dollars um balanced and coming in for for uh fund balanced growth where needed.

So any hit could potentially cause an impact, but a small one could be absorbed.

Thank you.

Okay, council, and I'm pushing council because council oversees budget.

This is really council's decision, but we've got three more public hearings coming up.

So what is the will of council on this?

Mayor?

Yes.

I would like to make a motion to approve the increases as stated with the exception of dropping the increase down for senior golf to two percent instead of three percent.

And no change for rec center.

And no change for recenter.

Um to approve as stated, with the exception of dropping the increase for seniors for the golf down to two percent instead of three percent.

So there is no second on that one.

So let's go at this again.

Okay.

So I would I would concur with the motion, however, it would include the rec center.

Down to what percent?

Same same percent.

So the RIC Center at the Rec Center was at five, and golf was at three.

So we're just dropping one percent.

Drop one percent on both of them.

Okay.

I'll say that.

Okay, so it's been moved and seconded that the fee increases are approved as stated with the exception of golf increases at two percent rather than three, and the recenter is at four percent rather than five.

Just for seniors.

Just for seniors.

Okay, that's the motion.

There was a second.

Is there discussion on that?

See none roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Reynolds.

No.

Hammerfield.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Four in favor, two opposed motion carries.

Okay.

There we go.

Thank you, guys.

Yes.

Can I ask for clarification?

Yes.

That sorry, that that was only for the season passes, not for day passes.

That is correct.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

That is correct.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

So that concludes our public hearing number one.

Moving to public hearing number two.

This is an action item.

This is the vacation of a three-foot by 21-foot portion of an eight-foot-wide public utility easement along the rear property line of 2218 Jody Avenue.

Um in an RS6 zoning district for Wendy Mosier.

And the original concept is an accessory dwelling unit approximately seven feet and eight inches from the rear property line.

Hi, I'm Wendy.

Mrs.

Chris.

Thank you.

And go ahead and share your names and add both names.

Wendy Mosier, 2218 Jody Avenue, NAMPA.

And Chris Adams, 2218, Jody Avenue, NAMPA 83651.

Thank you.

Okay, so I think you have seven minutes, and thank you for telling us what you're trying to accomplish.

We are trying to we're requesting a vacation of easement for an ADU that was built by CDB construct or C D B construction incorporated, Greg Barton.

He we signed a contract, he promised permits, we had no permits back in 2023.

My mom was at the Gables memory care.

And we have a 1300 square foot house, so we thought it would be terrific to build an ADU in the backyard for my stepdad.

And that was all great until about a year later when uh we made the final payment.

Um three days later were told we had no permits on the place.

So we spent a couple months flailing and not knowing what to do, and um uh then we're in touch with Sean Nichols at the city and uh started this process.

So we're four inches into an eight-foot ADU on the back of the property or eight foot easement, sorry.

We're four inches into that with our an ADU that's already been built.

Four inches over where you should be.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

So anything else you'd like to share?

That's pretty much everything there.

Yeah, okay.

Council, do you have any questions for our applicants?

Okay, we'll have you back.

So we go through staff report, public hearing, and then we'll have you come back and we'll ask you any closing questions.

Thank you so much.

Hey Christie.

Good evening, Mayor.

Council, uh Christie Watkins, principal planner for the city of NAMPA.

Um, as stated, this is a request for vacation of a portion of the easement.

Um after we had a chance to look at the legal description and determine exactly what the width of that easement is.

Um it is not the three-foot request.

Now it's down to just one foot because of that four-inch encroachment.

So a little information about the property.

Um, it is in an RS6 zoning districts, completely surrounded by RS6.

Um, as she stated, the accessory dwelling unit was constructed by a contractor in August of 2024 without building permits.

She was unaware that it did not have those permits, and upon trying to correct the situation, discovered that it does in fact encroach into that easement.

Um there aren't any um utilities or anything in that easement, so it seems appropriate to be able to grant that vacation.

This is an example here of the legal description that we had them submit.

Um it shows the one foot vacation area.

Uh the correspondence that we received, Idaho Power has no utilities within this easement.

Engineering asked for a revised legal description, which is what brought us to that one foot request.

Both of those um conditions in their memo have been satisfied by that.

So very limited conditions of approval, just make sure that they secure the appropriate building permits uh moving forward.

The findings in this case uh based upon the analysis that was completed utilizing the conclusions of law, city department comments and city code, along with the findings listed in your staff report.

Um the project appears to meet all of the requirements for a vacation.

As a result, we can reasonably recommend that it be approved.

And these are your potential motions.

I'll stand for any questions.

Mayor.

Yes.

Thank you, Christy.

Councilman Haverfield.

Christy, is the ADU detached or is it attached to the home?

Councilman Haverfield, it is detached from the home.

Okay, and it's not shown in the aerial photograph that we're looking at.

Our aerials are very old.

Okay.

So we don't have an updated one that would show that building in that space.

But it's been measured out.

I'm sorry.

It is on permanent foundation then.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions for Christie?

Okay.

Christy, thank you.

Thank you.

So this is a public hearing.

Madam Mayor, there is no one that is requesting to do public testimony in this item.

I'm going to assume that everyone that wanted to testify actually had the opportunity to sign up.

Seeing that there is an opportunity for applicant to come back.

Do you have any other comments?

It's this is very straightforward.

Okay.

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

Okay.

See none.

Thank you so much.

I'd stand for a motion to close public hearing.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

What is the will of the council?

Mayor, I'd uh make a motion to approve the vacation of the uh utility portion of the utility easement that's presented on the screen.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

See none, roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Chingula.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

That was a lot of work for this, but thank you for going through it.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Yes.

Okay, and you guys can go home.

Unless you want to stay.

Yeah.

You're always welcome.

Yeah.

Okay, 8.3 is an action item.

This is the variance from NASA City Code 10-12-4D requiring a minimum base lot size of 7,000 square feet for four units on one parcel and parking minimums and standards in 10-22-6B in a multifamily residential zoning on a 0.13 acre parcel located at one 716 2nd Street South.

This is for Rick Holden.

The revised concept is a conversion of a garage in a basement to living spaces to provide four dwelling units on a 5,662 square foot lot and to provide zero on-site parking spaces and no covered parking or guest parking.

Is our applicant here this evening?

Thank you.

Go ahead and come forward and give us your name and address, and you can share with us a little bit about what you're trying to do.

My name is Rick Holden.

I'm at 845 North Nicholas in Eagle.

Basically, I I bought the property six years ago and I recently found out that it's actually zoned for a duplex, but it was a triplex that I bought with somebody that was living in the garage.

And the rest of the residents in that area do not have that either.

There's multiple income properties all around it.

Thank you, Council.

Do you have any questions for our applicant?

Madam Mayor, I have a couple questions.

So is this project that you're wasn't permitted?

The garage build out or no, it was uh somebody was living there and working, but it was very primitive, and uh I've I've talked to the city.

Uh that was my mistake for allowing him to finish it up.

He lived there rent-free for a year and just kind of finished it up, but it was livable but not something I would have lived in.

And that's how I bought it.

So there's three separate families living in a duplex.

Yes, a triplex and a house.

So it's uh three stories.

Okay.

And no inspections or permits.

So we probably have some life safety issues there that should be addressed.

The triplex, uh, like I said, I I would guess that they've been living there since the 1980s, but they did get uh well well before the 1980s, but they did get a permit, supposedly, and in the 1980s, the previous owner, uh, but they don't show the the the basement as being a uh a residence, but the the uh the appearance of it is the same as the other two, it is very very old as far as style orange carpet that you know that kind of stuff.

So and then um so on the parking, can you talk about that a little bit?

Yeah, on the uh left side of the property there is a 10 foot by 73 and a half foot strip that has been poured a long time ago and it's right on uh the side of the house, and that's where everybody parks.

So it's never been a that we do have we're allowed to use on street parking, but nobody needs to use that.

There's plenty of parking for everyone.

Uh and one of the things the manager does is to ensure that vehicles fit.

You can't have a big truck or something that's parked there, but the smaller vehicles park just fine.

Okay, thank you.

May I also have my questions for staff rest of it?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions right now?

Thank you.

So we will move to staff report, public hearing, and then we'll come back and give you the opportunity for some closing comments.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rodney.

For the record, Rodney Ashby Planning and Zoning Director.

Um you've heard the request here.

This is between 17th and 18th Avenue and on 2nd Street South.

And I'll just skip forward.

We've gone over a lot of it.

Applicant uh narrative in the packet just stated that there are other apartments near his property that do not have covered parking spaces.

Uh it'll be costly and require the front yard and trees to be removed if we enforce the code.

And there's parking within the right-of-way that has been sufficient for many years.

Um I didn't see any clear argument that was made for the lot size criteria.

And so I'll go over those code sections uh in just a second.

Staff staff recommendation is that we deny this based upon looking at the correspondence we've received from internal departments as well as um the uh criteria.

And just as a reminder, um, when we look at these variances, staff's role is to look at the criteria, and that is what we have to make our decision on tonight.

Not whether, not whether we like the project, it's truly on does it meet the criteria.

So the comprehensive plan, it shows us high density residential zoning district is uh residential uh excuse me, RMH, which is our highest density uh zoning district, and then um the surrounding land use.

I can zoom in a little bit there.

You can see all the the homes in the area as well as some of the apartments.

Uh so the northeast is single family residential detached dwelling.

Um RMH zoning district, everything's RMH, so I'll skip over that.

Single family residential detached dwellings to the southeast to the north is multifamily residential.

That's uh the 2000 Polk Directory shows one verified and four unverified apartment units, and and so we recognize those uh those five, and then uh southwest is the second street south and multifamily residential um RMH zoning district.

Closer view of the property, and you can see um his description of where the um parking is occurring on the north uh west side of that property line within the alleyway.

So 1981 uh NAMPA City Directory shows 1716 as a duplex.

Uh in 2000, the Polk Directory shows 1716 as a single family dwelling unit.

Um in 2020, uh the MLS listing when current when the current property owner purchased the property shows as a duplex and the garage with no conversion.

Um this was provided by uh Sean in the building department he when he did his investigation there.

So between 2020 and 25, we we noticed some changes.

Um the applicant converted the building.

Uh he he's saying that it's a triplex, it was when he he purchased it that doesn't show on the MLS, um, but it was never permitted for a triplex uh in in city records.

That doesn't show on the MLS, but it was never permitted for a triplex in city records.

We have no record of it ever being permitted that way.

So there was an added basement at some time.

And the applicant states that the third unit had already been added, no documentation higher.

He said that, sorry.

I'll keep going.

Here's a couple more screenshots from the MLS.

And you can see the garage there on MLS at that time was showing it as a garage.

A variance is not intended to just give a special exception to someone just because they want to do something different than everybody else has to do.

It truly is to address an unfair situation.

So if a property is shaped differently than others are, or if it's topography that are really challenging, waterway or something in it that makes it difficult to enjoy the property the way others do, then that is the purpose of a variance.

And these are the five criteria that must be found in order to approve a variance.

So applicable regulations.

Parking, the number of spaces required, it depends on how many how many unit or beds or bedrooms are in the units.

So we would have to do that analysis, but what's being proposed is is nothing, no guest parking and no parking for the residents at all, except through the on-street parking.

So correspondence.

We don't have any way to show that it's compliant.

However, they said if if this were to be approved tonight, that they one condition that they would recommend is that they get the permits, and then it could be brought up to those standards to make it to make it safe to live in it.

The NAMPA Fire District, essentially the same thing.

They opposed the approval of the variants to the lack due to the lack of building permits and compliance with code.

The NAMPA engineering division provided several comments.

And the primary thing that we need to look at here is the area that I've highlighted there.

The alley public right-of-way is to be kept clear of obstruction and shall not be encroached upon by parked vehicles at any time.

And when cars are parked back there, it can get really tight.

And so while it's been fine up, you know, for the last six years, it does it.

If we have an emergency situation, that's when it doesn't become fine anymore.

So that's their concern.

They also indicated engineering indicated some conditions that they would recommend if this gets approved.

So a staff analysis, I think I've covered it.

I I think we can move on from here.

According to engineering, the number two and number three, they would need to provide that on-site parking that doesn't encroach into the public right-of-way.

And then the building department, of course, would want them to get the building permits and fire department.

So here are the proposed facts.

I'm not going to go over all of these facts because they're listed in your staff report.

But I do need to just cover the proposed conclusion.

It's really long, so I've got a few bullet points I'd just like to cover.

The first is that other apartments developed prior to the code being in place were done in that area.

So his comparison to other apartments in the area, just in my opinion as as staff, I I don't feel like it it covers the criteria listed in code because those um those apartments were built prior to the conditions in code, the standards placed in code for parking and loss size and covered parking, all of those criteria.

Second, this apartment was done after standards in place and done without permits.

So if a permit was requested, we could have caught this right up front.

But since no permits were requested, we were left to this position now.

Third, no practical difficulty or geographic hardship.

They because they could have continued as a duplex as permitted by code.

Number three, no practic or excuse me, number four, choice.

It was the choice by the applicant to convert without permits does not create an extraordinary site circumstance.

This gets back to the criteria that we have to meet.

Number five, um others in the district have to comply.

Number six, this should be a special this would be a special privilege to allow an applicant to the applicant to do something others just can't do per code.

And then seven, if conditions are followed.

Um the conditions that were uh proposed here and the variance was granted, I don't see any detriment to public health safety or general welfare.

Um there could be an argument there, um, but just because of the um uh the number of people living on in on the property, but they would need because of the conditions stating they can't be in the right-of-way, and that they would need to build build it to building codes, I think that dismisses the the concerns about safety.

So with that, as a conclusion, uh here are a couple motions for your consideration, and I'd be happy to answer any questions I can.

Thank you, Rodney.

Yes, Councilman Haberfield.

Um several questions.

Um going through the fire department's uh findings here, they they've answered a couple of the questions that I had.

This is now uh a project that would be commercial in nature, a four fourplex, which would mean it'd have to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.

It would have to be constructed to meet the IBC, IFC, IMC, all those requirements, uh the international codes, not just the international residential code, which uh two uh or duplex would.

So the conditions, well, even uh separating the units with one-hour firewalls so that there's full separation for life safety does not give me any um uh desire to see an approval of this uh request simply because it doesn't meet those things from life safety standpoint.

It's not in the downtown historic district.

It's in an RMH zone, so it's not uh exempt from the off-street parking requirements uh that a downtown historic would be allowed to have on-street parking and not have to have it off-street.

So uh there's just so many things I could just start pointing at that don't make sense to me in this request.

So I just I'm making more of a statement than asking a question, but thank you.

Just a quick point of clarification, even the downtown historic zone requires uh parking for multifamily residential.

Are there any other comments or questions?

I guess I have a question regarding that alleyway, because I think I didn't catch in your comments that you were concerned about parking.

But when I'm looking at that picture, it doesn't look like a fire engine could even get through there if one so to me there's a risk to life safety of others if a car is parked and you can't get a fire engine down that alleyway.

Yeah, mayor, that's uh a great point.

Um if you look at number two here as a proposed condition, it's that they wouldn't encroach into that public right of way.

They would have to find a way to put their parking on there on the property.

And in that situation, then you'd have a clear way to get a fire truck back there.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any other questions?

And that would include trash trucks as well.

Yeah.

That's correct.

Okay.

So this is a I'm sorry, do you have a question for question before public?

Either Rodney or Sean.

Uh so um in terms of this being uh non-conforming, is not only taking action, approval or no approval on the variance request.

What's the recourse with the city as far as the property operating within code?

Other words, going from what it is to no more than a single family dwelling or a duplex.

Is that in the scope or uh mayor and and councilman bills?

Yeah, that if a variance doesn't get permitted, that is exactly what will have to be done.

It'll have to be converted back to a duplex or a single family residential for it to be compliant with code.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay, this is a public hearing.

Madam Mayor, no one has requested to provide public testimony on this item.

Okay.

So with that, there is an opportunity for our applicant to come back and provide a closing comment, and then council, do you have any questions for the applicant?

So go ahead and come forward.

Yes, ma'am, thank you.

Uh just a couple of comments.

The MLS that I purchased it with showed it as a triplex, but once I purchased it uh and looked at it, I saw that somebody was living in the garage.

So I'm not sure what MLS they were looking at that said it was a duplex.

I understand it's my due diligence.

I should have came down the city and just investigated all that out, and that's that's on me.

Uh, but uh it I bought it as a triplex with an unfinished garage that somebody was living in that was probably about 50 percent where he needed to be.

The uh the people that we bought it from, I don't I don't know when the gentleman passed, but the uh but uh uh the wife had passed and there was a lull of time and I'm not sure who had the responsibility of it or so forth, maybe the children or uh it was in an estate or I I'm not sure.

Uh so the parking, it is 10 by 73.

Like I said, we do check and make sure that they are small cars, they could fit in.

I've seen the picture, you see it overhanging a little bit into the alley that they're showing, but that's not what they're supposed to be doing.

They're supposed to be uh parking diagonally, and uh we can and I don't know what year that was taken, but uh we can certainly button that up uh so that's done correctly.

Uh but the other areas on the right side of this of the sidewalk there, you can see there is an area where the big tree and all that it could be cleared and uh that would be quite expensive though, and not it's a beautiful yard.

It does not look like that right now.

It's very green and beautiful, so I would hate to do that.

But uh I think that's all I have.

Anyone have questions for me?

Thank you.

Any questions per applicant?

No.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, ma'am.

I do have a question for Rodney that I just thought of.

And Rodney, where um the revised concept of moving this to four dwelling units, if this is two dwelling units, which it evidently was, or three, the 5,662 square feet, are we out of compliance no matter what, or if it's a duplex, is this how's that work?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor.

Um, because it was permitted as a duplex, um you you can see that here are just two lines up is six thousand square foot is the minimum standard there.

So it would still be under that.

However, because it was permitted as a duplex in the past, I think what we're saying is our interpretation is we would still be okay with that going back to a duplex, even though it's substandard, it was permitted in the past at some point at that lot size.

Thank you for that clarity.

I appreciate it.

Council, do you have any other questions?

Rodney.

Thank you, Rodney.

Okay, I would stand for a motion to close public hearing.

Second.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Okay.

Madam Mayor.

Yes.

I have a question for legal news.

Um I want to make a motion to uh deny this, but uh I want to know if I can add to that motion um the requirement to have a demo permit and inspections along with that would be normally required for a demo.

And then including making sure that anything put there illegally, like the plumbing the water, et cetera, would be removed.

Is that within our purview to do in that?

Mayor, by the way, can you hear me okay?

All right, this is still working.

Uh Mayor Councilman Reynolds, um, to the first half of your question about a demo permit, that's a little more complicated.

Um it gets into the world of deprivation of property that exists as to your second piece about modifying it for bringing it up to compliance, that would be a reasonable um request to or condition to include in your motion.

I think it gets a little problematic about requesting a demo permit, which if I understand the implication of that would be to remove uh this additional garage piece.

Maybe clarify that if you could, councilman president.

So if the motion would were to pass to deny this and he has to bring it back to a duplex, then he would have to demo that living space in the garage.

And so putting it back to a duplex.

And in the process of demoing that, anything that was put in that garage illegally without inspections, plumbing, water to go with it, sewer um framing structural issues that may have been caused in a garage demo permit to me would and our building directors here you can probably speak to that, but uh to me would cover that inspection side of that to make sure that it was done correctly and not just left as a haphazard dwelling unit uh for a problem for for future and or a garage that was gonna fall down because when they demoed the living space, they didn't do it correctly.

So councilman president, it sounds like the real intent here is prevent further residential habitation of this garage area ultimately if that's what you're trying to get at.

That's correct.

Mayor Council President's uh suggestion, I think it'd be appropriate to maybe get a little more clarification on the demo permit, maybe what that entails.

I think that would be informative for the proposed thought or motion here.

Thank you.

So, staff, who would like to speak to that?

Good evening, John.

Thank you for introducing yourself as you come forward and thank you for your response.

Thank you, John.

Thank you, Mayor, Council members.

John Nielsen, I'm the director for building safety here at the city of Nampa to Councilman Reynolds point.

The only way we would know that would come into compliance is through the demo permit.

So, you know, if we didn't do that, then who's to say if anything changes or you know stays the same, or if there's even four people families living in there?

So please allow us to have the demo permit.

Thank you.

Does that answer your question?

Councilman Reynolds.

Yes, that answers my questions.

And then uh one more follow-up uh, John, would be it's not the building department's purview to inspect structural, or well, excuse me, let me back up.

The inspecting structural, yes, but having a structural engineer look at that at some point, would that be required in a demo permit process to make sure this garage isn't gonna fall down when they take out the interior walls or whatever is there?

Mayor councilman of Reynolds, no, not at this point.

I mean, if we walked in there and saw it was you know all rotted out and needed some more work, then we would go from there.

But just to get the demo permit, we wouldn't require anything uh from a structural engineer.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Okay, any other questions by council?

Okay, what is the will of council?

Madam Mayor, I would uh make a motion to deny the variance from NCC 10-12-4 dot D, requiring a minimum base lot size of 7,000 square foot for four units on one parcel and parking minimums and standards in 10-22-6-dot B in an RMH.

Multiple family residential zoning district on a 0.13 acre parcel located at 1716 2nd Street South, parcel number R132640 for Rick Holden with all proposed conditions and a formal findings, and that we require the applicant to pull a demo permit with the appropriate inspections so that we can make sure the work was in compliance.

Second.

So there is a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion?

See none, roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Yes.

Hammerfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Bills, yes, Reynolds.

Okay, so we are to our last public hearing of the evening.

I believe we've got about thirty thirty-three total.

Okay.

So times three minutes.

It's a little over an hour and a half that we have ahead of us.

Um, just in testimony before deliberation.

I think I have a quick question for council.

Do we want to take a five minute break before we dig into this?

It'll be a marathon.

So we're gonna take a short break and then we're gonna dig in and Clay, thank you for being ready to go.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you guys.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, test.

We are gonna get started.

So let's get ready to go.

Okay, let's get started.

Here we go.

I think we've got we're missing two council members, and I think we're ready to go.

So I think we're ready to get started.

Clay, thank you for getting us started and introducing yourself as we do so.

So, here we go.

Hank, I cannot hear you.

Is it is the mic off?

You turned it on.

Okay, let's say that again.

Good evening, Mayor, Council.

Uh, for the record, Clay Long, Chief of Staff.

Uh, this evening, as we prepare for the public hearing, I'm just going to go through a staff report to walk us through the timeline, uh, high level, and some details of uh the the work that's gone on for this uh adventure, if you will.

Um we'll start with how did we get here?

Uh and you'll recall the far majority of this uh has not changed.

Actually, there's two changes that have taken place in this slide deck from what was previously shared.

Um, but we'll start with the proposal of the concept and and this came out of discussion early on about a desire for uh some increased uh enhancements to increase utilization of the amphitheater.

Um, as council had conversations and discussions about what what the function and role should be.

Um it was identified what are what are some possible solutions to not have this be a continued expense on the the books of the city.

So thinking through the core purpose, they embarked the exploration phase on what options could be possible.

After initial conversations with the College for Western Idaho, there was an expression of interest, which turned into a several month-long feasibility discussion and phase.

With any ideas that come up or potentials, there's always the need to have and see if there is logical sense on both sides and if it's something that should move forward to ensure a long-term success.

During the feasibility phase, we investigated would this concept of conveying to the College of Western Idaho be feasible.

After it was identified that that would, in fact, work or be a potential, we move forward with public announcements and an extensive outreach effort to gather additional feedback and input.

We had a question and answer surveys, we had several facilitated discussions, we had many town hall meetings.

We also had a lot of communication to city hall in emails, phone calls, etc.

And then that leads us to today's public hearing.

For your consideration this evening, it's in the individual.

This is change number one, as I mentioned.

It is just the conveyance that is being proposed this evening.

And I want to give some quick background on the financial considerations, as that's really what spurred this item to begin with was the financial impact of budget.

So some historical trends on the property from 2006 to 2024.

Over those years, there were ranges of 2.845 million to 90,000 a year of a loss on an average of 1.152.

And a total city investment over that time of 22,313,768.

I do want to note today we were given a preliminary of the FY25.

It does appear that for FY25, there's a 32,000 net profit for the property.

At the same time, I will note that in the city's budget for FY25, there was slated to be $825,000 worth of capital, and that work was not done.

So if you added that to the uh $32,000, it would take you closer to a $700,000 loss.

Here are the trends of the uh whether capital, the horse park, and operations over the last five years.

Again, you'll notice on the screen there were zero dollars expensed in 2025, although there was the budgeted of the 800,000.

So here is the the convey option.

Uh the goal of this and and the reason for it being feasible, if you will.

Uh the custodianship remains under public entity controlled by locally elected officials.

It is a tax-supported governmental entity, uh, and then why the College of Western Idaho.

Uh, three key things, proximity and location of the institution, um, as you're aware.

CWI owns the property on both adjacent sides, north and south, uh, between the Micron Center as well as their main campus.

Um we heard over and over and over uh in all of not all, but a significant amount of our public comments, the value and importance of keeping the facility accessible to offer and house the same things that are being done now.

And so again, that being a reason why uh convey is a good option.

And then finally maximizing the utilization of the facility.

Um, as you've heard, uh, and as there's been discussions of of what the potential and what CWI looks to be able to do with that property to grow the expanded access and use again, another reason why the College of Western Idaho would be identified as the recipient for the conveyed property.

With that, I'm gonna turn it over to Preston to just walk through the legality piece.

Thank you, Clay.

He'll be advancing some slides here tonight as well.

Um this may seem familiar to you, a little bit of groundhogs day.

We've gone over this uh at least once or twice, but it's important to reiterate it for tonight's discussion.

Um the case law and jurisprudence on this uh derived from the constitution and idle statute, really is a starting point.

Um state's like constitution has said the legislature shall provide the general laws for the powers, corporation and organization of the city.

So then the state legislature with that authority allowed for and passed certain laws empowering municipalities.

We can contract, be contracted with, acquire, hold lease, and convey property, real and personal.

Both of that is here tonight, both the ground, the real property, and other tangible assets, the personal piece.

There is an entire chapter dedicated to how you convey or transfer title to property which you own.

That's Title 50, chapter 14.

Next slide, please.

Thank you.

So diving into that chapter that's specifically dedicated to how cities, any city, NAMPA and otherwise, how we dispose.

First, it states that we have general broad authority.

We have a general authority to manage the real property that we deem to be in the public interest.

And it's in the judgment of the city council.

So that vests, that authority, that discretion with this body that's up here.

Specifically, what's being proposed tonight is a conveyance to another governmental entity with or without consideration.

What's before you tonight is a proposal conveyance without monetary consideration.

There's some other non-monetary consideration at play here.

So Idaho legislature has vested all cities with explicit statutory discretion to do what you're doing tonight.

Next slide, please.

So as often is the case, laws are passed by the legislature, they are carried out by governments and individuals, and then there can be disagreements or a difference of opinion, and they go to the court to be interpreted.

So Idle Supreme Court has affirmed that sweeping authority, and that is their words, not mine, not the council's, uh, but the uh governing interpretation by the state of Idaho's most supreme legal authority that cities have, quote, sweeping authority, vast discretion.

The court will not get second guess those determinations.

There are few limits, and there is broad discretion.

Next slide, thank you.

What you see here, and I'll try my best to read it, I'll crank my neck here.

Um these are just some excerpts that I think are relevant, um, pulled from uh cases that are still good law today and highlighted here in yellow.

The Supreme Court has held that a city's power to lease city property has few limits.

Uh it is purely discretionary function entrusted to the elected officials, and absent a clear abuse of that discretion.

Any decision made thereunder will not be overturned on appeal.

And the court reiterates that Idaho cities are invested with vast discretion to make decisions they consider in the best interest when leasing or conveying city property.

Next case, please.

Our next slide.

So cities are not liable under the Idaho tort claim act for their actions that they perform when they are conveying real property.

Just to reiterate it reiterate that decisions that involve consideration of the financial, political, economic, and social effects of a policy or plan will generally be planning and discretionary.

And when they are doing that, it is immune from liability under the Idaho Tort Claim Act.

Next slide, please.

So there's an extremely high bar for procedural challenges.

Think of every decision has a procedural aspect to it and a substantive aspect.

It is a very, very high bar for any procedural challenges on the city or any when they're conveying property that they own.

There needs to be a glaring informality or illegality in the proceedings.

And the court has said, look, we're not going to disturb the city's determination as they proceed through that decision.

Next slide.

So we're on this topic of what are the procedures.

We have previously declared an intent by the city council, which is required by the state law.

And include findings regarding underutilization or not used for a public purpose.

That is found in your packet.

That was a resolution we passed on November 7th.

Next, we have the public hearing.

That's where public comments are received, and that's what we're here for tonight to satisfy that requirement.

Later tonight there'll be a vote on whether to convey it as proposed.

And that is required under statute.

That ordinance which is drafted in this packet has been on display for the public review.

It requires certain pieces to it.

We state that it's in the public interest, that it is underutilized or not used for public purposes, that we satisfy the statutory procedures.

And the fourth and final step is then the conveyance of that.

Just to kind of give an idea of what the conveyance looks like.

I hold here the binder with all the materials.

That is two or plus inches thick of legal documents, all required for this transaction.

That's the final step.

And a great amount, an immense amount of work has been poured in to teeing this up for the council's decision tonight.

I alone am not to attribute that to.

There's been many who have assisted with this, and I just want to acknowledge them publicly and thank them for their immense efforts from multiple parties, uh, various legal counsels from those parties.

Next slide, please.

So if you were to answer the question, what is the authority of a city to convey property which it's owns?

Um in a few words, it's uh it's broad authority, it's it's sweeping authority.

Um a city follows all the steps in that chapter I mentioned earlier, um the conveyance will fit squarely and legally within that explicit grant of authorities, and courts are not keen or eager to second guess a city's decision.

There's a very high bar for procedural irregularities and an abuse of discretion is also a very high bar for the substance of the decision that you'll be making tonight.

And so that's a reader's digest backdrop of the governing legal principles tonight.

Thank you, Preston.

So with that, Mayor, if there's any questions before we move into public hearing, happy to know.

And the reason for that is strictly related to really doing a due diligence as we stepped into.

I don't know if Clay, you would like to speak to it or legal counsel to the title in working on the title side, why we're here tonight.

Mayor, if it's all right, I'll be happy to um to address that.

Um obviously the city wants to do right by the legal requirements, and this is a very uh large transaction, a lot of moving pieces.

Um in that review process, um, it was never a question in anybody's mind about uh title ownership, but part of that due diligence would occur after approval, typical to uh purchase and sell you'd see in the private sector, and during that due diligence period, all the title review is taken care of.

Um fortunately, um prior to the decision or concurrent with it, um title was able to flag that there was some irregularities in the ownership, and so this is a decision from 20 plus years ago for the various parcels, and so the the city quickly jumped on that to rectify and correct all those so that um the legal procedure would be tight moving forward, and so we are here um in good faith and have always acted in that good faith, but as we learn facts as they come when it comes to title, we quickly address them, and that's why we're here tonight.

It's correcting a mistake that happened over 20 years ago with the title and the recording.

So we thought it was in the best interest of the city to ensure that we do be 100% correct.

So that's why we are repeating this tonight, and that's the only reason why.

So okay.

Council, any questions before we move forward?

Yes, just one.

So for clarity, uh the title of the property, does it belong to the city of Napa?

Um, the residents of the city of Napa, and I think what I'm hearing you say is that the six of us uh make the decision on behalf of the true property owners.

Is that Mayor?

If I can answer that, we addressed the title issues that were flagged by the title company.

Um one parcel had a legal description of the irregularity, another just had an unrecorded deed from 20, both of them 20 years ago.

Those have both been rectified.

So as a matter of law and owner of record, the title companies have given us confirmation that with those changes which have been finalized, that the ownership is vested with the city.

That's correct.

City of Napa being the residence of the city of Napa?

Mayor, that's not really a legal question.

Umership is vested in the name of the city of NAMPA.

How you interpret what that means, that's well, that would be a legal question.

The legal the implication mayor.

The the title company is confirmed that owner of record is the city of NAMPA.

It is that's my question.

Is the city of NAMPA the residence of the city of NAMPA or this body on their own?

So the city of Napa is a municipal corporation.

That's what it is, the city of Napa.

Its officers are elected by residents of the city.

Which would be the six of us.

That's correct.

And the mayor.

That's correct.

Okay.

I just wanted clarity on the fact who owns the property.

It's the residents of the city of Nampo.

We act in their behalf.

It is owned by the municipal corporation.

And I'm not trying to dodge a question or be difficult, but that is the owner of record.

No different than a trust.

It's an entity, an independent entity.

Thank you.

I think you answered my question.

Thank you.

Okay.

Let's go ahead and step into public hearing.

So as we get started tonight, as I mentioned, we've got approximately 33 people that are signed up.

What we do is when you come forward, I'd like you to let's just give three names at a time.

I'd like you standing one behind the other so that we can move quickly through.

You do have three minutes.

We are not gonna allow anyone to go over three minutes.

So I believe our our timers working, so we're gonna stop right at three minutes.

Um please state your name and your address.

Um then I'm just trying to think if there's anything else I need to share for tonight.

Oh, thank you.

No cheering, no booing.

It is a public hearing.

We are respectful, and I I do expect everyone to be respectful.

So you know what?

I'm so proud of our community because usually we do a great job of that.

And so thank you for being respectful tonight, and uh we look forward to hearing your testimony and what else.

And right, we do not we are not deferring time to someone else.

So everyone has three minutes to speak.

Um so we're gonna start.

So our first three speakers.

Madam Mayor, our first three speakers are Nicole Bradshaw, Ashley Smith, and Mike Pena.

Thank you.

And even though we've stated your names, thank you for restating in your addresses.

Good evening, thank you.

Good evening, Nicole Bradshaw, 1916 Fillmore Street in Caldwell, Idaho.

Mayor Kling, City Council members, and community members of the all that are here.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Um, and I will keep it very brief.

Um I serve and have the privilege of serving on the Board of Trustees for the College of Western Idaho, and I'm here tonight representing as the vice chair, as our chair is at the Festival of Trees tonight.

So representing the community.

I want to begin by expressing my appreciation for the City of NAMPA's thoughtful leadership and for the vision behind considering a partnership with CWI.

The Ford Idaho Center is a cherished community asset, and the belief that CWI could play a role in its future is truly meaningful to us.

At the same time, I want to share that the CWI board has not yet received the full set of materials necessary to begin our formal review of the proposed transfer.

As trustees, we take seriously our responsibility to ensure that any decision we make supports our mission, serves our students, and respects the trust of taxpayers and employees.

That means taking the time to understand the academic, financial, operational, and long-term implications of such a significant opportunity.

And we are open to that review if the council so chooses to transfer.

I want to thank you for including CWI in this opportunity.

Important community conversation, and for your continued service to the people of NAMPA.

I'm open for questions.

Are there any questions?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Ashley Smith, and on deck is Mike Pena and Andrew Luther.

Good evening, Mayor Kling, members of the City Council.

I'm Ashley Smith, executive director of government community relations for the College of Western Idaho, which is located at 5500 East Opportunity Drive here in beautiful Nampa, Idaho.

I'm honored tonight to share a few remarks on behalf of CWI President Gordon Jones, who could not be here due to a pre-existing family commitment out of state.

I'm sorry, can you give us your address?

Uh you bet it's 5500 East Opportunity Drive.

That's where you live.

That's the CWI.

Where do you live?

Yeah, so I'm I don't know that you have to do that because he's representing CWI tonight.

Yes.

And so and he's reading, yeah.

That's okay.

I think that's a good question.

Yeah, I'm gonna stick with the 5500 opportunity drive home of CWI.

Thank you very much.

I'm honored to share a few remarks as I mentioned.

So he wrote this is President Joan Jones.

CWI is deeply rooted in this community.

Each year we serve more than 34,000 individuals across Southwest Idaho, including more than 6,300 residents of NAMPA alone.

These are students, working families, high school graduates, and career changers, all seeking opportunity closer to home.

As we look ahead, we know the Treasure Valley is growing rapidly, and we are actively preparing for a future where 40,000 40,000 to 50,000 students may need the training, education, and support that CWI provides.

CWI is now Idaho's largest community college and one of the state's two largest higher education institutions.

Yet we operate on one of the smallest physical footprints.

Our main campus here in Nampa represents only about 100 acres, far smaller than Boise State at roughly 300 acres, the College of Southern Idaho at 315, Idaho State University at 420, and the University of Idaho at 815 acres.

As the region's population continues to expand, we must plan responsibly for how to grow alongside it.

That's why the Ford Idaho property represents such an extraordinary opportunity.

We see the site as a way to activate space that serves both the community and academic needs.

We are fully committed to preserving the beloved traditions that make this property special, from hosting the Snake River Stampede to supporting horse events and other civic gatherings.

At the same time, we envision creating an environment that expands learning, workforce training, and access for local residents.

Most importantly, this proposal is not an acquisition in a traditional sense.

It is a partnership.

One public entity, the City of Nampa, working with another public entity, CWI, to ensure the Ford Idaho Center continues to drive and evolve for the benefit of the entire community.

We appreciate the thoughtful consideration of the City Council and the trust NAMPA has placed in CWI.

We are ready to steward this property into the future, ensuring it remains a vibrant community-centered space that reflects the values, history, and promise of NAMPA and Southwest Idaho.

Thank you for your time and your continued partnership.

Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Mike Pena, and on deck is Andrew Luther and Victor Miller.

Good evening, Madam Mayor.

City Council members.

Mike Pena, 2659 West Primeland Drive, Meridian, Idaho.

I'm here in the capacity of the president of the CWI Foundation Board, which has full support of this conveyance if the council so chooses.

Also in your packet should be a letter from Alison Patt, who is the current vice president, will be taking over president in August.

And she's out of town on business.

And Ryan Martin, who is the incoming Vice President August and a resident of Napa, he has also sent a letter in the council in in favor of support.

We have had preliminary meetings regarding the potential conveyance of this property with the Foundation Board, the advancement department, and senior staff.

We believe CWI will be very good stewards of the property and add value to the community under CWI management.

It also provides opportunity for classes and training and potential sports, which add value to our community, which wouldn't could potentially include rodeo and some other sports.

At this time, we do not have any plans on raising any tuition or changing any of the current uses that are currently happening at the Idaho Center.

We are right now we've gone from 31,000 to 34,000 students in the last year, and we are one of the fastest growing colleges in the United States, and are now one of the top 100 colleges in the United States.

Additionally, CWI is the only college or university in Idaho without an auditorium or entertainment venue, other than the College of Eastern Idaho that is only three years old.

And a little little bit of background, our our current uh foundation advancement campaign is called Powering the Treasure Valley.

We gave ourselves a goal of raising 30 million dollars.

We gave ourselves a goal of raising 30 million dollars over four years, and I'm happy to say that in just two and a half years, we've already raised 18 million dollars and just recently signed uh memorandum of understanding for another six million dollars, which we will probably be announcing in January.

And just also a little clarification of what the foundation board is.

So we're not employees of CWI, we're all volunteers in our community that are focused on the mission of CWI, and we raise funds for buildings and for scholarships.

And uh I'm proud of our foundation members that give their time, their treasure and their skill sets to making CWI and our community a better place.

Thank you for your consideration.

If you have any questions, Madam Mayor.

Thank you.

Council, do you have any questions?

Thank you very much.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Andrew Luther, and on deck is Victor Miller and Paul Haben.

Good evening, Andrew Luther, uh representing Oakview Group at 16200 Idaho Center Boulevard.

Um, first of all, just thank you all for the time spent on this topic.

It's been very, very difficult for you all, and I definitely recognize the facts that it's been a significant effort and to to much much work.

So it's it is appreciated.

Um as you know, Oakview Group has operated the facility for a decade now, successfully reducing the operating costs and raising revenue streams to record heights.

In partnership with the city, we have been able to accomplish the goal of having a large fund balance, strong promoter relationships, and the reputation of being the premier venue in the state.

Like we view the city, we also believe that CWI would be a strong partner if the conveyance occurs.

We are comfortable with their vision, leadership, and track record.

Venue and secondary education relationships are common in our industry.

Some notable OVG accounts alone are Central Florida, Rhode Island, St.

Louis University, Maryland, Creighton, Florida State, University of Tennessee, University of Texas, just to name a few.

The venue has grown over the years, and with it come new opportunities and new challenges.

Competition is coming into this valley.

We need to be ahead of it now.

When a new venue opens or renovates, that will be very concerning to the future for further successful operation.

This is going to occur, and we need to be leading, not following.

If competition beats us to the punch, not only will the deferred maintenance costs remain, but we will most certainly lose high impact revenue producing events.

Second, we want to see further growth of the property and utilizing it to its full potential.

The lineup of events is incredible, but the opportunity to be tied into a student base for education and employment is enticing.

Further, the development of the property as an entertainment hub with restaurants and other activities will be highly beneficial to the venue.

This has been discussed for many years, and I hope to see that come to the fruition in the future.

To conclude, OVG will continue its efforts to produce positive results and position the venue for success within the marketplace for whoever ownership lies with.

Thank you, and uh thank you again for your dedication to the process.

Thank you, Andrew.

Council, do you have questions?

Yes, Councilman Haverfeld, just one.

Uh Andrew, can you speak to the uh uh Jacobs report as far as the building assessment?

Um looking at each of the buildings that are described in there, it has from zero to one hundred um the assessment score, zero being good, a hundred being not good at all.

Um in looking at the so that is correct, that assessment.

The way that it's put in here, do you agree with the building assessments that are described?

Because like the Idaho Center is indicated is uh 2.21, which is good.

Uh the amphitheater again is is less than two, uh, so it's good as well.

So the facilities as they stand today, uh, according to this report would indicate that they're all in in good shape.

Is that your assessment as well, being the manager out there?

Generally speaking, I would tend to agree with the Jacobs report and its assessments.

However, if you wanted to dive in further to every line item, I think you could argue that some projects may need further attention and some possibly don't need as much attention.

Just depends on priority.

Okay.

Just uh looking for bread clum crumbs for the people that follow.

Sure.

Andrew, do you mind repeating the number of different venues that Oakview Group manages on university or college campuses?

I pulled a list of seven or eight names, but there's certainly more.

I didn't pull the overall number, but I imagine it's probably close to 20.

Okay.

But that is something you're very experienced in doing.

Yes, Mayor.

Great.

Thank you.

Council, any other questions for Andrew?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Victor Miller, and on deck is Paul Haven and Jill Hallows.

My name is Victor Miller and I'm at 7009 North Sperring Rim Place and Meridian.

With more time and information, it is clear that the Ford Idaho Center is not underutilized, and the market has made that very clear.

One, FIC holds an estimated 150 events annually.

Two, FIC has attracted investment.

In 2024, Oakview Group was willing to invest $8 million and FIC's amphitheater and raise a dollar per ticket for FIC maintenance.

This proposal was never made public.

FIC has attracted long-term commitments.

OVG took over the food and beverage contract in November 2022 and has it until September 2027.

On January 1st, 2024, Mountain State's Ford dealers entered into a five-year FIC main naming rights agreement.

Why would you do this if it wasn't viable?

FIC has made money and has money and made money.

In letters, LVG sent to Mayor Kling during 23-24, FIC achieved record results, beating operating budgets by 3.6 million and posting profit margins of 2.6 million.

City records show FIC's projected fund balance at 4.88 million.

FIC's horse park is thriving.

A 2023 letter from OVG stated the horse park hosted a record amount of events and will be an asset for decades to come.

In 2023-24, FIC's facilities were improved.

66 new RV spaces, 60 horse stalls were added, and every seat in the amphitheater arena were replaced.

In a recent article, CWI's president Gordon Jones says he's not convinced FIC is a perennial money pit that FIC's balance sheet has improved, and CWI would net hundreds of thousands by renegotiating with OVG.

Why can't the city do that?

President Jones is right.

One main reason this council deems FIC underutilized is due to the city's inability to meet immediate and short-term capital expenditures and deferred maintenance needs.

CWI hired Jacobs to investigate this, included that immediate needs for the sports arena and amphitheater approximate 1.1 million, and that for years 26 through 29, it totals a mere 40,000 dollars.

FIC has plenty of money on hand to handle this.

The market has spoken.

NCC should not deem FI FIC, the Fort Ida Center underutilized to expedite a conveyance.

Napa citizens have invested 36 million.

FIC's replacement value is 146 million.

CWI would pay nothing and ultimately has the right under the latest convenience agreement to abandon FIC.

Lastly, in terms of inner public use, God and country, 10,000 people a year, free.

The Chosen, which is the TV show, 35,000 people over the last two years, free.

It has a public purpose.

Thank you.

And I'll stand for questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Paul Haven, and on deck is Jill Hallows and David LaRoy.

My name is Paul Haben, and I live at 2325 River Oaks Drive, Napa, Idaho.

Good morning, Mayor.

Or good evening, Mayor and uh City Council members.

Uh I'm here to speak in support of the Ford Idaho Center conveyance to the College of Western Idaho.

Also, I'm here for the voices of the 20 or so signatures on a petition that the River Oaks community turned in and should be in your Europe uh packet uh in support of that conveyance.

I've been a uh uh Nampa for over 50 years.

I was at the 1997 first rodeo at the Snake River Stampede.

Uh I've been to concerts, I've been to the rodeos, I've been to the truck monster show, football games, basketball games, concerts.

And so the question here is who who best can continue to make the Idaho Center work the best.

Is it Napa City?

Or is it the College of Western Idaho?

I I think that uh the College of Western Idaho has a lot more uh ideas and ways to improve the the uh Fort Idaho Center than than the Napa City does.

I think the Napa City has done a good job of where they've gone, but to for it to take the next step.

I think you need the College of Western Idaho.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council.

Do you have any questions?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Jill Hallows, and on DAC is David LaRoy and Margie Potter.

Jill Hallows.

603 West Crimson Louvre, NAMPA.

Um I've always been extremely impressed that the City Council meetings begin with prayer.

Prayer sets the proper tone by asking for guidance, wisdom, and harmony, and doing the right thing.

I do believe each one of you are very good people.

That you follow Christian values and that you really do want to do the right thing.

But in contrast to those prayers being said during the past few months, I've witnessed a growing undercurrent of discord and contention.

If I look back on when the discord began, it was about the time the Ford Idaho Center Conveyance was first addressed.

I attended the July 15th public forum and many others.

And to me, the way that was topic was introduced, it felt wrong.

I even talked to Mayor Kling during the break to tell her it didn't feel right.

That people who should have been involved in developing such a plan had been left out, or it appeared so.

If it had been introduced as an idea to be pondered and explored first rather than a plan with contract already laid out, it would have probably felt okay.

In my lifetime, I have learned that an idea or plan that causes contention rather than resolution usually isn't a good one.

That it should go back to the drawing board.

Why force this issue?

I think it needs to be reworked before taking a final vote.

Taxpayers stand to pay higher taxes, whether the Ford Idaho Center is kept or not.

And either way, they will see no return on their investment.

Citizens should be able to vote.

But if that can't happen, I would recommend that at least an unbiased survey be conducted.

Stakeholders in the Ford Idaho Center, like the Snake River Stampede in Idaho Horse Park, need a tighter contract that will better protect their interest in their use of the facility.

OVG made an offer to invest in the Ford Idaho Center, and they've made recent progress putting it in the black.

There's a possibility of auditorium district funds helping.

The deferred maintenance doesn't need to be done at all at once, so there is hope, and any hope of a paying venture should be thoroughly explored to protect the taxpayers.

I agree with things that Victor Miller said that haven't been finally finalized to the point of conveying yet.

Please table this decision until these issues are addressed.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is David LeRoy, and on deck is Margie Potter and Glynnis Calhoun.

Dave Leeroy, Attorney at Law, Boise Idaho PO Box 1930 for my client uh Hubert Osborne of uh 4199 East.

Switzer away.

Madam Mayor, members of the council.

This December 1st vote tonight, in my opinion, is a is a very different decision from the ones that you made in June, July, August, September, October.

And I would suggest that there would be no embarrassment tonight for those of you who have been enthusiastic and voted yes to change to a go slow no tonight.

You can still preserve the work you've done.

You can still move the same options forward, you can expand the opportunities.

Your city attorney, a most competent fellows given your good counsel about the issues, the statutes.

And of course, some parts of your ordinance remain debatable in terms of uh underutilized core public purpose best interest of the city.

But why is this decision different tonight?

It's different because you meet in December of 2025, a month after an election and a month before the Idaho legislature will meet.

I'd make three points on a suggestion tonight.

Number one, with all due respect, lame duck decisions uh are not always the best public policy.

And they're not fully respectful of uh the future composition of this board and decisions recently made by your electorate.

I ask that you continue to consult uh with the new incoming members.

Secondly, uh, if this is a fiscal stress issue, uh then indeed uh legislative feedback should be absolutely received before you empower and require a city entity uh to or can a state entity uh to accept this responsibility.

And third, if this is a core function issue, uh I urge that you consider transferring it not to a college uh but to the auditorium district uh which is forming.

For those three reasons, uh lame duct decision should be avoided.

Uh legislative feedback ought to be essential before sending this to a state entity and the core function should consider the auditorium district.

I ask you to vote uh and change those yes votes to a go slow no.

But let me make this suggestion.

I appreciated uh the photo that you opposed for, and if this group needs to leave a legacy, uh then I ask that you vote only yes on this particular action item, and that you do not vote yes uh on the other action items that would lock in the mayor to authorizing those signatures.

Delay that at least so that the incoming administration can execute on if absolutely necessary.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you very much.

Uh Council, do you have any questions?

Thank you, David.

Appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Margie Potter, and on DAC as Glenis Calhoun and Patty Evans.

Hello, Mayor and Council, Margie Potter, 1811, North Cobble Way, and a 35-year resident from NAPA.

Uh I want to speak in favor of the conveyance of the Fort Idaho Center to CWI this evening.

Back in July when this news was announced, I was uh taken aback, as everyone else was.

I had questions, and since that time I have attended forums, city council meetings, town halls, read opinions in our local paper, read uh many social media posts, and talked to people in person on their thoughts.

Although I think the starting point of all of this could have been done a little different.

That point is moved.

It is what it is, and we need to move forward.

This was all new to everyone, and we need to extend grace for any hiccups that happened in the beginning.

Uh I'm a solution-based person, and looking at all of this, the information presented, I think the conveyance of the Fort Idaho Center to CWI is a thing to do.

I think that CWI will allow us to keep all of our local events, grow.

Uh the expansion and use of the rep venue and fundraise for repairs is needed.

If we sold the venue, we would not get nearly what it is worth because of the stipulations that would be placed on the uh sale.

I believe the city has done their due diligence to look at all of their options.

And uh boy, I have to read my own writing here.

I'm opposed for this going to a vote as our voter turnout is low, and I don't think all of the people would have their say, and it's not even clear what we would put on the ballot.

Uh I have been very saddened by the vitriol and loud behavior of the few on social media and the emails that all of you have received.

Um I, for one, appreciate all the time and attention that you give to this city in your positions.

It's hard work and have uh, and none of you have deserved the treatment that you have received.

Uh thank you for taking your time away from your families and for uh to serve and get so little in return for what you do.

Thank you so much.

Uh also thanks, Preston, for everything.

You don't get any credit for anything either.

So I want to give you a little thanks there.

Um my two cents.

I get look, I have so much time left, and I'm such a big talker.

Um to CWI, build an ice rink.

Mayor already knows.

It is a moneymaker, I'm telling you, if you built uh um a professional ice rank.

We have no space left at Idaho Ice World, and it costs our kids even here in the uh like Ridgeview, uh all the teams have combined together, and they have to go at like so early in the like five o'clock in the morning or 10 o'clock at night time.

So please.

Thank you very much.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Glennis Calhoun, and on deck is Patty Evans and Noreen Nunes.

My name's Glenis Calhoun and 2117 East Lewis Lane in Nampa.

Um, good evening.

I've been an educator in Idaho for over 20 years.

In that time, I have had the privilege of working with thousands of students.

Bright, capable young people who dream big but often face barriers to achieving those dreams.

One of the greatest challenges I see is access to affordable, high-quality education after high school.

For many of our graduates, attending a four-year university is simply not financially possible.

That's where College of Western Idaho has been a lifeline.

Offering career training, transfer degrees, and skill development at a cost that keeps opportunity within reach.

Tonight I'm here to voice my strong support of the conveyance of Ford Idaho Center and Horse Park to CWI.

This is not just a transfer of property, it is an investment in the future of our students, our workforce, and our community.

The Ford Idaho Center is already a cornerstone of NAMPA.

It draws visitors, hosts events, and showcases our city's spirit.

But in the hands of CWI, it could also become a hub for education, workforce training, and community engagement while still maintaining its role as a venue for the events we all value.

I also want to speak specifically about the horse park.

For years it has been a gathering place for equestrian enthusiasts from across Idaho and beyond.

It has given our youth, especially those passionate about rodeo, 4-H, FFA, and other equestrian sports, a place to learn discipline, responsibility, and sportsmanship.

These young people gain more than riding skills.

They gain confidence, leadership, and a sense of belonging.

The Horse Park has also brought tourism, supported local businesses, and preserved a piece of Idaho's agricultural heritage that is worth protecting.

By aligning the facility with CWI's mission, we can expand affordable education opportunities for students who might otherwise be left behind.

Strengthen career and technical programs that meet the needs of local employers.

Preserve and enhance a community asset, including the horse park that has cultural, economic, and historical significance.

I've seen firsthand how education changes lives, not just for individual students, but for entire families.

When we give our young people the tools to succeed here at home, we keep talent in our community.

We grow our local economy, we build a stronger NAMPA for generations to come.

I urge you to see this decision not as giving something away, but planting seeds, seeds that will grow into opportunity, stability, and pride for our city.

Thank you for your time, for your service and your commitment to the people of Nampa.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for Glennis?

You you were like 14 seconds.

That was perfect.

You must have timed that well.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Patty Evans, and on deck is Noreen Nunes and Chris Stroxel.

My name is Patty Evans.

I live at 3616 East Rolling Green Place, Nampa, Idaho.

I want to talk a little bit about fiscal responsibility and stewardship with our taxpayers' dollars.

It was in 2017 that the Nampa City budget was 171 million dollars.

The 2026 budget is at 310 million dollars.

That's a hundred and thirty nine million dollars more than it was.

And in 139 million dollars more, nowhere was there ever enough money for a $600,000 boiler.

So 44% budget increase.

So I just question why.

I mean, I love the roundabouts.

I think they're great, but when I'm driving around the roundabouts, I'm looking at how to get in and how to get out, driving safely.

I grew up in a German town.

I know how to drive them.

You gotta pay attention, especially people who don't know it.

I'm not looking at the 40,000 piece of artwork that's sitting up on top of it.

And I think there's like eight or ten of those statues that are out there.

It was not a good decision with our money, with our taxpayer money.

I've had the opportunity to look at Oakview Group's $8 million paperwork that they wanted to submit to invest into the amphitheater.

Really nice.

It would bring it up to modern standards, state of the art, fixed seating, just absolutely beautiful.

And from a stage perspective, the backstage part that I can see with the load-ins was fantastic.

I would love to be a stage manager back there, which I have done without that kind of facility.

So I don't understand why we passed up an $8 million in your pocket offer from Oakview Group.

The renderings that they submitted were fantastic.

I loved it.

These facilities don't exist if they don't make money.

Jerry Jones wouldn't be investing money in it if they didn't make money.

Oakview wants to stay in so much they wanted to give that money.

CWI certainly wants it, but no one has ever said what we were going to do with the money if we dump the Ford Idaho Center.

I mean, there is that land up along the river with a park, hiking, biking trails, and with 61% public lands, Idaho doesn't need any more recreational areas.

And I'm certainly not going to load my bike in the car and drive 10 miles from my house to ride along the Boise River.

We don't need that land.

Thankfully, at the uh the meeting for the county, NAMPA wasn't given the opportunity to make that part of their area of impact.

So I don't understand why we need to get rid of the Ford Idaho Center.

I think we need to stay the course.

We need to give it a year and get organized.

Thank you, Council.

Do you have any questions?

And Mayor Clean, I keep forgetting to let you know.

The next speaker.

I need to let you know something.

I keep forgetting.

I forgot last time I spoke.

But my grandfather and my great grandfather are from American Hall of American Falls.

So my Idaho roots are over 100 years deep.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Madam Maker, Madam Mayor.

Our next speaker is Noreen Nunes, and on deck is Chris Troxel and Stuart Heinman.

My name is Noreen Nunes, and all of my questions have been answered.

So somebody gets extra minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Chris Troxel?

Our next speaker is Chris Buffalo.

And on death.

Oh my gosh.

It's sorry.

Thank you.

So the next speaker is Chris Stroxel.

And on deck is Stuart Heideman and Sherry Boardman.

Good evening, City Council.

My name is Chris Troxel.

My address is 6101 Airport Road here in Nampa.

I'm a third generation NAPA.

I've introduced myself in the past and mentioned that I am involved in a number of organizations related to the horse park, so I won't touch to that again.

And generally opposed.

As you all know, the Idaho Center is a great source of pride for the for NAMPA and its integrated to this enormous horse industry that's part of the Intermountain West.

But as the summer wore on, and more information was provided by the city and other uh NCWI, along with the vote by the council to not pass a levy to fund the needed deferred maintenance.

My opinion began to change.

Now, it would be my preference for the city to for the center to remain with the city.

We love it, we take great pride in it.

But given the lack of a credible and reasonable plan for funding this deep needed maintenance, I have I became willing to at least consider the options that were being provided by CWI.

Now there's no doubt that a transfer of the property to CDO makes many of us nervous.

The college, but the college has been willing to negotiate with stakeholders, and that has provided they've provided a guarantee of long term uses, particularly for the horse park portion of the facility.

Frankly, this is something that we do not have now with the city.

So this would be something new.

We would actually have some long-term stability and the ability to look far into the future for uses of the facility.

And of course, it'd have to go to the highest bidder.

So in light of the city's lack of of a clear and credible commitment for long-term financial funding, I have concluded after much investigation that the conveyance of the Ford Idaho Center to CWI is the most uh responsible and forward looking solution, and I urge you to consider that tonight.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Thank you very much.

Council, do you have any questions?

Thank you so much.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Stuart Heineman, and on deck is Sherry Boardman and Robin Knight.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council members.

My name is Stuart Heinmann, 621 North Midland Boulevard.

I've lived and worked in Nampa for more than 40 years, and I'm here opposing transfer or conveyance of the Idaho Center to the College of Western Idaho.

The Idaho Center cost taxpayers here in NAPA over 30 million dollars.

And the citizens of NAMPA under this agreement are getting nothing in return.

This facility was built, maintained, and paid for by NAMPA residents.

So what do the taxpayers get out of the transfer?

Nothing.

Giving it away without compensation is not responsible stewardship, and NAMPA will still be stuck with covering the police and fire support for the facility.

Transferring ownership also means losing local control.

Once the Idaho Center falls under the CWI board, NAPA citizens will lose their voice, decisions about operations, access and priorities will be made by a board not accountable to NAMPA voters.

Only one member of the trustees is from Canyon County.

One.

Everybody else is from ADA County.

NAMPA has consistently said no to CWI funding.

When CWI was formed, NAMPA and Canyon County voters rejected the CWI and said no, we got stuck with it because of ADA County.

In 2016, when they wanted a quarter of a billion dollars under a bond, our community repeatedly signaled that we did not want CWI.

Why is it that CWI is our our chosen uh recipient of this conveyance for the children?

I'm sorry, CWI does serve a function, but does it serve a function as an entertainment venue or as a horse park?

All I heard tonight was, oh, we're gonna have a rodeo team and some other teams.

Sounds like they're looking for a reason to be a university rather than a community college.

I urge the council to protect this community's resources, halt this transfer and ensure transparency and accountability to the people of NAMPA.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Are there any questions?

Madam Mayor, I have a question.

Stuart, are you representing your business at 621 Midland?

Yes.

Okay.

I'm in the impact area out here north of Napa also.

Well, what is your business?

Uh Heineman Insurance.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I do want to make a comment, and you don't have to come back.

Um I sat on a meeting earlier today, and it was really interesting because in that meeting, what I heard was that it was Canyon County, not Ada County, that voted to support CWI coming in.

It was actually what I was heard on this meeting today.

And so I think we need to research that because my there's no further comment.

I'm just saying there's it.

No further nobody's talking to us.

Thank you.

It's it's not.

It was in a meeting, public meeting, and I'll go back and we'll do the research.

But the public meeting stated that actually it was on the College of Western Idaho that it was Canyon County that carried that.

So I think we would need to fact check that.

I would just suggest that we do that.

So anyway, thank you.

Thank you.

Hi.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Sherry Boardman, and on deck is Robin Knight and Debbie Bartlow.

Sherry Boardman 999 Cow Horse Drive, Cuna, Idaho.

Uh, Madam Mayor and City Council.

As many of you know, I'm the president of the Idaho Horse Park Foundation.

I've served on that board since 2002, and in that time I've had the privilege of witnessing the original vision of the Idaho Horse Park, its construction, and the realization of first-class equestrian facility that brings tremendous value to our community.

We are proud of what the horse park has become and of the significant tourism dollars and economic economic activity it generates for NAMPA.

The decision before you tonight regarding the future of the Ford Idaho Center, of which the horse park is a key part, has been understandably polarizing.

Many of us who care deeply about this facility, including close friends of mine, do not agree on what the best path forward looks like.

And that division has been felt within our own foundation as well.

Because of this, we committed to do a careful fact-finding process.

In the beginning, our board was also split, but after extensive discussion and multiple meetings with the city, CWI, and representatives of the horse industry, we came to a unified conclusion.

At this time, CWI offers a promising and responsible future for the Ford Idaho Center Complex.

CWI has assured us contractually that horse park operations and shows will continue uninterrupted for at least 10 years with an option to renew.

This commitment demonstrates that they understand the role of the horse park, that it plays in the health of our business community, in local tourism revenue, and in supporting the auditorium district.

These factors keep NAMPA strong, and we all benefit from that strength.

To remain competitive, the Ford Idaho Center and the Horse Park must not only maintain current facilities, but also improve and grow.

With recent legislative changes, funding these needs has become an overwhelming burden for the city.

At this time, we have not seen an alternative plan outside of CWI that addresses these significant needs in a realistic or sustainable way.

When a community is divided, we look to those elected by the majority to lead with vision and with the best interests of our community at heart.

We don't all have to agree, that's the beauty of democracy.

But we do have to trust the process and support the hard decisions you are tasked with making.

The foundation has greatly appreciated working with our current mayor, whom we will genuinely miss, and with the council members who have consistently recognized the importance of the horse park.

Your leadership, support, and investment in upgrades has protected this valuable community asset, and for that, we're sincerely grateful.

We respect each member of this governing body and trust that you will make the decision you believe is best for the future of the facility and for NAMPA.

Whatever the outcome, we hope you we can all move forward positively and collaboratively.

To the incoming mayor and council, we welcome an opportunity to continue a strong relationship.

And to you, Madam Mayor, we wish you well.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for Sherry?

Thank you, Sherry, for your leadership.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Robin Knight, and on deck is Debbie Bartlow and David Taney.

Robin Knight, 2945, South White Point Lane and Meridian, but I work in NAMPA.

My name is Dr.

Robin Knight.

I'm one of the veterinarians at Idaho Equine Hospital.

I want to clarify that Idaho Equine Hospital has no direct stake in the conveyance of the horse park, but I'm here simply because I care deeply about the future of Idaho's equine industry and the education of students who will shape it.

Conveying the horse park to the College of Western Idaho presents meaningful opportunity for our entire horse community.

CWI is committed to expanding its agricultural and equine programs.

And access to the horse park would allow students to gain the kinds of hands-on experience essential for this kind of for success in this field.

CWI has shown that they're willing to continue to hosting and attracting top-tier horse events at the horse park, even providing contractual agreement with the horse park foundation as such.

This is an essential step in maintaining the strength of the equine industry in Idaho.

These events often represent the pinnacle of many of the equine disciplines competitive events.

Having such events in Idaho ensures that top trainers are attracted to and remain in our local area.

These trainers ensure that horse owners and amateur riders get excellent training locally.

The horses stay in local facilities and get their hay, TAC, trucks, and trailers locally.

Losing these events would have a profound effect on the horse industry and local economy.

We are grateful for CAWI's interest in preserving this facility and working with management company, the management company to ensure the future of these events.

Well, Idaho Equine Hospital is not involved inland decisions.

We would welcome future collaboration with CWI to help prepare more students for careers in equine professions.

Our industry is growing and we need well-trained ferriers, technicians, and rehab specialists.

This partnership could help meet that need.

The horsepark under CWI stewardship would also support broader growth, expanded rehabilitation services, advanced equine science coursework, and other degree pathways.

It would become a central hub where education, veterinary medicine, and industry expertise could come together.

Conveying the horse park to CWI is more than a land transfer.

It's an investment in the next generation and in long-term in the long-term strength of Idaho's horse industry.

We feel like there are endless um opportunities that will end up being a win-win situation for the local horse industry as well as the college.

Thank you.

And I do want to say, Mary Kling always have loved working with you, and thank you for your service, as to all of the council members as well.

Thank you very much.

Council, do you have any questions?

Thank you so much.

Appreciate you being here.

Madame Mayor, our next speaker is Debbie Bartlow, and on deck is David Taney and Maggie Gough.

Hello, Debbie Barlow.

3514018 away, NAMP, Idaho.

It is in your power to provide a way for us to come together on this instead of just one way and only one way.

So that we could keep it.

I think our best interest would be if we could keep it.

We are only having to get rid of it because of some other things that are seemingly too big a challenge, and yet there are people who have explained there are ways to overcome those challenges.

So there's my question is, well, one, I think CWI could rent spaces and use all those great plans they have while we still keep the facility.

I don't think it has to happen this way.

And the power you have is that you can slow it down a little bit.

You could your people aren't just oppositional to be oppositional.

We believe deeply in our hearts that this is a wrong move.

And in all these meetings, I've not heard you discuss or research any of the ideas presented to you.

It's like we just chatter and then go sit down, and what we've said has no merit.

And I don't believe that you're bad people.

But I don't understand, and many people don't understand why it's being forced this way.

If it's such a good idea, there should be ways that you could bring it together.

The people who are opposed to it are not bad people.

Well, I don't know, there's always some bad people in every group.

But I mean we want to work together on this, and we're not convinced yet.

You have not convinced us.

You've told us why you want to do it, but you have not convinced us that there's not an option to keep it, and not even evaluating what other people have brought up as options.

So one, can you answer in some kind of discussion?

Why is it have to be moved this fast?

And what else can you do to research with these people is in the notes or records?

What things you could research and find out if we could keep it, because that would be the best alternative if we could keep it.

NAMPA, who built it and put their blood, sweat and tears in it and support it.

Madam Mayor time.

Anyway, please help us.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Okay, thank you very much.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is David Taney.

And on deck is Maggie Goff and Mitch Manetti.

Thank you, uh Madam Mayor, members of the City Council.

My name is David Taney.

I live at 12232 South Hunter's Point Drive here in Nampa.

And uh I thought the last speaker made a pretty good point.

I don't understand the hurry, what the rush is.

Why this needs to be decided tonight is beyond me.

I don't think you have all the information or have looked at all the possibilities that needed to be looked at to uh make this transaction.

For example, uh the ostensible reason that you got into this are motivated to take a look at this is because the operating losses of the facility and the deferred maintenance costs of bringing it into line.

I don't think any of those problems are unsolvable.

Uh the uh deferred maintenance estimates that were put together for you that estimated something like 25 million dollars worth of work.

Those numbers haven't been challenged.

Uh those numbers are probably overstated, possibly by as much as 50 or 60 percent.

The operating costs, even the uh manager that you had here from OVG tonight uh talked about the thing operating in the black.

Um I noticed that uh one other speaker tonight mentioned it that you got a proposal in 24 uh from OVG to invest $8 million essentially interest free uh in the uh auditorium.

Uh and uh they were willing to accept the uh loss, operational losses in that uh in that agreement uh if they were allowed to uh share any upside costs of the profitability of the facility.

I wonder has an arrangement like that been explored with OVG.

That would certainly seem to solve the uh operating cost risk that uh caused some of this discussion to take place.

Um I think that a it would be irresponsible, frankly, to make a decision on this tonight.

You're so close to seeing the new council.

There's so many issues out there uh that could be uh looked at from a uh business point of view, they really should be investigated before you decide to give this thing away to an organization that's sitting on something like 80 million dollars in current assets, and if they really wanted to be out here, it could either rent space or purchase a partnership interest in the facility.

So I hope you'll defer this to the next group uh coming into office and uh allow them to put some fresh ice on it.

Thank you.

So the next person on deck is Madam Mayor.

Our next speaker is Maggie Goff, and on deck is Mitch Manetti and Randy Riken.

Can you repeat the last the name that's on deck now?

The next speaker is Maggie Goff.

Maggie Goff, thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Maggie.

My name is Maggie Goff, and I live at 2554 East Cinnamon Lane, Nampa, Idaho, 83687.

And I like a lot of other citizens this evening.

I'm against convening the Ford Idaho Center.

It is my personal opinion the Fort Idaho Center should be sold to a private business with contract stipulations, which sounds as though it shouldn't be a burden since there is a public support which will equal dollars for them.

Um I think not only the city should be off the hook, I believe the taxpayer should be off the hook.

If CWI needs a large venue, they can rent from the new owners.

The great ideas that CW High uh has can be passed on to the new owners.

And lastly, I pray Oak View Group will not be retained since they are out of Colorado, currently have DEI language on their website.

And the worst part is they continually infringe on my second amendment rights.

Thank you.

So uh before we go on, could we pause for just a second and uh let's go through the list of those just so everyone knows that are waiting that they're signed up?

So just real quickly go through the list.

Absolutely.

And I hope I don't kill your names.

Um we have Mitch Manetti, Randy Riken, Tammy Connebert, Jay Snyder, Cheryl Higley, Linda Steele, Hubert Osborne, Doris Phillips, Kenny Roten, David Allison, Ivan Castillo, Estella Rosellis, Mark Mitchell, Curtis Homer, Brian Crookham, Steve Tester, and Nick Miller.

Okay.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Friends.

Mitch Manetti, um, home address 16740 in North Gentry, uh, about 0.5 miles from the Fort Idaho Center being talked about tonight.

So uh my day job is at the Nampa Chamber of Commerce.

More importantly, my night job is proud father of two daughters.

Um, so we frequent the Fort Idaho Center a lot for concerts and uh rodeo, et cetera.

So um I don't have a lot tonight.

I you're gonna hear lots before me and after me.

I about a month and a half ago stood up here before you and told you the NAMPA chamber board has vetted this and it was in support of the convenience for many reasons stated tonight.

Um nothing has changed.

I know that it's an emotional decision, a hard decision for many, so I don't envy your decision tonight, but I do encourage you that more on this one more time, it just seems like it's creating more division.

It was talked about tonight.

I'm seeing too many relationships and friendships being divided over this.

Um all of us have people on both sides of this.

It's it's an emotional decision.

So I I do encourage a decision to be made sooner than later, um, in the best interest of being able to process and move on.

Um there is no exact right decision, and there is no wrong decision, it's just um your uh individual decision based on what you've learned from the past, the present and the predicted future.

Um so again, I just uh more than anything I want to tell you guys I appreciate you taking the time to vet this.

Um I again, I think more time.

This proves it that a month and a half ago when you had this, it was a lot of the same discussions, a lot of the same people, and there's X amount of people for it, and X amount of people against it.

Um, so there is no perfect solution to this.

It's a complicated decision that no matter the the outcomes gonna have, um, some happy and some not, and sometimes that's just the reality of that being in those professional elected positions that you are.

Um so um most importantly, I want to tell you uh on behalf of myself and behalf of the chamber that wishing you guys Merry Christmas and happy holidays.

You're gonna hear lots of ideas and opinions, and even people attacking or supporting you.

But uh, when you walk away or drive out of the parking lot tonight, just know that you are appreciated for the work you do, not just for this decision tonight, because this is one of many.

We forget that that there's many other decisions you guys have made and will continue to make.

So just know that you're appreciated, and with that I would stand for any questions.

Thank you.

Mitch, I do have a question.

I just want to clarify.

I so, and I don't mean to put you on the spot.

I think I understood, I think two things.

One was that the ask is to make a decision and get moved this just make a decision.

And that's one, am I correct in that?

Yes.

And I said that a month and a half ago, and I made me said it better.

It was that a lot of times I would be coming to you say take more time and vet it.

I've seen in this, in my personal opinion, that the more times creating more division, um, and that nobody has come forth in any amount of time saying here's a solution to this, or here's the answer that they have that has made sense to any of you or or me to this point.

Um so I'm just encouraging a sense of urgency and opportunity to make a decision at some point.

It is almost split based on the last time we had this meeting and even even tonight.

So I don't know.

Again, somebody smarter than me can probably figure that out, but I don't know if more time helps in the process of the decision.

Thank you.

And then my second question was did I understand you at the beginning to say then I know the NAMPA chamber was initially very split.

Did the NAMPA chamber support this decision to convey, or are they opposing it?

NAMPA Chamber Board and Staff supports this decision conveyance.

We have not done a full survey out to the membership, but the NAMPA Chamber Board and Staff support the decision conveyance.

Okay, thank you for letting me put you on the spot.

Yep, Mayor, does that answer your question?

Yes, it does.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Randy Riken, and on deck is Tammy Conabare and Jay Snyder.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

Can I hand you uh a little packet that I have?

Yes, yes, you may.

Okay.

We'll just we'll split it.

How's that?

Hopefully, I've got let this be right.

There you go.

My name's Randy Reakin.

I'm at 724 South Lancaster Drive in NAMPA, and I I kind of I handed that out because I'm not good at speaking in public.

So I'm just gonna read five questions that I had after reading an interview with um President Jones.

Uh one President Jones doesn't think the Fort Idaho Center is a perennial money pit.

Um why would we?

Uh another one, why does NAMPA net hundreds of thousands, or why doesn't NAMPA net hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual upfront money by renegotiating with Oakville group, like President Jones suggests?

And why can't the Ford Idaho Center qualify for NAMPA auditorium district funds for deferred maintenance while in NAMPA city ownership?

Why doesn't CWI trade these 10 land parcels for the Ford Idaho Center instead of NAMPA giving it away for free?

And last, why does President Jones now consider raising taxes across the wide area or raising tuition?

These are things he has said would not be done, but now consider them as an option.

That's all I asked tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mayor Kitt.

Okay, do you follow up to that?

Brandy, thank you.

Where are you?

Where did you read the uh President Jones said that he was going to raise tuition?

Um I figured that would come up.

So on the top is the link to where you can find that interview.

Thank you.

So I would suggest that CWI provide response to this if you need a copy of this.

We could give you a copy of it because there's quite a few notes in here.

Thank you.

Okay, Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Tammy Conobayer, and on deck is Jay Steiner and Cheryl Hickley.

My name is Tammy Conober.

I live at 1628 North Franklin Boulevard here in Nampaido.

Madam Mayor, City Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

I want to begin by acknowledging that I previously did not support the conveyance of the Ford Idaho Center to CWI.

My concerns were entirely based on the lack of information.

We didn't have a definitive plan.

We didn't have clear answers, and I didn't believe it was responsible to move forward without fully understanding the long-term implications to our city.

Since that time, however, we have been given more clarity, more structure, and a much better picture of what the conveyance truly means.

With that information, it has become clear that this decision is in the best set interest of both the city and the broader community.

The reality is that CWI has access to the funding mechanisms and financing options that the city simply does not have.

These tools allow projects to move forward more efficiently and with greater financial flexibility.

By transferring the Ford Idaho Center to CWI, we place it under an NGD that can invest in its improvements, pursue the opportunities, and manage the long-term operations without increasing the financial burden to the city of NAMPA.

This isn't just about shifting responsibility.

The conveyance helps safeguard the future of the facility while freeing the city from the constraints that limit growth and investment.

So while I did oppose this action in the past, my support today reflects a better understanding of the plan and clear benefits it brings.

Responsible decision making means adjusting our positions when new information shows us a more effective path forward.

For this reason, I support the conveyance and believe it will provide long-lasting advantage to our city and its residents.

I would like also to thank Councilman Haverfield and Mayor Kling for their long-term service to the city of Nampa, and I wish you the best in your future endeavors.

Thank you so much.

Council, do you have any questions?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Jay Steiner, and on deck is Cheryl Higley and Linda Steele.

Good evening, Madam, Madam Mayor, Council Members, Jay Snyder, 524 9th Avenue South, Nampa, Idaho.

I'd like to start by stating for the record that I'm here tonight as a tax-paying citizen for NAMPA for 43 years now.

I'm not here representing any board, organization, or entity where I currently serve our community.

I'm here simply as a resident who cares deeply about the future of our city and as a homeowner whose property value has increased by more than 800% in that same 43 years.

I've witnessed firsthand how this community has grown, where we've invested wisely, and where we've fallen short.

My comments tonight are simply my opinion.

So I want to speak in strong support of the conveyance of the Fort Idaho Center.

For years this facility has been one of our greatest community assets and a point of pride for NAMPA.

But the truth is as a city we've allowed it to age without giving it the resources it truly needed.

Conveyance places the Idaho Center with an entity that has access to tools, funding mechanisms, and flexibility to invest in it, maintain it, and help it grow in ways that the city simply cannot.

My frustration over the Fort Idaho Center, and the reason I feel so strongly about the conveyance comes from an understanding of how we got here.

For 43 years, I've been very vocal about the lack of forward-looking leadership from long-term and previous council members when it comes to budgeting.

Too many councils have been more focused on re-election optics than on long-term responsibility.

Instead of seriously considering the full 3% of an annual budget increase allowable by law, they refused it year after year to score political points.

It might have looked good on a campaign flyer, but it left the city strapped for resources and forced department heads to do more with less, pushing critical maintenance further and further down the road.

Those choices have consequences.

Deferred maintenance doesn't go away.

As residents, we watched an asset we're proud of struggle because of inaction.

Supporting conveyance is not about giving up on the Idaho Center.

It's about finally making a responsible forward-thinking decision.

It ensures that this facility can thrive without relying on a city budget that has been restricted for years by decisions from both city councils and state representatives.

This move is responsible, it's strategic, and it puts the Idaho Center and our entire city on a stronger path for the future, and that's why I support it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Council, do you have any questions?

Nope.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Cheryl Higley, and on deck is Linda Steele and Hilbert Osborne.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council.

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

I have always heard that the mayor and council should remain impartial on an item that will be coming up for a vote.

Mayor Kling, you stated to the council that the role of the city is to educate, not to advocate.

They could not advocate for that bond measure.

Yet for the conveyance, Mayor Kling, you have definitely been an advocate from the get-go.

In the city's text notification on July 2nd, when the idea was first rolled out, you stated this is a unique opportunity to begin a new chapter for this premier facility, building on the success of the Ford Idaho Center and taking it to the next level.

If approved, transferring the public asset to CWI would maximize the facility's potential, enable it to continue hosting events, transform the surrounding area, and expand workforce training opportunities to meet the needs of employers.

The benefits of this transition would be felt for generations, making NAMPA an even more vibrant place to live, work, play, and grow.

Your bias in favor of the conveyance was evident right from the start, and no other options were ever given serious consideration.

The town hall at the Corral on July 15th again extold all the benefits to the city and to CWI if the conveyance occurred.

Originally a public hearing and vote was to occur on August 11th, but sensing the opposition, it was delayed, and more meetings were held.

In August, there were two facilitated meetings.

She stated that there was, quote, strong sentiment to not give away this asset, end quote.

And the public testimony at the PACT listening town hall attested to that fact as well.

However, all that input was dismissed when it came time for the public hearing on October 6th, because none of it was mentioned in the packet at all, but instead only the written and oral comment that was submitted specifically for that public hearing was taken into account, which may have led some to believe there was a 50-50 split regarding the conveyance.

Some of the city council members seem to have forgotten all the feedback that they had received beforehand.

That was an opposition.

Another thing of note is the rush to get the conveyance done, such as at the November 7th special council meeting, a document was emailed at 5 p.m.

Thursday night to be voted on the next morning at 7.30 a.m.

That for tonight's meeting, the agenda packet was um over 2,000 pages long for people to review over Thanksgiving weekend.

Um tonight the conveyance has the authorizations for the mayor to sign various agreements and the ordinance, which usually take two weeks after the vote.

In closing, it saddens me, Mayor Cling, to see your term end with such a controversial decision.

And I would urge you to table this decision for now and look at Mayor.

Take a fresh and objective look at it when he comes into office.

Thank you.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Mayor.

Yes.

Uh clarification, Cheryl.

Uh as far as a 2,000-page pack, if that's correct.

Uh I think it's 2018.

Yes.

400 to 500 pages is the Idaho Center issue that we're in right now, 1,500 pages, had to do with a whole lot of other issues that were covered under our agenda.

So I just don't want to leave that somehow tonight's hearing uh has such an enormous packet.

Uh I think your statement was a misleading statement to indicate that this packet is big because of the conveyance.

And it's actually, yes, it is, but it's for several whole other reasons.

That's correct.

It's for the whole meeting, so yes, I stand corrected.

Only a portion of it was for this public hearing, but some of us try to, like myself, try to review the entire packet.

And for all of you, you I hope review the entire packet too.

And that's I think a unreasonable expectation over Thanksgiving weekend.

That was my point.

But it didn't have the Idaho Center issue brought that about.

Those other 1,500 pages had other issues.

I'm just trying to say it's not this issue that many packets.

Many of the documents in there are repeat documents there that were in the prior document that had to be included as part of it.

So and that we're online.

So anyway, thank you.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Linda Steele, and on deck is Hubert Osborne and Doris Phillips.

Hi, my name is Linda Steele.

I'm at 1219 South Spring Valley Drive in Nampa.

Mayor and Council.

I am adamantly opposed to gifting our Ford Idaho Center to CWI.

The financial and budgetary concerns regarding the Fort Idaho Center, deferred maintenance are there's reasons the mayor has preached saying that gifting the Fort Idaho Center is is permitted.

Under utilization is topic number one.

It has been stated that the Ford Idaho Center is underutilized based on the events there being ticketed and therefore making them private and not public events.

Does the meeting does this mean the city will or may gift the golf courses, the rec center, and the civic center?

Would others, such as state parks, be subject to being given away as they have entrance fees?

In regards to the financial, as quoted in the Idaho press on July 3rd, 2025, quote unquote, NAMPA Mayor Debbie Kling says the announcement to convey the Ford Idaho Center is not arising from the center being in poor financial standing.

To the contrary, it's doing very well, making a profit of 1.2 million in 2022 and over 800,000 in 2023 regarding the auditorium district, which is estimated to bring in approximately 1.2 million dollars per year.

The mayor has argued in the past that we cannot use auditorium district funds for maintaining the Fort Idaho Center.

However, recently in Ed News, and I know you now have the link, the Ed News interview, President Jones of CWI stated that he could qualify for the funds through the NAPA Auditorium District.

And he stated he could raise property taxes.

What a guy.

The marketing advertisement for the voter support for the auditorium district stated in writing that the funds would be used to the cost of repair, maintain, and update the Fort Idaho Center and the NAMPA Civic Center.

Also quoted by Isabel Belbeo, this is an incredible opportunity for NAMPA residents to cover the needed infrastructure, maintenance, and repairs of our two public facilities.

Quoting Jeff Eggenbroad, Idaho statesman, March 21st, 2024.

He stated that the district would save the NAPA taxpayers' dollars that would normally go to fund and upkeep repairs at the event centers.

The Idaho, I'm sorry, the auditorium district reads that it is pursuant to Chapter 49 of Title 67 of the Idaho Code.

The code clearly states if the funds can be used to maintain the facilities.

If the auditorium district funds are not permitted toward the maintaining the events of the center, we might be discussing gross public misunderstanding.

The NAMPA taxpayers have spent an enormous amount of money supporting the Fort Idaho Center in the past.

It is our asset.

And it is we now have the avenues to support it.

It is not fair to steal it away from us with no ROI.

Please vote no, no, no to conveying the Fort Idaho Center to CWI.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is Hubert Osborne, and on deck is Doris Phillips and Kenny Rodin.

Good evening.

Hubert Osborne, 4199 East Switzer Way.

We've gone on long enough.

I can see your eyes glazed over and no questions.

You seem to think you have all the answers, and I don't know who's winning at tic-tac toe while your heads are hanging down.

You have heard many of the arguments, both pro and con for the conveyance of the ideal center.

The public has weighed in with their opinions at more than one public discourse.

The voting public has overwhelmingly expressed their opinion that convenience should not occur through the recent city elections.

Let me read that again.

The voting public has overwhelmingly expressed their opinion that non-conveyance, that conveyance should not occur through recent city elections.

So let's call a spade a spade.

The conveyance of the Idaho Center as proposed is legalized theft.

Aided by an attorney whose opinions are suspect to say the least.

Good evening, city council people.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

And please state your state your name and address, please.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um so as a citizen of NAMPA, I am strongly opposed to the proposal of conveyance of the Fort Idaho Center to CWI for the following reasons.

I question the statement that the Fort Idaho Center is underutilized and not for public purposes.

And it lost money year after year.

That has been turned around from in the last couple of years, and it is not totally taken care of as it wouldn't be if any of us were that far in debt and had to start working our way out.

However, um it has gone in a very positive direction, and so I don't believe that calling it underutilized and not for public purposes really fits the bill.

Um there are public events that take place there.

Um ticketed or not, they still are public.

So I've no reason to believe that we couldn't continue to have the Fort Idaho Center make a profit and to start turning things around.

And the current proposed contract provides very little exchange for what I see is a valuable asset.

I've spoken with many people in NAMPA regarding this issue, and the majority are not in favor of this conveyance.

So I hope that you'll take that into consideration.

Um the deferred maintenance doesn't all have to be done one year.

It sounds like a humongous amount, but it isn't all at once.

So there are things that um could be taken care of now, and as time goes on and it continues to be profitable, then um those things could be taken care of.

I agree with many of the things that Victor Miller and Stuart Heinmann said.

Um this issue is not emergent and it could wait until the um the new mayor and council take place.

New mayor um focused on being data driven, and I think that that would help in making a good decision and helping the guide the city council.

Thank you.

Hello, um, Kenny Rotman, 4537 East Tuscany Avenue, Napa, Idaho, 83686.

Uh I am representing the venue management advisory commission as well as a citizen if I get get to it in time.

Um you should have had a letter in your packets.

I hope that you all got that.

And if not, I do want to share it with you if you haven't seen it.

And uh it had been probably updated a little bit, a little amended just because of the the dates and things that that were on it.

But the City of Nampa venue management advisory commission, the commission met uh and having a quorum did vote unanimously unanimously by those in attendance uh as time is of the essence to provide a letter of support with regard to the conveyance of the property owned by the city of Nampa by the City of Nampa.

Sorry.

Technical difficulties.

We'll get there.

By the city of Napa, known as the Ford Ido Center to the College of Western Idaho, the Commission having been duly created by the city under Chapter 14, sections 2-14-1 through 214-4, and related ordinance is charged with quote, advising the mayor and council in directing the affairs of the IDO Center.

Its powers and duties are also quote to advise the mayor and council with regard to operation maintenance and improvement of the Ford Ido Center.

The commission recognizes that the current city mayor and council members have knowledge and interest in accomplishing the requirements to move this conveyance forward with expediency.

Stakeholders including, but not limited to the citizens of Nampa, CWI, OBG management, Snake River Stampede Board, Horse Park Foundation Board, NAPA Auditorium District et al.

shall benefit from a timely and directive decision.

Having discussed the proposed city conveyance of said property and whatever agreements.

Whatever agreements, contractual obligations, restrictions, understandings et all that the mayor and city council put forth in the best interest of the city of Nampa shall have the support of the commission to convey through whichever legal and binding operation and or vote that is necessary.

Chairman Kenny Roten.

And uh it was unanimous unanimous, other than one person that was absent.

Now as a citizen, well, I was born here 60 years, so wish I could have got here sooner.

But uh, you know, I put a lot into personally into the Ford Ido Center, and I hope that it's not the city of Nampa that is restricting its potential.

We can see what the CWI has done in half the time.

Madam Mayor, time.

There you go.

Thank you.

Following the rules I set for everyone else.

There we go, but thank you for coming.

Sorry for the technical difficulties.

We should have that in your packet.

I stand for questions if anybody has any.

Any questions?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, our next speaker is David Allison and on deck is Ivan Castillo and Estella Rosales.

David Allison here.

Is David is David Nearson here?

Yeah, okay.