All right, good evening.

It is uh five o'clock, so that means it's time to get started with the business of the city, and uh tradition that we have is the start of each council meeting um with invocation and the pledge, and uh my friend Pastor Nate Ross comes here to lead us in the invocation and the pledge.

So if you would let us uh let us join in prayer.

Please stand if you would like to participate.

Thank you.

Would you pray with me?

Holy and gracious God, before we turn our attention to the work set before this council and this community, we pause to remember who we are and whose we are.

You are the giver of life, the source of wisdom, and the one who has made every person in your image.

We give you thanks for the city we call home, for its neighborhoods and schools, its businesses and parks, for those who have much and those who carry heavy burdens for those who feel heard and those who wonder if they are seen.

We thank you for the rich and varied tapestry of people who make Nampa what it is, and for the sacred responsibility of caring for one another in this shared life.

We confess, Lord, that we live in a noisy and anxious age where certainty is prized more than wisdom, and winning often matters more than understanding.

So we ask for what your word invites us to seek.

If any of us lack wisdom, let us ask you, who gives generously to all, grant to those who lead and those who speak tonight clarity of mind, humility of heart, and courage shaped by love.

Teach us to trust in you with all our hearts and not lean on only our own understanding and in all our ways to seek your paths that our steps might be made straight.

As followers of Jesus remind us that our deepest allegiance is to a kingdom, not of this world, a kingdom marked not by grasping for power, but by serving, not by fear, but by faithfulness, not by contempt, but by compassion.

Make us a people who seek to do justice to love mercy and to walk humbly with you.

May our words build up rather than tear down, and may our decisions be guided not by fear or self-interest, but by a sincere desire for the flourishing of all.

We place this time, the city, and this work into your care, trusting that you are at work even beyond what we can see, and we pray all of this in the name of Jesus who shows us the way of faithful love.

Amen.

Amen.

Now would you join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

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

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

Thank you, Pastor Nate.

All right.

Scog.

President.

Chingula.

Here.

Bills.

Here.

Reynolds.

Here.

Rodriguez.

Griffin.

Five present, one absent.

All right.

Are there any proposed amendments to the agenda?

I do not have any.

Mayor.

Yes, Councilman Reynolds.

I had a couple of things I would like to pull out the consent to discuss.

15B and 15E.

If we can.

One five B and E.

That's correct.

Okay.

I have no opposition to this, and just for the record, we the consent agenda is a uh a tool to approve a lot of the the formality, a lot of the business of the city uh to to try to be efficient, but at times there's discussion merited on these items.

So if uh no one's opposed to councilman Reynolds' uh uh requests, or are there any additional requests from council?

Maybe we entertain a motion.

Make a motion that we uh approve the agenda as amended.

Okay, second.

Okay, it's a motion second, and is this roll call or are we all in favor?

All in favor?

Aye, aye.

Okay.

So one five B and one five E will move to uh items moved from consent agenda.

Okay.

So that um does that clerk that so that amendments includes the adoption of the agenda as amended.

Okay.

All right, very good.

Now we'll move to the consent agenda uh motion to approve the consent agenda sub minus those two items.

So moved.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Motion is approved.

We will move on now to items moved from consent agenda.

So we will deal with them in the order in which they were listed.

So 15A is an action item to authorize the mayor to sign.

15B, sorry, one five B action item to authorize the mayor to sign non-exclusive public right-of-way license agreement with Forge Fiber 37 LLC.

Uh, this was approved by attorney and Daniel Badger.

Um, if you would please come up and help explain this item this evening.

Mayor.

So, my my uh questions on this, and I asked Daniel about it briefly earlier.

Um sounds like one fiber company is buying another fiber company or something like that.

So my concern is is what this agreement is in this agreement.

We had some problems with one of our fiber uh providers, uh, and I don't feel like we had our agreement tight, and we ended up getting a lot of citizens upset uh with this fiber provider.

And I want to make sure that we don't have the same problems with this of uh in this license agreement, what we're allowing them to do in our streets.

I I know in my subdivision I still have problems from the one provider I'm talking about.

Mayor, Councilman Reynolds.

Um of the challenges we have with that is that we are limited in what we can do based on state statutes for these agreements.

Um they are fall under a section of the statutes that allow them to be within our public right-of-ways regardless of an agreement.

So the agreement here uh lines out what they are agreeing to do, moving and taking care of things that way.

Um the issues we run into with construction and that, we do our best to address those and um take care of them as they come up and as we receive complaints from citizens.

Um that's uh certainly something that um is ongoing as they go throughout.

Um, this is an existing provider that network is being purchased by another larger provider that will be continuing to expand the network.

So I'm not sure.

But are there specific things that you wanted to see within the agreement that you don't?

Somewhere, uh Mayor and Daniel.

Somewhere I was reading recently uh statute and Preston might be able to weigh on this, weigh in on this better.

Um it talked about that giving them the uh uh permission to dig in our streets and that kind of thing was not just a given that we could say no.

Um we we can hold them to the construction standards that we have already adopted.

Um I don't believe we have a statutory ability to say no, you cannot be within our public right-of-ways.

I would defer to Preston on that.

And Mayor Councilman Reynolds, the yeah, when it comes to telecommunications, a lot of the areas uh in that statute limits what cities can do.

Um it has even the language of non-discriminatory access.

Um our hands are in some ways kind of tied on what we can and can't do in regulating them.

Uh Daniel hit on some of the pieces there.

Uh we added language, I believe, in this one, uh Daniel, that helped reduce the amount of uh maybe waste or construction material that's stored and helping it provide advanced notice to property owners so they know when they're coming.

And that was after gathering intel from other cities in Idaho who kind of learned the hard way.

And so in improving that contract, that language was inserted.

All right.

Councilman, uh appreciate the concerns.

I I know that we've heard um you personally experienced, and I know that uh Mr.

Badger does get um fields a lot of questions from citizens who are concerned about how this work is conducted in our right-of-way.

I I do note that there's licensee obligations under the framework, and one is reasonable care.

It says licensee will exercise reasonable care when performing the work, and we'll use commonly accepted practices and equipment to minimize the risk of personal injury, property damage, soil erosion, and pollution of surface and groundwater.

And there's also no nuisance uh requirement.

I would defer to legal to know like how much teeth there is and guiding what exactly that looks like with the reasonable care as far as taking mitigation efforts to minimize property damage.

But I know the biggest concern was whether landscaping was disrupted or irrigation lanes were disrupted when there's digging that goes uh goes on.

And can you at least state, Daniel, that if that is the case that there is a obligate, is there not an obligation on them to keep that hole unless there is obstruction, the easement that is really this is a bigger issue.

A lot of people are surprised when they find out that there's an easement that they are unfamiliar with and what the obligations are of the property owner relative to an easement.

Right.

And so the the mayor, the city um we obviously have control within the public right-of-way.

Once they get outside of that within to the those easements that are public utility easements on private property, the city does not necessarily have as as much control because that's not city property, um, but we do certainly work with those uh the contractors in that to the best of our ability get restoration to happen.

Um some of it does take some time.

I've got a couple that um have been going on for for a significant amount of time that we are still working on.

Um resolved relatively quickly.

Um the those that we've dealt with, uh the the um provider here um under this agreement has been very responsive and dealt with the issues very quickly when we've brought them up and when citizens have called us about issues.

Okay, Mayor?

Yes, councilman.

Just a follow-up on this specific agreement.

It pretty well outlines the termination and notice that we would have to give in a cure period.

Have all the contractors received a similar contract in the past with other providers, or is this a newly drafted version?

Mayor uh councilman Griffin.

This is an updated version to what we've had in the past.

Um we've worked with legal to to refine it since our our last agreement was was signed.

Thank you.

Good questions.

Thank you, Daniel, for answering the questions.

And if the public's listening, we we do take seriously if there's any concerns or issues, so do reach out to the city.

Um but as to this item 15B, uh, what is the will of council?

Mary, may I make a motion to approve?

All right, there's a motion, second.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second, and this would be a roll call vote since we removed it from consent, correct?

All right, so the clerk will take roll call.

Scog, yes.

Yes, Reynolds.

Yes.

Ronriguez.

Um, I'm gonna say yes, but actually, I'd like to see the real uh contract when it comes to damage to the city property and personal property.

Griffin.

Yes.

Jingula, yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Mayor Hogabone.

Yes, Councilman Right.

On that, if I could have uh puppy works in the street department monitor those with uh with uh Daniel and to make sure that we get things fixed and lined up and for our commit our community.

Okay, I see Daniel nodding, yeah.

So I appreciate that, Councilman Rodriguez.

Yes, all right.

Mayor, if I could as well.

Yes, Councilman Griffin.

There's only red, so uh how do we track Daniel any time there's a complaint from a citizen within the the city?

Is there a way and the only reason I'm asking is part of the termination uh section of this agreement.

We need 180 days of cure.

I don't know how we necessarily cure nuisance or cure lack of notice, unless it's something that they could do moving forward.

But if there is an issue with the contractor that's consistent, maybe we give them notice now, and then in 180 days we're able to reevaluate going off the same vein as councilman Reynolds.

Mayor, Councilman Griffin.

Uh so these the permits are managed through our right-of-way permit process.

And so when we we receive the plans, we review those, and then once we approve, we would issue a right-of-way permit for the work on that set of plans.

Uh typically that's about the size of a subdivision is typically when they how they submit those.

Um and so when we we also our inspectors are going out monitoring how they're doing and that type of stuff, verifying their locations that they're following the plans.

Um, and then we are also doing walkouts to verify restorations and those kind of things.

Um when we receive citizen complaints, we track those, we contact the um the provider uh to get them on board and get restoration or resolution taken care of.

Um each of the providers at this point, um, they have committed to having a treble number that we can give out so that they can contact them directly and and get with the contractors that way.

So we have multiple avenues to proceed with getting the information back to the contractor that there's an issue that needs to be taken care of, and we track those uh through my office when they come in.

Um obviously come into the mayor's office, they forward those to me and we deal with them and track them that way.

Mayor, one follow-up.

Yes, are there any contractors that have breached their agreement and are after um post 180 days?

Are we having outstanding issues with any specific contractors?

You don't have to name them.

I just want to know if there are there has been one subcontractor that um after a number of issues, the the general contractor has stopped working with and is no longer working here in the city.

Um that uh we are still working on some resolutions on.

Um of those have to deal with um not wholly on the contractor side, but some on the homeowner side issues back and forth.

Um but no, I I would not say we have any that are outside of their their contracted obligations.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Daniel.

All right, we're gonna move on to 15E.

And um Cody has this.

This is an action item to authorize Parks and Rec Director to sign professional services agreement with H2O pools designed for some work at the Lakeview Water Park, and this was a competitive bid process, and I know that the lowest bid was thrown out because they weren't uh licensed in Idaho.

So um, but it went to the next one.

So yeah, Cody, why don't you tell us about the section item?

Um if I just uh asked the question.

Um what I'm wondering about Cody is uh who do we have in the city, either in facilities or parks that's qualified to inspect this kind of work on a pool.

Mayor uh council uh men Reynolds, that's uh somebody we do not have within the city of Nappa.

Um often we rely on the expertise from the contracting companies and their warranty period to hope that their work is quality.

Okay, so the reason why I want to talk about this was I feel like it's in the best interest of the city and the taxpayers to have uh third party inspection on this or somebody that's qualified to look at this.

Uh I know I'm certainly not.

I've been in construction many years, and Councilman Bills is the same.

And uh, but um this is not our area of expertise and uh and certainly not our facilities department, but uh which I wouldn't expect, but uh I think it would behoove us to have a third-party inspection on this to make sure we're getting what we paid for, especially where I don't recognize this contractor.

Jim Gunn, I I recognize they've been around forever.

Uh obviously they weren't low bid, but uh I don't know this contractor.

Mayor, Councilman Reynolds, would you suggest we go and come back with this topic once we have uh third party inspectors identified?

Mayor and Cody, it would definitely ease my mind if I knew that we had a third party inspector on this to know that we are getting what we're paying for, and then also for councilman bills uh doing the payables to for ease his mind to know that he's he's uh signing off on something that is done correctly on the pay app.

Yes, councilman follow up to that point.

Is this something that we're going to be doing for every contractor from this point on, or is it specific just for this bid?

I think um I would I would probably defer to Councilman Reynolds on that.

I do have some um some thoughts.

Um I have some similar questions too, because I think that this was approved in the budget, the scope of the work, of course, and this came in a few thousand over budget, and then with the awarding of the bid, this is a significant project 160 something thousand dollars.

And if I'm hearing councilman Reynolds right, um we want to just make sure one that probably that the needs that have been identified by parks and rec staff um do meet, you know, uh that we're what we're paying for is covering the actual needs.

Uh whereas I'm not a subject matter expert in the in the pool inspection area, so but the last thing we wanted is to spend money on something and find out that there's something missed.

I can understand that.

So just what degree of due diligence should be extended, and knowing that that there might be a cost associated with that as well in doing that.

So I I I would kind of go back to Councilman Reynolds to provide some guidance on this as Mayor and Councilman uh Griffin.

So um we have a lot of experts within the city in different departments and our facilities and such, and uh they're able to inspect like our public works projects, they're able to inspect those kind of things um in-house.

Uh this particular thing is real specialized, and we just don't have that.

So I wouldn't necessarily go back and ask for this on every project by any uh means, but uh this particular one where specialized, I feel like it would behoove us to do that to make sure we're getting what we paid for on that pool.

Okay, my follow-up would be uh what sort of costs would be incurred with with an inspection.

Um if there's a motion to maybe delay the action today.

I guess the other other question I have is will this affect um we would probably want to expedite this because I'm guessing you want to conduct this work before the pool opens for this.

Mayor and council, yes, that's uh correct.

We wanted this to fall between March and May so that we could have it completed by the time swimming season is here.

Okay.

Um so mayor, I'd I'd weigh in that uh I think we can approve it, but I think we should approve it subject to getting a inspection firm uh lined up as well.

And so and the contractor may have a suggestion for you.

Otherwise uh we need to go to some of the testing firms and find out who can inspect uh the process and make sure the cure is right and those things.

Is there is there a reasonable um not to exceed amount on um Cody and team finding who would you like to find Mayor Inspector, yes?

So I probably would go to Strata or Atlas uh independent testing agency and uh like special inspections.

Um you're probably if you put five thousand dollars out there uh not to exceed that it's gonna more than cover it for what you need to do, and they're just gonna they're just gonna take samples of the gun eye and that kind of stuff.

So legal we can furnish you information for it.

Yeah, just a quick question.

Um the specificity of of guiding the inspection as a condition to approve this with uh with with that amendment.

Are you okay with that?

I am.

I looked over the language once again, it envisions inspections.

It doesn't spill out in you know granular detail.

Thou shalt do X, Y, and Z by X date with X, you know, industry background, but within reasonable um scope.

I think what you promote uh presented is appropriate.

Okay, so to be clear, you're you're suggesting not for Code bring bring back before us.

We're not delaying approval, you're approving it with the understanding that the inspection is going on.

Confirm the need.

Yeah.

Okay.

Someone like I make a motion to that effect.

So moved.

Mayor, I'll make a motion.

Okay.

Um I think Bill's made a motion.

He said so moved.

So do you want to fill in that motion?

You second it, or do you want to return to the case?

I'll second it if he wants to fill it in.

So the motion is that we're approving the uh work to be done on the pool on our agenda.

And uh subject to uh a testing agency being lined up to work alongside or to be involved uh while the work is being done to confirm the works being done according to specifications.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second, and this this will be a any discussion from council before we go to vote.

Okay.

Clerk will call roll.

Scog, yes.

Jingula.

Yes, Rodriguez.

Yes, Griffin.

Yes, Reynolds, yes, Phil's all in favor, motion carries.

All right, thank you.

There are no agency and commission reports tonight, so we're moving to subsection four with staff communications, and we have quite a few.

And Crystal Craig will come up.

You identify yourself for the record and share some exciting news with us.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council for the record.

Crystal Craig, Director of Transportation.

Um, I have the privilege of being up here to be able to do some humble brags on some of my amazing employees.

Um in order to do that, I've got a few to go through.

I'm gonna bring up Cheney Rhodes.

He's um I actually don't know his title with uh he's the director of the T2 Center or T2 Learning Center with AlTAC to go over our road scholar and roadmaster program.

Thank you, Mayor, and uh council members.

Um one of the things um we offer is the training for your uh individuals that are out doing the testing on your projects for your roadway samples materials.

We don't do swimming pools.

I was just sitting here thinking, dang, there's one we don't offer, but um we do not do swimming pools.

Uh I wish we did at this point.

We could come in a lot cheaper.

But um so your road scholars uh take 80 hours of class.

One of the things that we did when we put this program together is made sure that it was testable so that when you guys are budgeting for this, you're not just sending bodies to class, they're taking tests to prove to you that the money you budgeted for, they are learning and they are certified to be able to work in your guys' jurisdiction and and do some of the the inspections that you guys are doing for the road scholar.

Um at seven core classes with four electives, um CPR, first aid, that's pretty common on um any agency anyways.

And then we look at uh roadway materials, pavement maintenance uh and preservation and flagger certification.

One of the new classes, it's not new, we just haven't had it for about eight years, is seal coats.

Um there's a lot of thoughts on how seal quotes go, different materials.

Um I might chip seal different here than I will up in North Idaho.

I might pave different.

Um, and so uh we're gonna bring that one back this year, and we've updated it, and that one will start in the spring as well.

Um and then we give the electives, and that's more for Crystal and the management to pick classes that they want to see them go to instead of just saying these are the classes you'll attend, it's what can we offer your employees above and beyond the core requirements that your management would like to see.

And um, in lieu of time, I'll cover the roadmaster.

That way when we start giving the awards, I'm not bouncing back and forth in lieu of time.

Roadmaster, same thing, 80 hours.

The difference here is it's four core classes and five electives, because that's where you're really specializing your employees and and picking everything that they need.

The other difference is your four core classes typically are two days, um, speed zones, speed studies.

Um this year we're gonna have the uh traffic control supervisor that is a mandatory class that's a two-day class, and so the tech technical end of it gets a little bit more difficult.

So um you should be proud of them once they hit that level, they've got a ton of knowledge to bring to your guys' jurisdiction.

Um again, five electives, they have four years to do this on each step.

Uh we're still in 2026, kind of recovering from COVID.

Um a lot of classes were still allowing just because they took them and then COVID kind of slowed our training down.

So we've got that for 2025, kind of bragging on the instructors that I have.

There is only eight instructors, and then myself that teach all 285 agencies, city, county, and highway districts.

We ended up with 156 classes taught.

Um, that's both in-person and virtual.

We had 2,904 attendees.

And uh this is weird and I double check the numbers, but we had 156 road scholars as well as the 156 classes taught, and then we had 91 roadmasters throughout the year.

And so when I say that though, that's not everybody that has an award, that's just who we could get to in the timelines that we had.

So much more uh there are many more road scholars and roadmasters.

It's just we have to figure out how to get there and get those meetings and give the presentations out.

So is there any questions from the mayor or council members before we get started?

No.

No, we're good.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

So first we have Julian Garcia.

And what they get is a hat and a leatherman and a and uh uh plaque on there.

Then Craig Heiner.

And then our next one is Steve.

Overwick.

And then Eric is not here tonight, so uh Steve will make sure that he gets his award when they get back to work.

Aaron Stark.

And then following him, Ryan Goodwin.

And then Brett Cox.

Now we'll move on to the roadmaster, and that is Ryan Goodwin.

They're all up there already.

I know it is Julian Garcia, and then Steve Overay.

And Brand Cops.

Oh, there you go.

Usually when we give the coats out, everybody's excited.

We seem to have summer though, right?

So if I could get a quick picture, again, thank you, Mayor and Council members, for sending and budgeting for your uh employees to come and attend trainings.

You want us to kind of move this way?

Or you're have them move.

Okay, all right.

That's some cool swag.

Lots of hard work.

No, I know I'm in the first NPC.

Okay, I gotta go this way, and then I'll be done.

Good Amy.

I'll make one.

Congrats.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Um, in addition, I have the very uh large privilege of talking about another thing that happened on Friday, January 9th, 2026, at approximately 746 a.m.

Um, we had a commendable display from our airport operations tech lead, Abel Silva.

So I asked him to come up right now, as well as Steve Collins.

He's an electrician with PowerPlus.

Um, while they were on site working at a light pole next to the vehicle gate um at Airport Road.

And Steve.

So upon hearing a loud popping sound, which they initially suspected to be a gunshot, Abel quickly identified smoke billing from one of our hangers.

It was hangar 510.

Without hesitation, he called 911, ensuring that the emergency services were alerted promptly.

Emergency responders arrived on site within five minutes due to their swift actions.

Abel assisted emergency responders in locating the hangar and turning off the power.

Where's while Steve remained at the gate to facilitate access for first responders to the secured area?

I will note this incident also has prompted another practice or a trial run on how we can get emergency responders into our secured facilities faster.

His vigilance and support were crucial ensuring that emergency services could respond without delay.

Together, they both ensured that the power to the hangar was completely just de-energized, and the fire was successfully extinguished by 818 a.m.

Although two aircraft sustained damage, the impact to the hangar facility appears to be limited to the east side of the building.

Without their quick actions, it um I I would say that the potential damage to both the city and the tenant property would have been much more severe.

So I want to commend both of these for demonstrating their commitment to safety and community welfare.

To start out, um, in recognition of their extraordinary efforts, we'd like mayor's office to present them with a challenge coin.

Yes.

Let me I want to read uh gentlemen, thank you for your work.

Um I have a letter for each of you individually.

Um similar, um, but the but the part that's specific to each of you, I want to read that portion to you and then uh read the shared point.

Uh so dear Abel, it is my honor to personally recognize and commend you for your extraordinary actions on January 9th, 2026 at the Nampa Municipal Airport.

After hearing a loud popping noise at approximately 746 while working on a light poll with Steve Collins, an electrician with PowerPlus.

You quickly identified smoke billowing from hangar 0510, and your prompt call to 911 ensured emergency services were alerted without delay.

Thanks to your quick actions, emergency responders were on site within five minutes.

Dear Steve, it is my honor to personally recognize and commend you also for your actions while working on a light poll with airport operations tech league.

Abel Silva, you both heard loud poppy noises and identified smoke billowing from hangar 0510.

Is able worked to turn off the power at the hangar, you made sure we significantly mitigated potential damage to both the city and tenant property.

Well, two aircraft sustained damage.

The impact on the hangar facility was limited, and the fire was successfully extinguished by 818 a.m.

In recognition of your bravery, willingness to help in a time of need and commitment to safety.

Please accept a small token of our appreciation.

The city and Nampa's challenge coin.

Your actions serve as a powerful representation of your company power plus to you, Steve, and reflect the type of response we all strive to have in service to our community.

Um Abel, your action serves as a powerful representation of your dedication, reflect the type of response we all strive to have in public service.

Gentlemen, thank you both.

Thank you, Doctor.

And we'll go back up for a photo in just one second.

Okay.

Um I'd also like to introduce Tom Point, Senior Director of Public Works.

Uh Mayor Council.

So we also have some coins for uh you're not done yet, gentlemen.

So please stay up there.

Uh so public works has some challenge coins and in recognition of their extraordinary efforts.

We'd like to present Abel and Steve with these public works challenge coins.

Uh the committee unanimously decided to reward these for for what they did and go on above and beyond their normal duties and a testament to their dedication and bravi bravery in this critical situation.

So I'm very impressed.

It could have been a lot worse, and I really want to thank both of you.

So thank you.

And last but certainly not least, I'd like to invite up NAMPA Fire Marshal Elijah Effinger.

Just wanted to be here in recognition of these two gentlemen.

Their hard work dedication to being professionals, as well as their willingness to put themselves in a position that maybe isn't always what someone wants to be in.

They acted quickly and swiftly, and as a result, the fire was extinguished rather quickly.

In a building that is made out of wood construction that is very, very dry, could have run quickly.

Also, people's airplanes are in those.

I don't know if you guys have ever met pilots, they really like their airplanes.

So their quick action uh allowed us to have quick action and do our job.

So it's uh it's a beautiful representation of our services working in conjunction with citizens who care about the community, and so we just want to make sure that they got the recognition.

They did a great job, and we really appreciate them working alongside of us and giving us immediate access and allowing us to go to where we needed to go.

So kudos to them.

Thanks, sir.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you, thank you.

Kudos all around.

That that could have been uh a lot worse if that wasn't dealt with immediately.

So thank you very much.

All right, we are uh moving to 4-2 where Chief Huff has an update for us on things happening in NAMPA PD command staff.

Yes, thank you.

Uh good evening, Mayor and Council.

So I want to provide a brief overview of some significant operational shifts currently underway at the NAMPA police department.

It's an incredible time for our organization, as over the past month, our stars have aligned to create unprecedented level of opportunities for our team.

In my 30-year career, I've never seen this volume of internal movements.

We have seen over 20 transfers and promotions in the last month, with another eight or ten expected in the coming weeks.

What is most encouraging is the depth of our talent.

Every position was filled with a pool of highly vetted, experienced, and knowledgeable personnel.

To be clear for the council, these are not new positions, but rather strategic movements for our existing personnel in key roles.

Some of the promotions and transfers are we've promoted four officers uh to the rank of corporal, three corporals to the rank of sergeant.

We've had two officers uh transfer into our traffic team, our STEP team, uh, the motorcycle police officers.

Uh, one officer transferred out of the real-time crime center and a detective transferred in, and that's a full-time position up there.

In our property crimes investigations, we have three new detectives coming in and a new sergeant that will be taking over that division.

And an additional two detectives have joined our narcotics unit.

We also have a new school resource officer and a new officer assigned to our set team, that's our special enforcement team.

Uh the primary catalyst for this movement is the upcoming retirement of Captain Brad Daniels, and that'll be in mid-April of 2026.

I'll have a lot more to say about Brad at a future council meeting and the service that he did.

Um, but he his departure is actually created this domino effect.

To ensure that we found the right success for Captain Daniels' position, Deputy Chief Shankle and I met with every single member of our agency to gauge the needs of the department.

Following that intense process, I'm thrilled to announce the loop that Angel Calderone has been selected as our next operations captain.

Uh while I introduced him to the council previously about six or seven months ago, um, with a new mayor and a new council member seated.

I thought it was important for him to reintroduce himself tonight and to talk about his new role.

Additionally, I brought a longtime veteran of the Nampa Police Department with me, and that'll be newly promoted Lieutenant Rob Wiggins.

Lieutenant Wiggins will be back filling the vacancy that was created by Captain Calderon's promotion, and I'm I'm super excited to welcome his expertise to our administrative team.

And right before I invite these two gentlemen forward, I just want to emphasize to the council and mayor that the Nampa Police Department is in a position of great strength.

We have people, the right people in the right positions in the right places, and I'm incredibly optimistic about 2026 holds for us.

We're going on down the right path.

So with that, if you don't have any questions, I will have uh Captain Calderon come up and uh say a little bit uh about uh his new assignment and him.

So thank you.

Hello everybody.

I'm not seeing a leatherman up here or a nice coat, so I guess the position doesn't come with that.

Uh good morning, everyone, or good afternoon.

For those of you that don't know me, my name is Angel Calderon.

I've been with the Napa police for 20 a little over 20 years.

Uh, I stand before you today feeling very honored and extremely humbled being named the next uh captain.

I know there are some big shoes to fill uh with uh Captain Daniels exit from the Napa Police Department.

Uh I wanted to begin by extending my sincere gratitude to the mayor and city council.

Uh thank you for your leadership and always uh supporting the Napa Police Department.

It means a lot to us.

Um to our police command staff and my entire department, thank you for your support and your incredible uh work you do every day.

Uh I am proud to stand uh amongst your ranks uh and alongside you guys.

Thank you.

On a personal note, um it's a big milestone for anyone to reach uh the captain of a police department.

Uh to my friends and my extended family, thank you for your support and always keeping me grounded.

Thank you.

And uh most importantly, a special thanks to my wife.

She was mad at me last time I was up here.

Um the life of law enforcement family isn't all isn't easy.

It involves long hours, missed dinners, and a lot of sacrifice.

I wouldn't stand before you.

Uh but thank you for standing uh here uh with me uh with your support and love.

Um this honor belongs to you as much as it does uh to me.

Uh looking ahead, I am eager um uh to straighten the partnership between the department, the mayor's office, city council, and more importantly, the community.

Uh Napa's a special place, it's a place where people uh look out for uh one another.

Uh my commitment uh to you is that I will work tirelessly to ensure that Napa remains a beautiful, safe and vibrant place to raise a family, and I'm ready to get to work.

And thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Captain.

Yes, sir.

Would you I think you noted an audience to uh your family, would you would you like to maybe introduce them just briefly?

Yeah, just my wife.

Just have them on your wife.

She's shy.

Okay.

Thank you for the sacrifice that you make as a spouse of a first responder, and uh we appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Mayor.

Yes.

If I could give uh Captain Calderon some advice, save your money and buy some uh some just for men hair color, because in a year you're gonna come back, you're gonna be great.

And uh maybe some money for some hair transplants to fill in that ball spot that's developing.

You're gonna it'll be there by next year.

Thank you for your support, Councilman.

You'll look like Deputy Chief Shankle.

Anybody else guys?

Thank you.

Some good natured really it's all good.

Uh thank you.

Thank you for being willing to step into the role that you're stepping into.

Um thank you for your words.

So appreciate it.

Thank you, ma'am.

All right.

So forgive me if I misspeak.

I've been a sergeant for the last 20 years, so if I refer to myself as a sergeant, I apologize, but it's kind of one of those habits that's hard to get out of.

Uh again, I would like to second uh Captain Calderon's sentiment.

I appreciate your support.

I appreciate the city support.

We definitely do have one of the greatest cities in the state.

Uh with me today, I brought my family.

Uh my youngest son Cody, who's a police officer with Caldwell Police Department, in the back, my oldest son Bryden, and he's with Garden City Police Department.

My youngest boy, my bonus son, Santiago, my wife, two of my grandchildren, and between my wife and I, we have nine grandchildren total or total.

I grew up in southern Idaho, but I raised my kids here in the valley, uh, more specifically here in Nampa, and they're uh one of them that is living in Caldwell, he's trying to get back here to NAMPA because it is a great place to work and live.

All told I've got 33 years of law enforcement experience and 25 of that year, those years have been here with the NAMPA police department, 20 as a sergeant.

And I was back in detectives the first time with councilman Rodriguez.

And more speci more recently, I've been in the property crimes division.

And once I take my promotion uh Monday, then I will be over the training and hiring division.

And it's going to be an exciting time, I believe.

I've been in, I've been in FTO, I ran our FTO program, and I believe it's one of the biggest things we can do at the department and provide direction for the department.

And I didn't prepare anything like Captain Calbrone, so I will leave it at that.

Any questions?

Thank you.

I will ignore Mr.

Reynolds if you just forbid what it apply to you.

Um I share.

I can't prepare.

So at least I give a shop for a transplant here.

Just embrace it, just embrace it.

So uh I think Councilman Rodriguez, did you have something?

Thank you.

Yes, I I I had the I had the pleasure working with you.

You were you were my sergeant, and I really appreciated your attitude and and how well you work with other people.

What's more a better legacy than have two of your sons become police officers?

Isn't that great?

I want to thank you and thank them for giving their lives up for us.

God bless you guys.

Thank you.

And thank you again for your support.

Thank you.

And your sons, they they you know, they get to look up to you as father, but you also work in the best police department in the state in the best city of the state.

No doubt.

Maybe one day they will migrate to the city of Nielba and follow your footsteps.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh appreciate uh future lieutenant, soon to be Lieutenant Wiggins.

Appreciate your service.

Thank you.

All right.

All right, Chief of Staff, Clay Long.

What you got for us tonight?

Well, good evening.

I'm just giving a quick update.

Uh, in the December council workshop, we talked about facilities and the IH2C and our intent to move some staff over there.

So just wanted to give a quick update where we were on that.

Um, we do have about 20 of our facilities team that we're gonna relocate and take up one of the spaces that has been previously available that we've rented out, the library, which is in the the north west side of the building.

Um, and then the Idaho Hispanic Foundation, they'll move downstairs into room 103 and then have the reception space uh and take a more active role in managing the rental of the property.

So um all in all, there's probably uh on an estimate, uh we think there's gonna be about 25,000 worth of um cubicles we're gonna need to purchase that we will be able to move to the traffic building once that is completed from fleet.

Um, and then already was in the works uh some door badge access control that we're gonna put over there that would have been necessary regardless of whether staff was moving over, but uh both of those items will be able to absorb in current budget from our operational side.

So just as a reminder on the the context for the why.

Um as you know, this facility uh was entrusted to the city a couple years ago with a mission that we've stayed true to.

Um we are currently tomorrow we'll actually be kicking off a facilities condition assessment for 19 of our more complex buildings.

Uh we've also asked all the departments and division heads this budget cycle to do a facilities projection on staffing as well as needs.

So this will buy us a couple years to get through that process, put together more comprehensive approach to our facility needs, um, and not necessarily need to secure new or additional space until that work's all done.

So just wanted to give that up if you have any questions.

Happy to answer them.

Any questions, council?

Okay.

Well, thanks for the report.

Yep, Chief.

All right.

Rodney Ashby, you're up.

Thank you, Mayor.

Council Rodney actually, planning and zoning director for the record.

Um I want to report on three items from planning and zoning commission.

Uh the first one was a subdivision final plat approval for Millwood Pines.

And that was recommended for approval, and it will come before you on the 16th of March.

Uh and the next one is annexation and zoning for uh Reynolds development.

This is at 2102 South Midland Boulevard.

It's uh northeast of West Greenhurst Road and South Midland Boulevard.

Uh original concept is for future subdivision of the property into six lots, maintaining the existing home and development of townhouse style multifamily buildings.

And then that one was recommended for approval and uh unanimously, and uh that will also come before you on the 16th of March.

The next and final one is annexation and zoning and subdivision preliminary plat for Highline Estates.

Um this is southwest of Highway 2026 and North Franklin Boulevard.

And this is for 355 single family detached dwelling units, 33 common lots, and one commercial lot on about 93 acres.

And that one was recommended for approval with seven voting yes and one voting no, and that will come before you on April 20th.

So that's it for the report on planning and zoning commission items.

And then I just want to give you a quick update on our comprehensive plan process.

We're now into the second phase of the comprehensive plan update.

Um this is a significant process, as we've talked about before.

It's about a two and a half year process that we're going through.

Um staff completed the public outreach already in late um 2025, so October.

We wrapped that up.

And based on the comments that we received and um the themes that we heard over time.

Um we are now uh moving into phase two, and we developed seven vision elements that will be the foundation of the 2050 comprehensive plan.

Um and I'll I'll mention those in just a second.

The first step of phase two is to form or was to form a steering committee, which we've done.

Uh the steering committee is made up of focus groups, one for each vision element.

So there's seven elements, so seven focus groups.

Each focus group is about eight to ten people, and it they were selected because of their interest and expertise in the subject matter.

We have assigned uh city council members uh each of you to a focus group.

And um, so we have we do have just one focus group that doesn't have a city council member representative, but the first one that doesn't have the uh the council representative is connected and accessible.

And um I'd be happy to have somebody who's already assigned to the other focus groups that we could have one of them attend that one as well.

If you're interested, please just let me know.

Um the second one is Vibrant and Social Economic Centers, and we have uh Councilman Dale Reynolds assigned to that one.

The next one is enhanced parks, open space and natural areas, and and councilwoman Jangula.

Um the next one is complete and resilient neighborhoods, and that uh councilman Bills.

And then um sustainable infrastructure and services, and that was Councilman Griffin.

Uh the next one is safe and engaged community, and that's councilman Rodriguez.

And then pathways to opportunities, and that's uh councilwoman Scog.

Um as you know, uh we held that first steering committee on Thursday, January 29th, uh just this last week.

Um each focus group will meet individually a num a minimum of two times, and after the focus groups have completed their work, the entire steering committee will come together again to share their findings with the larger group and their recommendations for inclusion of topics and strategies and objectives in the comprehensive plan.

Uh the steering committee will meet again and go over that, and then the steering committee will meet a third time later this year to review the draft comprehensive plan after we've combined combined it all.

Um it's extremely important that we get the city council's participation in this process.

This process and this document will shape NAMPA for years to come.

Um so I I just plead with you to be engaged in this and and participate.

Uh I'm more than willing to meet with you.

My staff and I can meet with you on an individual basis.

If you can't make the meetings, uh please let me know, and I'd be happy to meet with you individually and talk through any issues that you have or anything that you feel like we need to we need to engage the rest of the steering committee.

So again, just an update there.

We're we're right in the midst of putting material together now.

So really you'll you'll see a lot of hopefully you'll you'll be involved heavily in the these next uh few months as we draft some content.

So mayor Hogbone.

Yes, Councilman Res.

Rodney, what what was the other committee you were looking for help on?

Uh connected and accessible.

I I would I would take that with you.

Okay.

I'll work with the mayor to just make sure that that's okay.

Yes.

Thumbs up.

Great.

The other one that I'm on is is safety and what?

Yeah, um safe and engaged community.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rodney and staff.

And I just want to underscore what Rodney said uh to council.

Um please access the expertise and Rodney and staff if you have any questions specific to the area that you're working on as council.

And the comp plan is uh legal necessity, but it's an important visioning uh statement and represents our collective efforts to try to guide growth, which is something that's very uh much top of mind for the citizens and and NAMPA.

All right, we're gonna move.

I'm gonna um cover four action items under new business before we break into the public hearing.

So I uh we might go just a few minutes past, but the first one under new business is an action item, and that's to authorize the mayor to sign a resolution for the appointment of councilmember Natalie Jangula to the NAPA development corporation.

This is to complete an existing five-year term that expires September 30th, 2028.

It was vacated by Councilman Haverfield as he uh left City Council, it created a vacancy on NDC.

We keep two members of City Council on the Napa Development Corporation.

The other member currently serving is Councilman Dale Reynolds.

So uh this would be a resolution to have council member Jangula fill the vacancy, and this is um important work, uh the work of NAPA Development Corporation to help make important decisions as um they guide and navigate and steward um urban renewal area.

So um I would entertain a motion.

Second, there's a motion from Councilman Reynolds, a second from Councilman Griffin.

There's no discussion.

This would be a time for discussion.

Have the clerk take the role.

Scog, yes.

Tingula, yes, Bills, yes, Rodriguez, yes, Griffin, yes, Reynolds.

Yes, all in favor, motion carries.

All right, thank you.

And thank you, Councilman Jangula for being willing to serve.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Council.

It's gonna be more of your time.

I appreciate the opportunity.

Yes, okay.

All right.

All right.

Um 5 2 is to confirm the appointment of Dietrich Morgan to the airport commission for a five-year term.

I don't know if Mr.

Morgan's present tonight.

Um yes, uh, Mr.

Morgan uh is is available for any questions that you might have, but I'd entertain a motion.

He came as the recommended member to serve on this commission.

Okay, we have a motion from Reynolds, a second by Griffin.

Um also will take roll call um clerk.

Scog, yes.

Jingula, yes, Bills, yes, Rodriguez, yes, Griffin, yes, Reynolds, yes, all in favor, motion carries.

Thank you, Mr.

Morgan, for being willing to serve on the airport commission.

Yeah, thank you.

All right.

Uh 5-3 is to confirm the appointment of Ted Jones to the Board of Appraisers for a five-year term.

I don't believe Mr.

Jones is present tonight.

He's been at some prior council meetings.

Um but um the BOA is they also do important work and helping advise and make recommendations to this body.

So look for a motion on this action.

I'll make the motion second.

Okay, we have a motion by Councilman Rodriguez, a second by Reynolds.

Any discussion?

If none, roll call.

Scog, yes.

Yes, Bills.

Yes, Griffin, yes, Reynolds, yes, Rodriguez.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

All right.

And the last one I want to squeeze in before we break.

This is to confirm appointment of Helmant Helmut.

Am I saying that right?

I believe he's present.

This gentleman.

And is it Fiend or Fine?

Fiend.

Okay.

Thanks for being willing to serve.

And this one was a little bit of a challenge because we needed to find someone who lived in our area of impact, but outside of city limits.

So it's one of the requirements.

And so there's uh that layer, and we um need to follow our ordinance and and have one.

So we uh thank you for being willing to serve.

This gentleman put in, and the planning and zoning commission recommends that he be appointed to a six-year term.

So it would entertain a motion.

So moved.

Second.

Okay, I think bills beat uh councilman Griffin on the second.

Okay.

So uh we'll we'll give the second to the bills.

Uh we'll take a roll call on this as well.

Scog, yes.

Tingula, yes, Rodriguez.

Yes, Griffin, yes, Bills, yes, Reynolds, yes all in favor, motion carries.

Yeah.

Thank you for being antennas and and your willingness to serve as well as to Mr.

Morgan, who I think uh uh departed.

So we appreciate all those who serve on boards and commissions, and we look forward to your work working on those commissions and planning and zoning.

Again, they make a lot of important decisions.

In fact, they make some of the decisions on conditional use permits and other things.

So very important decision making as well as recommending bodies.

So we appreciate your willingness to serve.

And we won't force annex you as a condition of you serving because you have to stay outside of city limits of the area of impact.

So thanks for being willing to serve that role to help guide our growth.

All right.

Well, that yes.

I have a question.

Yes, Councilman Reynolds.

Do you think we could do 5-7 so these hardworking city employees in the front row here don't have to say?

Good call.

Uh Councilman Reddit.

I don't think it'll take us very long.

Reynolds.

Yes.

I should eyeball that as well.

We we can maybe try to clear the queue.

I know we're four minutes after, but let's if if we're okay, we'll take up five seven and then maybe we we will barring unless there's a lot of deliberation on this.

But we're I think Councilman Reynolds is anticipating that that we can get through this one pretty quickly.

But this is to authorize an area to sign a purchase agreement with RMT equipment to purchase 50 new electric golf.

And that's not a type of they're golf cars, but they're also known as golf carts.

So yes.

We have a motion from Bill's second from give it to him.

The second Griffin is slow on the second on that one again.

So the second uh councilman Reynolds.

Uh is there any discussion or questions for Cody?

If not, we'll just go ahead and take the role.

Uh mayorbone.

Okay.

The only discussion I have is we need him.

Okay.

I'm expecting Councilman Rodriguez will be a yes vote.

They saw that comment.

Any other questions?

May I guess.

Cody, do they have to be tan or can we get some fun color like red or something good?

Because the tan ones are boring.

Mayor at Councilman Reynolds.

I really I'm not even sure what color options we have.

That would probably be Tony's uh first.

I think that's white.

So we want to we want to see them from the freeway.

See how council uh yeah Rodriguez is doing.

I have one question, Mayor.

Yes.

What is happening with the remaining that we're waiting out?

Are they going to auction?

Are they how are they how are we getting rid of those?

Uh Mayor Councilman Griffin, those are being traded in to reduce the cost of the new carts.

Thank you.

All right, good questions.

All right, if there's no further discussion, we already have a motion and a second on this, so we'll do a roll call.

Scog.

Yes.

Tingula.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Okay.

I'll just ask the question.

Uh, thank you, Cody.

Um, Crystal, are you okay with 5.5 and 5.6 waiting until later?

Are you gonna be here through the evening?

Would you like us to clear it?

Let's clear it.

Are you gonna be here for the no?

Okay, let's clear it.

Okay.

Sorry.

We'll delay public hearing just by a few more minutes.

So thank you for your patience on this.

Um 5.5 is an action item to authorize the mayor and public works directors to sign a task order with David Evans, an associate for the Midland Boulevard and Greenhurst Road roundabout.

So moved.

Yes.

Wow.

This this council likes roundabouts.

I appreciate it.

I love it.

Councilman Howardfield's long gone.

Roundabouts everywhere now.

That's all in that's all in the helping with Hammerfield's air to see.

I hope he's online.

I'm having coffee with him tomorrow.

I'm ready to tear out some lights too and put in to it.

We'll do one thing at a time.

Uh this is all an inside joke for the public who's no, I'm Jen Sirius.

This council is celebrated.

This council has celebrated roundabouts and signalize intersections and what's best.

And so all right, we have a do you have the motion and second clerk?

Okay, any discussion, deliberation.

All right, if not, roll call.

Scog, yes.

Tingula.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Griffin.

Enthusiastically, yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Let the record reflect.

Okay.

5-6 is authorized public works to submit a grant application to the SD Department of Transportation is better utilizing investments to leverage development build for the Northside Corridor Community Connectivity and Safety Improvements.

Okay.

Mayor, I did have some questions on this.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Clerk, do you have the motion or in the second?

I believe that was Rodriguez.

Was it motion?

Yes.

And you have the second.

And Reynolds, yes.

As a second.

Okay, and Councilman Griffin has some questions on 5.5 or 5.6, sorry.

Thank you.

Uh just very quick.

Are there any and this is going to be very direct strings attached to other programs or other commitments that we have to make by requesting and accepting this grant for federal dollars?

Mayor, Councilman Griffin, we there aren't strings attached.

We will I will come before council to approve the budgetary authority to accept this grant if we deem it that time.

I will say uh under this grant, we are considered rural.

So we are going to be applying for a $25 million grant, and it is zero match.

Thank you.

And we're still considered rural, huh?

Under this one we are.

For the purpose of this grant.

Okay.

Okay.

By the way, we are complying with the grant.

That's not uh suggested.

No, no, no.

Thank you for that question.

Okay, yes.

Thank you.

Yes.

So we guess.

I think uh Councilman Griffin and I are on the committee for the North Side Corridor.

I suppose I'll call it.

Is this related to that?

Mayor Councilman Rodriguez.

So yes, we did a we have a safe streets for all grant, which you guys are participating in to look at the we we called that one the Yale seventh corridor.

So this will be construction funds for that.

So we're not planning just a plan as well as construction funds for one of the projects out of our raise grant to install a signal at North Side and Fourth and replace the Broadmoor Bridge.

I see.

Okay.

You don't need to put a signal just around about.

Thank you.

Pro roundabout council, I see.

Yes.

Okay.

Thanks, Crystal.

There's already a motion, a second on this question.

Any other questions?

What's that?

Oh, never mind.

No, we haven't done roll call yet.

Okay.

All right.

Another questions, we'll take roll.

Scog.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

All in favor.

Motion carries.

Okay.

There are no proclamations tonight.

And for public farms, there is no one signed up to speak.

This is when we give three minutes to a member of the public to speak.

I I will extend a last call.

Is that was there someone intending the to sign up to speak?

Not on a public hearing item, but just public forum.

Okay.

If there's not, we're going to move on to our public hearings.

So council, we're good to push through.

We don't need a break.

Okay.

We're gonna we're gonna push through and maybe we'll we'll take a break after one or two public hearings.

But the first public hearing is 8-1, and this is a request for a variance.

Um is the applicant present?

Okay, all right.

Good evening.

So you you will give us your name and your address, and then you have seven minutes.

Um I don't have much to say on Judge Shippy.

Uh 18521 Double Springs Landing Caldwell, 83607.

Uh my name is Terry Ivey.

I home 426 Chicago Street.

I bought it seven years ago, and uh I rented it out to my brother, and he destroyed the whole inside of the modular.

So I want to replace it with a newer modular on a foundation.

So when I retire from Boise bus driving, I have a place to be.

And I need this variant so I can do that.

That's it.

Mayor question.

Yes.

So clarification.

Uh is the property served by city sewer or is it on its own septic?

Septic.

Septic.

Okay.

Are you agreeable to possibly sign an agreement pending staff's input that either you'll participate in an LID or um connect to sewer if it comes available through some other means?

I don't I I can't keep the septic tank in the ground.

I'd like to keep that instead of couldn't have to admit to city sewer.

I understand.

I'm raising an issue.

Oh that our staff will be able to respond to, but um we have another request uh near you, and it seems we don't have sewer there, and we have people wanting to do certain things, so we're gonna need to resolve that.

So that's my my one sixth of a of opinion there.

So I wanted to ask you that question.

You're not sure or would prefer not to have to do that, is what it sounds like.

Yes.

Okay.

Mr.

Mayor, Councilman Bills, there is not sewer available at that location at this time.

But the difficulty is is that size of uh uh lot sizes, this one is larger, but it's still under the standards of of uh of septic requirements, correct?

So so that would go through the health district, um, and they will evaluate whether or not the existing septic is adequate for what they are proposing.

Um at the time that sewer becomes available to the property.

Umce that septic fails, at that point they would be required by state plumbing code and city plumbing code to then connect uh once that's available and the septic becomes no longer viable.

So is our master plan call for anything going up Chicago?

There is not anything in the works.

We do have identified where that sewer would go and come from.

It's over near the dog park currently.

Um there's a project that will likely be bringing it up second street, but we don't have anything currently in the works that would bring it south along Chicago at this time.

Yeah, that would likely happen with development of the property across the street, and at that time we would likely stub put a stub there, and then once their septic um is not um viable anymore, they would have that stub to connect to at that time, and then they would just be paying connection fees and a plumber to connect.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions for that applicant?

Okay.

Uh you you'll have an opportunity to come up at the end to kind of do a wrap.

So thank you.

You know, thank you.

All right, Christy.

You know this.

Or oh, sorry, A1, Damien's on this one.

Sorry, I looked down one.

Good evening, Damien.

How are you?

Good evening.

Thank you, Mayor and Council, Damian Snodgrass Associate Planner.

Uh, the requested action item for today is the variance to maximum lot size, pretty similar to what we had last time.

Um we were before you, um, the maximum lot size within the RS6 zone is 12,000 square feet, and this lot is 17,195 square feet.

So they're asking for a variance to replace the existing home with a new home.

Property details.

Uh currently it is RS6, it's surrounded by RS6, RA and some light industrial uses.

Here are the applicable regulations for a variance.

As well as those variance criteria, which we can cover in the findings.

And that applicable regulation that states that within the RS6 we have a maximum lot size is 12,000.

We received one comment, and that was from the name of building department, and that is that a demo permit is pulled for the pre-existing structure at the time that they go through with a building permit.

And that includes the demo permit from the building department.

Here are some of the relevant facts that the current house is not in conformance with city code because of that lot size, that all new development will need to meet current codes and standards.

The privilege has been granted to others in similar situations that would have to meet all the building codes and fire codes with life safety, and that maximum lot size regulation is necessary to prevent perpetuating densities that are inconsistent with the ultimate vision of the zone.

There is a current currently a single family home on the parcel.

No known traffic concerns have been identified due to granting this variance, and this variance does not create any additional safety or health or welfare concerns.

And here's a conclusion that the criteria for those relevant facts meets what it was stated.

And here are your potential motions.

I'll stand for any questions.

Um Damian, I have a question.

The last I think last week we had a similar variance because it exceeded the maximum lot size.

And I I just maybe went years without I believe seeing any of these, and now like two in a row, um, where it's the lot size is bigger than what the maximum lot size is in the RS6.

Um the question was I'm trying to recall the answer last time.

When they're replacing existing structures since it's considered new, they have to get a variance.

Um is that now let's say something happened.

Let's say this house, God forbid, were to burn down or fall into a state of disrepair.

Does she have to come back in another eight years and request another variance?

Every time you're replacing an existing structure, I just I'm trying to understand once the variance is granted on a structure and the the variance is because of the lot size for the structure.

I don't understand I I just want to make sure that we're not asking someone to get the same variance if it's a lot size concern.

I totally get the demo permit, the building department.

I'm just seems like the variance on the lot size would does that not stick with the property, or does it stick specifically with the structure itself?

And then if this structure were to be replaced in 10 years, she would have to come back before council and seek a variance.

So currently, to my understanding, in the event of like a an encoded uh like God-bearing disaster or solify or anything like that, it would just be a legally non-conforming structure and they would not have to go through the variance process.

However, how the code is written at current time is that they would have to go through for a variance if they wanted to replace the structure, then again, um if they were to come through on their own margin and want to take down and demo the structure and put a new structure, but in the case of the property burning down or some sort of natural disaster like that, they would be able to rebuild the house exactly as it was.

Without seeking another variance, without seeking another variance.

Okay, but if it's in a state of disrepair, not an act of God, they do need to seek another variance.

That is correct.

Mayor, yes, I'll just jump in here real quick.

Um a variance stays with the property, so if if this is approved for the maximum lot size, this would go in perpetuity, it would go on and on.

Um so the variance covers that if it's just building another single family structure on the property.

The the challenge and the reason this is happening or the reason we have this in code is because a city can typically use this to um get compliance with their zoning codes and their comprehensive plan.

So if we don't require that they go through a variance, what um what would happen is they just they continue to use that property the same way, and so we never have a change in the zoning code or or excuse me, compliance with the zoning code or compliance with the comprehensive plan.

So for instance, let's say we had this as commercial on the comprehensive plan, and um we um the the house was torn apart, they they removed the house and they want to build another single family home on there.

Well we we have that designation on the comprehensive plan of commercial because we want that area to go commercial.

So this is kind of similar where you're trying to get a certain density in an area, and so if that density isn't there, and they choose to make a change to what's existing, they need to come in compliance with code unless they come to you and get a variance.

Gotcha.

But if if this if this home were to last for a hundred years, that there was she could have stayed in the same home, there's no need for a variance, as I understand, right?

Correct.

Once something like this is occurring, it's it's giving us the opportunity to contemplate whether you want to grant the variance.

That's correct.

Okay.

But this but the variance would stick with the property.

That's correct.

Okay, gotcha.

Okay, thanks for answering the question.

Any questions from council for staff?

Okay.

All right, Damien, good job.

Clerk, do we have any public testimony tonight?

Members of the public signed up.

No, we do not, Mr.

Mayor.

Okay.

Um is anyone present who wishes to speak on this.

You have a legal right to speak on this for three minutes.

Okay.

Um, so we do not have um public testimony at this time.

The applicant, um, this is your your final opportunity to come up and say any final words.

There's no rebuttal that needs to be offered because there's no public testimony, but if you would like to sit state anything in closing, you can come up and do so now.

Yeah.

You you don't have to.

If if there's nothing new that you need to add, it's just I'm just you have a legal, you have a legal opportunity to use this time if there's anything that you'd like to address.

Yeah, uh house that's on the manufacturer house that's on there, it's a three-bedroom two bath.

That's exactly when I want to replace it.

I want to have a garden.

Yeah, and because right now I live in a subdivision.

You can't have a lot of things in the subdivision.

So that's the reason why I bought it seven years ago is to have that for that main reason.

That's all I'm like.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

All right.

There's no questions for the applicant from council.

If not, I'd entertain a motion to close public hearing.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All right.

Public hearings closed.

Um council would entertain a motion on this.

Sir, second.

Second.

I think I think Reddit speech you, Griffin.

Maybe it'll slow up a second.

All right.

Um, so there's a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion or deliberation from council on the motion to approve the variance?

And I assume that the motion to approve is as it's stated on the essential motion.

Yes.

I include all the proposed conditions and findings of approval.

Okay.

All right.

So we have a motion, second.

There's uh no council discussion, so we'll take roll call on this.

It's gone.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

All in favor?

Motion carries.

All right.

Very good.

Your variance is approved.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Yep.

You have a good evening.

Hope you enjoy your new home once it's in.

All right, eight two.

Are we good to push through?

Or does council want to break?

All right.

8 2 is another variance request.

And this is regarding a landscape buffer.

And is the applicant present?

All right.

So once you state your name and address, you'll have seven minutes to state kind of what your request is tonight.

Good evening.

My name is Berjon Brian Lari.

I live on 11098 with Staperham Drive, Boise, Idaho.

We uh applied for this variance because we just purchased this lot recently with the uh idea to make it uh a car lot.

And because this this lot is so skinny, and the other easements that are in place, it makes it impossible to build uh other than the north side of the property.

Um the only problem is that this lot it's only 83 feet on a north south side.

Um with uh planning and zoning requirements, which is 20 feet uh landscape buffer, 18 feet parking, 24 drive aisle, five feet ADA ramp.

Um it only leaves us with 16 feet a room to build, then that's if we build on the property line.

Um if we which it's needed to have at least a two feet uh distance because of the apartment complex in the back.

It has a garage there that it's right there on the property line.

Um it would be nice to have at least two feet.

So uh we our request is um still to create that 20 feet uh landscape buffer, but instead of starting from the property line to start from the back of the sidewalk.

This will give us um another six feet room to build uh a bigger office.

Question mayor.

Yes, Councilman Bills.

So how does uh what you're asking to do align with the neighboring properties?

Are they deeper than 20 feet beyond the curb?

Well, we don't have neighboring, the only property that we have neighboring is the comp apartment complex on the side, and the um there is a uh car lot and also um insurance office uh state farm.

Um the alignment I'm not sure um if it aligns exactly with with what they have or not.

Um but this still is gonna meet the the city requirements for landscape buffing and um sidewalks and everything else.

I don't know if I answered your question.

It answers that you don't know.

Um so uh that's why I was trying to determine is what's next door to you if it's going to be equal to what we're seeing in the picture, or it's gonna be less than uh I think that is it it is similar, it's gonna be very similar.

Yes.

Um the the landscape of the neighboring property, I believe is in some parts is 20 feet on uh some other part might be 25 from what I saw from the um uh Google images.

Uh but yes, yeah, I believe it's gonna be very similar to that.

Now the the sidewalk that shows here on the Google maps images, this is not the actual sidewalk that's currently there.

This sidewalk, this is the old sidewalk.

The the the current sidewalk, I believe it has been moved and is wider.

So this the current image shows 14 feet distance from the sidewalk on the property line, but it's actually six feet.

So we have a we have a better graph of it coming.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Any other questions for the applicant?

Are you done with your presentation?

All right, sir.

So you'll come back up at the end.

Yeah, thank you.

Good evening, Christy.

How are you?

Good evening.

Thank you.

Mayor, Council.

Christy Watkins, principal planner for the city of Nampa.

As stated, the request before you this evening is to allow for the landscape buffer to be measured from the back of the sidewalk rather than the property line on this property at 2409 Sundance Road.

As you all know, Highway 55 is currently being widened, and the sidewalk there is now 10 feet wide.

This is a very old aerial picture.

It does not include the improvements that have been made in the last year and a half.

Some of them now are smaller because they've lost some of that frontage.

And then to the east, there are other properties there prior to Highway 55 being widened that have requested variances because of variance easements and all kinds of other things that are going on on Highway 55.

And so none of the landscape buffers are consistent along that street frontage.

Does that help answer that question?

Okay.

Great.

So the zoning in the area, most of it is BC.

To the north is the Logan Luxury Apartments.

To the south is a church.

To the southeast is RD, which is an apartment complex.

To the west is BC, which is a convenience store, fuel station, car sales, and an insurance office.

And to the east is an auto body shop.

So this is the site plan.

And as you can see, um the sidewalk now is not completely parallel to the property line.

It gets skinnier.

So the maximum amount of area, extra area that they're asking for is only six feet.

Fourteen feet of that landscape buffer will be on the inside of the property line.

So they'll still have a 20-foot wide landscape buffer, and they're only gonna they're only asking for six feet at their widest point.

So that's what the variance is for.

So these are the applicable regulations for the variance.

Um there's five criteria that must be met, and staff has found that they have met all of them.

So for our landscape review, um we have a landscape architect on staff that that takes a look at these, and he said the area called the variance behind the sidewalk is city-owned right-of-way.

If the buffer is located in that section, there are certain conditions that will apply, which means there's certain types of trees and things that can be planted there, and he'll review that when it comes in for the building permit.

And then in the NAMPA building department just said that the building that's going to be constructed needs to meet building codes.

So the applicant does intend to to construct the full 20-foot wide landscape buffer, and measuring it from the back of the sidewalk in that one wide location will provide for a 14-foot wide portion of the landscape buffer inside the property line and a six-foot wide portion on the outside of the property line.

It will provide for a building that is wide enough to accommodate a vehicle repair bay and a sales office.

It will accommodate a dry vial that is wide enough to allow access for fire suppression vehicles and their apparatus.

It will allow for parking spaces that are measured to meet Nampus City Code for parking.

It will allow enough space for ADA compliant access into the building.

And they added that if you are so inclined that they would be willing to put more landscaping elsewhere on the property.

And then, of course, ITD then came in and widened and made it even more narrow than it already was.

This restricts the buildable area on the parcel ultimately and makes it very difficult to use.

So in this area, the the highway has been widened.

Um there are substantial irrigation easements in November of 2022.

Carcher Auto Body across Sundance to the east was granted a variance to allow for reduced parking setbacks because of the widening and because of the easements.

In December of 2022, Priority Electric, which was not constructed, the property that they were looking at is still currently vacant.

To the west of Carter Auto Body was granted a variance to allow for reduced parking setbacks because of the widening and the location of the irrigation easements, and they um just redesigned the property to have landscaping in different areas instead of on the frontage.

So these are the conditions of approval as listed in your staff report.

Um after weighing all of the variance facts and comments, it's clear that the need for a variance is due to the new construction on the parcel, and that city code requires this landscape buffer to be installed.

There is a practical difficulty due to the existing irrigation easements and the previous widening that creates restriction for the buildable area.

The property owners in this area have already been granted variances for the same site characteristics and restrictions.

Enforcing the law as it is written would deprive this property owner of the right to build on this parcel.

There are no safety concerns apparent as a result of granting the variance request.

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

Council, any questions for staff?

All right.

So there's no questions for you.

All right.

Yeah.

Let's see.

At this point, we'll move to public testimony.

Um is there anyone signed up to testify on this item tonight?

No, Mr.

Mayor.

Okay.

Is there anyone present who intended to sign up and wishes to speak on this item?

Okay.

The applicant, this is your time to you don't have to come up unless there's anything new that you'd like to say in closing.

The only thing that I I would like to add is um the original plan for this lot was to build on the east side of the property.

Uh but we found out that there is a sewer line there, which makes it impossible to do that.

Um the other thing is that uh I want to thank the the planning and zoning staff.

Um I've been working with with uh uh City of Boise, uh Caldwell, and uh I can say that uh these are the most um the they know most of every other planning and zoning staff that I've talked to so far.

They're great there also.

Thank you.

Kudos to the playoffs staff.

We do have a great staff.

Yeah, thank you.

Um was there any questions for the applicant?

Um council.

Okay.

I move that we close public hearing second.

Okay, all in favor?

All right.

Um public hearing is closed.

Uh what's the will of council?

Make a motion that we approve the variance as listed on the screen.

Second.

Oh, Griffin got the second.

Okay, motion by Bills, second by Griffin.

Okay.

Any discussion or deliberation on the motion?

Okay, if not, this is roll call.

Scog.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Renriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

All right.

Your variance is approved.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Are we doing council?

Good to push through to 8.3.

Cool.

Okay, we're just powering through.

All right, let's go to 8.3.

This is a zoning map amendment from RA.

It's RS6.

And potential development agreement for a parcel on 602 Chicago Street.

So is the applicant present?

All right.

You may come forward, introduce yourself, and you'll have seven minutes to introduce the project to us.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Dylan Snively, living at 602 Chicago Street.

Uh, our plan here is to uh rezone to RS6 and tear down the additional dwelling unit that's on the southern half of the property in order to build uh family home.

Um we have already talked with Southwest District Health to get a septic system that would um serve both houses.

So there will be an easement between those two.

And uh the we have had everything to work out with them.

Uh you any questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Or councilman bills.

Yeah, clarification.

So you say you've already applied with Southwest District Health on the subject.

Yeah, they I had them come out and do an evaluation, test the soil and figure out how much land is required for that uh drain field.

And they've worked it out to the minimum size required for a four-bedroom house on addition to the four-bedroom house that is currently there.

Okay.

So we'll have question for staff.

Thank you.

Very good.

You'll have an opportunity to come up at the end.

All right, thank you.

All right, staff.

Mayor Council, uh, quickly, Rodney Ashby, planning and zoning director.

Um as has been stated, this is for a future lot split on the parcel that's already been mentioned.

You can see the location there just north of Amity and Chicago, south of the previous application we heard tonight.

Umpa Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval on November 25th, 2025, with all proposed findings and conditions.

Uh the comprehensive plan shows this as medium density residential.

The zoning in the area, you can see here it is RA on the property right now.

Um, but they are of course are requesting the amendment there.

Um, as you can see, to RS6.

And a little closer view.

You can see RS7 to the south, RS6 to the west, and then the RA to the north and east with the associated uh land uses, primarily residential, larger lot, residential to the east and to the north, um, and just a standard size R7 to the south with an open lot to the west, and then that's the bus yard just to the north of that one.

That's zoned IL on the screen.

Okay.

Um so it as in the past in 2020 we had an application, so just quick history.

They applied for a rezon to RS7, but withdrew it after staff determined that the um that they didn't need to do that to have the uh accessory dwelling unit on the property.

Um the sewer and and water and utilities in the area, you can see that there.

Sewer is not available to the property.

Um water is and pressure irrigation is as well.

And just uh a comment.

We've had previous um uh discussions about what happens when Southwest District Health approves, and I looked at Daniel for any details here, but when Southwest District Health doesn't approve a septic tank on a property like this, then um we would require that or they would require that they connect to city services and utilities.

So the only way for uh a home to be developed on this property is to either bring the sewer to that location or to have Southwest District Health approve a septic tank on the property.

So a little closer view here, you can see the aerial.

Um essentially everything on the southern portion of the property would be available for development.

And this is just uh a street view of that property.

You can see that um there's a good portion on the the south side of this property for development.

You can see also the the smaller uh building there is the accessory dwelling unit that's detached from the main home there.

All right, so this is applicable regulations.

Uh when a parcel is annexed into the city, one administrative law split may be permitted on that parcel.

The new parcels created by that law split need to comply with the zoning standards, the bulk standards, the lot size, the setbacks, everything on there.

Um and they have to comply with the density requirements.

So uh with this request to RS6, it does comply with that.

And here are the conclusions of the law for a zoning regulation, uh, or excuse me, a zoning map amendment, and they would need to comply with all three of those for you to approve that today.

Um next is just the lot sizes and the uh minimum widths, and uh again they would have to comply with each of those when they do their lot split, and we will require that at that time.

We do have a lot split application that we review prior to them being approved.

Here are the bulk requirements for the new lot that's being created, and again, we'll review those at the time of uh building permit and uh and as well at lot split.

We had correspondence on this.

Nampa fire district does not oppose the application, subject to compliance with code, um compliance with code, and then they are 1.7 miles from the NAMPA fire station number one with an approximate response time of six minutes.

The uh NAMPA building department also cited several sections of code and that they will need to be in compliance with a letter from Southwest District Health approving the joint use from one property sewer line connecting to one drain field located on the south southernmost lot shall be provided to the City of Nampa building department.

Again, this comes back to my comments there.

They have to work this out prior to splitting the property.

Um and then that will be recorded on the permit.

There's different ways that they can achieve that.

And then NAMPA Engineering had standard comments regarding right-of-way dedication, which is complete and requirement for frontage improvements if the property is developed, and that septic and drain fields are required on the property because sewer is not available prior to splitting the lot owners shall provide proof from Southwest District Health of approval.

Here are the proposed conditions of approval.

Um I don't think I need to go over these, but essentially they need to comply with code, and that's situation number eight with South Southwest District Health, they need to show proof of that.

Um these are continuation of some facts uh that we've already talked about additional facts for the findings, and then the conclusion is weighing the evidence of the facts presented, the fact support compliance with each of the zoning map amendment criteria outlined in NAMPA City Code, the proposed map amendment is in harmony with the city's currently adopted comprehensive plan and comprehensive plan land use map because the proposed zone and use are specifically called out as approved in the plan.

The density falls within the plan range for medium density residential land use designation and the land uses permitted under that zone are identified as needs and compatible to other residential uses in the comprehensive plan text.

The proposed map amendment provides for proposed use that is reasonably compatible with existing adjoining property or uses because the proposed use will be provide the same land use as neighboring properties, single family detached residential, and then the proposed zoning map amendment is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary as shown by the fact that the land use will not be changing and the zone and use are supported by the NAMPA comprehensive plan and zoning code.

And then here are a couple of motions for your consideration, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Mayor Hugo.

Yes, we got two Councilman Rodriguez first, and then we'll go to the thank you.

Ronda, I'm I'm beginning to wonder now since Councilman Bills brought this up earlier.

Is it in the best interest of the city to make it try to push to I'm not gonna say the word mandatory, but to allow easy access, better access for sewer to these new homes coming, especially something like this, where there's two homes on one property than one.

I mean, I'm just hypothetically, what do you what are you thinking?

Um I I want to defer to Daniel, but maybe let me make a comment and then um maybe he can help me and confirm this.

Um essentially what you're looking at is when you um we're not annexing the property, it's already annexed, it's already zoned, they're already paying property taxes for some of the services they get.

So when um utilities are required, they uh are required to pay a utility hookup fee.

They bring the utilities to that location, and then uh they start paying and monthly fees for bi-monthly fees for the use of those services.

And so the then the question is is the push to um require the sewer being brought to this property or to other properties.

Does that uh important enough that we could go without this property being redeveloped?

Because that's kind of you're weighing the two options there.

So I would say I I don't really I can't really speak to whether it's the right thing to do or or good for the city, but you have to weigh those two options, right?

It might not develop, but it it may, if it develops, you have a uh value increase on your improvement value for that property, which increases taxes to that property.

If you don't provide the sewer, then you're not you don't have the expense of the sewer that is associated with the fee that would come along with it.

That is that okay, Daniel?

Generally, yes.

Um in situations like this, it is typical for properties that do not have reasonably w when we're looking at a small single lot split and one new home or rebuilding of an existing home.

If the the state code, the state plumbing code and the city's plumbing code, which are the same, uh define sewer availability is within, I believe, 250 feet of the property.

In this situation, we're looking at more than you know, closer to a half a mile away for the sewer, so um so it's down by the dog park, so it would have to come all the way up second and then down sugar or down uh Chicago.

There is sewer in Amity, however, that is not deep enough to get up and serve this property.

Um we're at the very shallow end when we're in amity there.

Um it's the very end of the basin, and so while sewer is available is in Amity, it's not deep enough to get up and serve this property.

So question.

Sorry.

I'm sorry.

Keep going.

Okay, thank you.

Um so it it's gonna be based on the land accessibility before we can go any further.

That's as in this case.

So for for this particular property and any property in this situation, the septic systems are governed by Southwest District Health, and they are ultimately the ones that decide whether it is allowable to place a new septic or replace a septic system.

Uh we work uh as staff, we we coordinate with them and I've had discussions with them on this property.

Um I have not seen an approval letter, but prior to a lot split and prior to any new building permits being issued, um, they would have to provide that from the health district that they have determined a s a new septic can be placed there.

Um bills.

So Daniel, I need a clarification that a six-inch line couldn't come out of Amity and service this property.

So there are three houses, I believe, right on the corner of Amity and Um Chicago to the north across from the church.

Um that they were able to gravity sewer down there to Amity, um, but it would require um pumping or a grinder pump to sewer from this property down to that to that sewer line in Amity.

That that sewer line gets very shallow.

It serves property there to the south, and and that the grades work where we're coming downhill towards it.

Um but the those the sewer line there is not deep enough to serve this property.

Um grinder pump lift on a single residence could could take place.

We would generally not allow a um a private sewer for seminar of a grinder pump paralleling within the roadway.

Um the backyards.

If they were to obtain an easement, those were not platted lots, so there are no existing easements, they would have to obtain an easement to do that.

If they were to do that, they certainly could.

Um but that would be that we can certainly work with them if approved to to explore that option.

That may be a better option.

Um depending on what the health district would require for the septic system there.

We can certainly discuss that and and see if that's viable if they could obtain those easements from those four property owners to the south of them.

Um, but that's what it would take to be able to do that.

Okay.

Uh so based on the picture that you're showing us there on the screen, it appears uh the ADU got built.

Uh, but there's been no yard improvements, no landscaping.

So I assume the ADU is one, two, five years old.

What what was the time frame on it?

So actually, Mayor.

Um it actually was built uh prior to that, and they were just converted, they converted it to an ADU.

Yeah, and it was a conversion, so it's an existing, so there has been no landscaping on the property.

Correct.

Is that part of our requirements to grant sewer on this bill and annex it?

Um so a rezone, you I don't know.

I guess I'm look at our our attorney there.

Do we have the ability to require landscaping for a rezone?

I don't I don't believe we do for a single family home.

What I would say to that um you can put an imposed conditions on an approval like this, it's property specific.

And if there are conditions that are related to the property, and there's a nexus, right, with the use it may impose or impact um within the within reason you you may be able to impose some additional conditions.

I would defer to Rodney and their team though about maybe what landscaping requirements are already required.

Yeah, yeah.

So um for a single family home, we do more extensive um landscaping requirements for a subdivision.

For a lot split like this, we don't have a a lot of landscaping standards.

Uh we do require two uh trees on the property, and we don't allow vehicles to traverse over just dirt or grass, it has to either be paved or it has to have uh gravel.

Um but other than that, for a single family home, we don't have a lot of requirements.

Yeah, I I haven't seen that a lot.

I'm like you, usually it's in the larger subdivision uh approvals.

Um again, I think the print the legal principle is is there a rational basis for it tied with the actual use of the property?

Uh it can't just be a wish list of what you want it to look like, um, as that's requiring an additional um cost on the property.

Yeah.

And may I just add one more thought there?

I I think we can um if if we're to tie any kind of condition like that, I I would think we probably would want to tie it to something they're they're requesting of us.

So a building permit or uh um a future lot split, or in this case a rezone, it could be a condition of approval for the rezone.

Um so you wouldn't I don't know if you I think probably the easiest thing for us to handle would be a permit, a building permit.

If they're gonna pull a permit on this to build a structure, we would require those that condition of landscaping be done.

The the other question though is we've got two lots here we're dealing with.

If they did the lot split, and could we require landscaping on the existing um lot that already has the home on it without a building permit being pulled?

I have a the rational basis part.

I well, I was gonna ask a question about Dewey, but it's it's sort of tied to this landscaping question because one of the conditions you have in here is upon approval or contingent on approval is that there would be you cut off the access on Dewey.

So does I I mean I'm trying my best to understand looking at this home.

It seems like the way that the home is configured, it's it's sort of the garages and whatnot are facing Chicago, but the way the homes are aligned down Dewey, it seems like it's along this row of homes that's where Dewey would be more the kind of the when we talk about the front yard setback.

Um so I'm thinking of you shut it, looks like they're using um the VUI as a way to move maybe off the property potential uh just the way that picture is showing the cars configured, is that they're coming on on Chicago, but then you would be cutting off Dewey.

I was wondering the reason behind that, but it's also provides possibly a rational basis on landscaping requirements on how we define what the front yard is.

Mayor, that was one of my staff that recommended that condition.

The the drive approach there on Dewey is close very close to the intersection.

Um and so it's not compliant with our policy uh for the spacing from the intersection, and that's why he recommended that.

In this particular situation with what Dewey is, if you look at you know what Dewey it was originally a county road, uh dirt road back when I was a kid.

I grew up in this area and attended that church building once it was built, and so I'm very familiar with the area.

Dewey was just a dirt road at that time over the years as properties were built there.

Um it did get paved, there is no curb gutter sidewalk, it's a very rural road.

Um the recommendation to remove that access, uh while it is the recommendation, and um because of the policy, that particular access is not the end of the world for the city.

It's on a dead end road and and very low volume, so it's not um something that from a safety issue with the the way that road is and the way that I would envision that road would ultimately be in the future.

It's it's not I I'm not gonna lose sleep if that's not required of them.

Okay, well if that's a condition, then it go back, Rodney, um, to the sorry, the one that you had.

Uh oh where was the one that you had?

Um right there.

Well, there was another one that showed the southward properties on Chicago.

So if if this were approved, the existing lot as well as the new lot, you would say Chicago is so they are that would become the front edge of it and the southward properties.

It seems like maybe the landscaping could be consistent with there's like three or four homes below it that clearly Chicago is the you know I guess what you call the front yard setback is off Chicago.

The the new the new structure, if approved, they would face Chicago and and addressed off of Chicago as well, making their front yard setback from Chicago.

But the existing property has a Dewey address?

No, it has a Chicago address.

Um but how that building was oriented in the original, you know, when it was constructed, uh what they assumed for the setbacks that I I don't know.

Okay.

Mayor, I can I can actually speak to that.

Um this is actually the front of the property is on Chicago right now.

Over time as roads widen and everything, that setback feels a little bit tight there, but I I actually believe it's in compliance with our our code.

If you look at this here, there's a pretty good distance back from the the sidewalk there for the existing home.

Um so they would just need to comply with that code.

But it's it is addressed off of Chicago, and that's the front of the property.

Okay.

Uh thanks.

So cutting yes, Councilman Reynolds.

Rodney, um, on page 272 on our packet, um, and you had it on the screen here in a second ago, conditions for approval.

Uh number two, the letter from Southwood District Health approving the joint use from one property sewer line connecting to one drain field located on the southernmost lot, shall be provided to the city of Minapi Building Department.

What is the intent there?

Because are you saying that Southwest District Health is going to let them use one septic, one drain field?

I'll I'll take that one, Rodney.

Um Mayor, Councilman Reynolds.

Those are the discussions the applicant has been having with this with Southwest District Health for what they would approve to to go in in that area.

Um the applicant would likely be able to speak more to what those discussions.

Um staff has not seen an approval letter at this point.

Uh my anticipation is they're they're waiting.

The health district may be waiting for an actual lot split um to happen so that they they can craft the agreement, but the applicant would likely be able to speak to that better than staff.

So let me one follow-up on that, Mayor.

Um and Rodney, so the with an alternate location at Southwest District Health is going to require for a drain field, there's gonna be enough space for that from what you know, Daniel.

That is what the applicant has been working with Southwest District Health over.

Um, and they would like again, they would be able to speak to what those concessions or um areas they have been talking with the health district about.

Um, but yes, the the health district does typically require a uh alternate location, so that when the septic drain field fails, there's another location for it to go to.

Um in some of my conversations over the years on this property, they have been looking at potential easements on the adjacent property for that.

Um, but again, I I don't have any final information from the health district on what they have elected to approve or have said they would approve the applicant would be.

And one last comment, uh Mayor.

Um so I I don't think it's a good idea at all to have that.

That is something that we would also require at the time of building permit for that councilman bills.

Yeah, so what I was trying to follow up is is it it appears from the pictures that we got a gravel driveway on the existing it's like I don't know if you can go back to your one elevation picture.

So from the area, there's a driveway access out onto Dewey from a couple of these pictures, it's a gravel access and curb cut through vertical curb sidewalk with the house facing the garage facing, and then we're gonna section off and allow another unit to get built and potential joint drain field usage.

Um I I guess I'm kind of perplexed that we're we're doing a second lot and um setting it up that somebody could sell that and then to Councilman Reynolds deal about the septic system joint usage, we're trying to press something through Central District Health, and to me it if this was going to be approved.

I mean it it needs to have the improvements completed.

Um, as far as a uh concrete paved driveway, it landscaping done.

I don't know, may the applicant may be in the middle of it, but for right now it just looks like uh we're bootlegging in and making a lot of concessions to get something done for a second lot that otherwise should have a pressure pressure main on the sewer and it just feels like an in run on what most have to do when they want to platter create one, two, three lots, and we we have a house, then we get an ADU, then we get another house, and then we're gonna ask for another ADU.

Uh I I don't know what where it ends, and it seems this is a weird precedent to me.

Um so I I'm struggling with uh with the issue here.

Mayor um Mayor and Councilman Bills.

I I can just respond to the one thing that will be required is um that they improve that the lot that they pull the building permit on.

I I think to um to our attorney's point, you may have some ability to condition the improvement for the the other property since this is a rezone if you can tie that to annexus to this action.

Um but um if if a home gets built on this southern portion, you would have a paved driveway.

You would have landscaping required, they have to at least landscape it to somehow.

It doesn't have to be grass, and they have to have two trees on the property.

So that could be um some decorative gravel or whatever that would be a part of the building permit for that southern lot.

What happens on the northern lot is an answer I'm I'm not sure I have.

Um, and I think that's your point is that this needs to all be cleaned up all at once.

If you put if you call this a nexus because you're doing a rezone to this, maybe you put a condition on this to landscape the entire area and perhaps address the the um the driveway that it'd be paved as well.

Well, I'm just you know, I mean we've got an ADU we we granted an ADU, we got a permit, and they got occupancy, it would seem and yet we got a gravel driveway and no landscaping.

I don't understand that.

Yeah, I mean I I don't know the details of that history, but um if we pull the permit on this new location and and as part of this rezone, you could put some conditions on there.

Yeah, I just I don't know that uh I don't think there's enough facts or there's enough history here or performance.

Maybe that's the word I'm looking for, if that's even the right one.

Um it sure seems like we're we're trying to really force a additional opportunity, and yeah, we don't have all the facts.

So event we'll see if there's anybody else who has to speak, keep the hearing moving.

Mayor, yes, Rodney.

Do you know uh where the existing septic tank and drain field is on that property?

I don't uh uh that's probably uh a question for the applicant when he comes back up.

You um any other questions for Rodney?

Okay.

So at this time we'll go to public testimony.

Um clerk, is anyone signed up to speak on this?

No, Mr.

Mayor.

Okay, is there anyone present who intended to or would like to speak on this for three minutes?

Are you I'm the owner of the house.

Okay, so you're represented with the presenter as the applicant.

So okay, so you'll you'll have an opportunity to team up with uh Mr.

Schneidy.

I can explain a lot to answer a lot of your questions.

Okay.

So there is no uh no public testimony.

So at this time, yes, the both of you or yourself can come up.

You have five minutes to um provide some closing comments.

I've of course you've heard a lot of discussion, and you may want to speak to some of those items.

Okay, so I'm Denise Smith.

This is my son-in-law Dylan.

So we bought this house in 2018.

From my understanding, if you could go back to the picture where yes, this one.

We've done a lot of improvements.

I know it doesn't look like it.

We had pine trees all along here, we got them torn out.

If anybody's ever lived with pine trees, you have pine needles everywhere.

Okay, so anyway, um, so the little structure was already there when we bought that house.

We did not add that house.

I I just want to clarify because I don't know.

I kind of am understanding that you did we put it there?

The ADU, thinking that we did not put that there, it was already there.

So um we had we remodeled the that little structure because they from my understanding the previous owner had turned that into an apartment for his father who lived there.

There was no functioning bathroom, there was a compost toilet.

So we remodeled, we got permits to remodel.

So that little house has its own septic tank, and our house has a septic tank.

We share a drain field.

We put in a new drain field in 2019 with Nampa D Nampa Drain and Septic.

It's in this back corner, you know, in that far back corner.

Yes, back there.

That is where it is.

We've already had Southwest District come out, and they have said yes, it is possible to put another house there, and they would just have to add on to the drain field.

We would share the drain field, so we don't have a letter yet because we're waiting for this final in order to do that part.

And yes, it is gravel.

We are planning on doing cement and that, but that is very expensive.

So we did the fence.

I mean, it if you saw it when we moved in, it was a lot different.

But so we've done a lot of improvements to it.

We did tear out pine trees that were here, and that was mainly because we knew we were gonna probably try and split the property.

We thought it would also be easier without the trees there for them to be able to come in and do construction.

Plus, they were a mess, they dropped a lot of needles and stuff.

So we will be planning on landscaping.

Um I guess I'm confused as to our the big house there is ours, so I'm confused as to why we would be required to landscape.

We don't we don't have any HOAs or anything like that, so I'm not understanding why that would be part of I mean the new house, yes, would landscape that, but why does it matter on the existing house?

I guess is my question as an owner.

So the question for you, Mayor.

Yes is uh to the applicant.

Uh your intent then is to split the property.

Yes, right where that dwelling is.

That's gonna get demolished.

So where that dwelling is all the way down is gonna be the new property.

Yeah, right there.

The dwelling you're referring to what was it's gonna get demolished.

The ADU is gonna be it's gonna be gone.

So that whole rest is where we're gonna split where the new house is gonna go.

We will be sharing a drain field, and each house will have a septic.

Okay, and your plan is is to build a house and sell the lot in the house.

They're gonna build the house on it.

So we're the lot is gonna go to my daughter and son-in-law, and they're gonna build the house on it, and we're living next door.

Okay.

So like so I'll rephrase it.

Your intent is to split the property.

Yes.

And to convey the deed to another party.

Exactly.

Okay.

Okay.

Yes.

I guess I just need clarification.

Why build the fence at all if you're going to tear down the house?

Well, because when we put the fence up there, we didn't know we were going to do that.

Okay.

Yeah, we put the fence up because it was totally open.

Um and so we just didn't want to have an open area right there where everyone that drives by can just see in our yard.

So it was more of a security plus we have a dog and we have grandkids and we want it to be more secure when people when they're there.

Um and at that time, yeah, I wouldn't have spent all the money on the fence had I known I'm gonna have to tear it down.

So yes, we did that prior to yes.

Is the fence being ripped down as well when the house gets ripped down?

Yeah, it's gonna have to, yeah.

And we'll use what we can of it to put if they need a fence, you know, on part of wherever their house ends or doesn't end, then yes.

Mayor, an additional with that in mind, I understand your current residence.

Yeah.

So I I'm coming in the lens of if this is going to be future development.

The current house is going to stay.

Yes.

Are you willing to have conditions applied to the split property?

Obviously, we can't state, oh, you're developing your home, but in my mind, you're developing a portion of the property.

Anything that's going to be development should have neighborhood requirements or development requirements.

I'm okay with that.

I'm just was confused as to why, because I heard I just kind of heard it mentioned like, well, can we require the owner to landscape?

Which he said, no, you really can't.

So that's why I'm just like, I mean, am I being required to landscape my front yard?

I want to make sure Councilman Griffin, where you when you said a split property, you're talking about the new property or the existing one.

The new property.

Okay, yeah.

Okay.

So in those conditions, I think establishments.

If it requires landscape or whatnot, because yes, that's the one.

On the new property, not on your own.

Yes, that is the yes, and again, we're gonna do ours as well.

Because you gotta remember this lot across the street is empty.

It is full of goat heads, so we constantly get weeds.

Trust me, it's been a fighting battle to keep the weeds out.

We had a tree in our front yard that was dead, we had to pull it out.

So we just let the grass die because we got a sprinkler system and we didn't want to put it in the front.

It's a pain to mow because I got to mow in the front, take it all around through the gate to get to the back.

The way the house was designed.

Um, according to what I found out, the house was built in 55.

The original part of the house, and then somebody added on to it to make it a two-story house.

So thank you.

Mayor, an additional question.

Yes.

The current property is it has its own septic.

Has its own septic.

And the ADU is tapped into the current property septic.

No, the ADU has its own septic because when I remodeled the ADU in 2019, Southwest because I m I put toilet in there, a functioning toilet, because it had a compost toilet.

Okay.

Don't know how that happened, but again, it was there when I bought it.

And so I was able to put in a toilet, which required a septic tank because they did not allow a Southwest district to not allow us to share with that dwelling, even though it's a one bedroom, one bath.

Um, and so they had to have their own.

So they have their own septic.

I have my own septic, but the drain field is shared between the both of us.

So I have piping that runs in my backyard where my septic tank is all the way across down into the drain field.

So that will stay the same according to what we've already found out from NAMPA Drain and Southwest District, they've already come out, and they said yes, that's fine.

There will be room for that.

They dug the hole and all that, you know, the test hole that they do.

So mayor, uh I'm throwing this out to staff so they can compare when we end up closing and asking questions.

If one if the drain field fails, and this is split into two separate properties, is there gonna be an easement allowing the new development to have access onto the property to have access onto the drain field or vice versa?

The new uh that's just one of my thoughts.

I don't know, maybe that's too complex and I'm getting way into the weeds, but that's that's reality.

I think there's uh obviously it's your children at this selling.

If we end up selling, a big fat hobble, I don't know what ends up happening.

Um, from my understanding, I think we just have to have a letter.

Like, you know, when people share a well, it's the same kind of thing.

You just have to everybody that lives with that shared has to know that that's the thing, is from what I understand.

So whoever, let's say if we sold our house, whoever bought it, would know that they're sharing a drain field with the house next door.

I mean, is that am I correct in that?

But that's my understanding.

That's what I'm trying to flesh out as well.

So we need two separate drain fields, or are they able to have one contiguous?

There's there's not room for two separate drain fields.

Yeah, so if I couldn't talk about that, the there will be one drain field, the drain field now is in the south uh southeast corner of the lot.

Uh it will be expanded to uh support two homes.

Um the current home on the north side has its own septic tank along with ADU.

The ADU will be demolished, and there will be another septic tank uh made for the new house.

Mayor.

Thank you.

Can you show me on the map uh in that aerial view of where the drain field is currently and then where where the the new home would sit?

Staff would have to point at that, or staff can do it with their arrow.

The aerial photo, so you'd like to see where the drain field is.

Councilman Reynolds would yeah, that yep, that corner.

Okay, so when where would the new home sit?

Uh approximately right where that ADU is now.

Okay.

And do you know how many square feet your existing drain field is?

Um I don't know what the existing is.

I know it has to be expanded to I believe it's 1200 square feet.

Okay.

It's probably 600 four four to six hundred square feet is normal, but um Mayor.

Yes.

If you're done, council.

Councilman Reynolds.

Anyway I'm done.

I okay.

Thanks.

Okay.

And this might additionally be for staff later on, but the question is going to you, just in my mind on a potential approval.

Uh right now that ADU sits pretty close to that property.

Are you okay scooting it over?

So it's got some um what's the word I'm looking for?

Five foot setback and other setbacks to be able to have it be its own standalone property if in the future something does happen and you want to move that those are separate Mayor.

I can I can speak to that very quickly.

Um there already is a five-foot setback um required on either side of a new property line.

So in order to place that property line, you would have a 10 foot between the building.

Okay, thank you.

Minimum.

Minimum.

Yeah.

Thank you.

And you're aware of that and understand all that.

Thank you.

If I'm going through the semantics, I apologize.

I think this was a unique project when I was going through the packet that I frankly had difficulty visualizing and seeing.

So thank this all is being worked through my mind through this discussion.

Was I able to clarify it?

You were okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, it's I think it's still tough.

It's a tough project, I think, just with the drain field and having the the tapping of the two projects, but we're working through the well, and when they came out, because I had to get a new septic tank in my house after I bought it, and they didn't even know where the drain field was.

They had no idea because that septic tank had been there since 1955, so they didn't have any record.

Southwest district didn't have any record that I had a septic.

So that they put that new drain field down at that end.

No, and that makes sense for it being its own standalone property now splitting it in two.

I think there's some things that need to be worked out and discussed that I'm trying to figure out my mind and maybe through staff discussion, but you answered a lot of my questions too.

Okay, perfect.

Any more questions for the applicant?

No, I have comments, but I'll wait, kind of so I was trying to understand.

I think you you the applicant, you excuse me.

You would prefer not to do frontage improvements on the existing property.

Is that what I understand?

That's no your on your frontage.

No, I'm gonna I'm gonna do landscaping.

I just was I just was questioning am I gonna be required?

I think yeah, I think that's my like to do that.

I think that's my question is one.

I I don't at the time the house was built, sounds like it was in the county initially.

Um I thought Councilman Bills earlier when he asked about the conditions, it was more at the time of maybe annexation on the original property, whether or not there are existing um existing requirements on that parcel that might need to be reinforced.

I'm I'm wondering if there already are requirements that might not be met currently.

Does that make sense?

Yeah.

Um I uh so it was annexed in 1971.

So prior to our zoning ordinance going into place.

Um so then the question is it sounds to me like it's a legal non-conforming situation that would not require them to make those improvements.

However, a rezone is a new opportunity for us to look at this.

Okay.

So I I know I don't get a vote in this unless there's a tie.

Um but I think my my preference would be to try to have some consistent requirements um the existing as well as the new parcel.

Um anyhow, that I I just that might be a potential condition that I I would support.

So I just didn't know.

Okay.

Mayor Yeah, and like I said, that's our plan.

Yes, Councilwoman Scogg.

Um, I just wanted to confirm something that I think you said um when you build the new home, you will be changing the second septic tank that is to the small home so that it fits the size of the new home.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Yeah, Mayor.

Well, uh that's our questions for the applicant.

I don't want to close the public hearing if we need to have it.

Um what I'm trying to explore is it seems to me uh we should postpone a decision.

We should possibly keep the public hearing uh alive or available, and the applicant comes back with a drawing that would normally be seen on most applications where it shows where the lot splits going to take place.

There'd be a survey and showing that there would be a drawing that shows where the existing grain field and septic is, where the news going, and where's the building sites?

Yeah, I feel like what we're looking at, uh we're trying to picture it and guess it.

And this feels like uh what most applicants uh are required to come in with and present, you know, especially if they get to three lots or four lots.

Um I'm not seeing that here.

And so I'm asking the question do we close public hearing and then uh make a decision, or do we hold it open and ask for a better clarification as to what's gonna happen and a uh rough draft of whatever agreements are gonna take place?

And mayor, I do we have that option.

Uh Mayor Councilman Bills, yes, you have that option.

Um if you are wanting to see new evidence put into the record, which you would under that scenario, what you'd want to do is uh continue the public hearing.

Um you want to have the applicant present on that limited scope, provide opportunity for the public to comment on that image, that new evidence being brought in.

They then can rebut on it, um staff can weigh in on it.

It'll be kind of like a limited micro public hearing just on that little point, and then you can close if you're satisfied of that time to public hearing and proceed to deliberation and your vote.

If I could add something, uh I do already have a site plan.

I have worked with uh an architect to make one uh that Southwest issue district health required.

Um I'm not sure if it was one of the requirements for planning and zoning, uh, or if I did submit it or not.

But I have one in already too, if we needed to present now.

Rodney, could you clarify confirm some of these items of discussion?

Thanks.

Sure.

Um mayor and and council, um, we do not have a requirement that when we do a rezone that they provide a um a potential law split.

Um a lot of times we see these smaller developments um just request the rezone in order to go through the process of hey, is this even a possibility?

Um typically a larger development, you know, five or six homes or whatever, or even three, we'll do uh a concept drawing.

But that doesn't mean we can't.

Absolutely, we could continue this public hearing request that uh uh the concept plan be submitted into the the record so that we can we can talk about it.

I'll just I guess um I guess I'll just say that our code does address the requirements.

So, like regardless of and if that if it makes it easier to understand what's being proposed, then I think it makes a lot of sense to continue it and get a concept drawing.

But I I will say that our codes are in place to um protect in these situations.

Um for the new home, it the lot line will have to be placed at least five feet from the uh any property uh building.

Um it will have to be five feet from a new building, it'll have 20 foot setback, paved parking, landscaping.

Um it will have to go through the process to confirm that there's uh the utilities that comply with our codes and Southwest district health standards.

So if you're comfortable, it it sounds to me like you're not comfortable with moving forward with that.

Um concept would help that.

So a comment back was is that we had a hearing here two or three meetings ago where uh they kept building houses on the property, and now they sell one off, and then they're coming back in to get a variance because they built the foundation too close to another property line.

And if it it was it wasn't a plated deal, it was just hey, we're gonna arm wave this thing and evolve this thing.

And that seemed like a very cumbersome situation in my mind, and trying to clean that up.

And it seems like uh approving uh this deal without definitive here's where the lot splits going, here's where the building's going, here's everything they're in.

We're gonna evolve into one day somebody's gonna be back and saying, Well, we bought this property, but gee, we didn't know XYZ.

And so I feel like uh unless you think those conditions and and the because seeing that deal two or three meetings ago, sure had a lot of issues that uh I think this is gonna be similar.

Councilman and mayor and staff and well real quick, just for the applicant.

Uh are there any more questions for the applicant?

Yes, Mayor.

Okay.

All right.

So just stay patient and yes, okay, carry on, councilman.

And I think it will ease the concerns of the councilman that and I have as well.

Your young guy, do you have those that site plan readily available on your phone or iPad or computer right now?

That I do, yes.

Does staff have that?

Have you emailed that to staff?

Can somebody pull it up on the TV just so we can get visual real quick?

Their site plan that email it to me.

Yeah.

If you could email it to Daniel real quick, so then we can look at it.

I I don't want to have to kick you down the road, but I have similar concerns that I think a visual that you've already got saves us having to continue it because you already have it right here.

Maybe Daniel could pull it up.

As well, oh, the survey as well, because we did have it surveyed already.

You did already have it surveyed.

So they already designated our area 7,000 something feet, his 9,000 something feet.

Yeah, because I have this, I have the email.

He's got the good deal.

So could you know you have to pay money to have someone come out to do that?

Sure.

And so we already paid for that.

And I know it wasn't required to have it in the packet, so I'm not beating up on staff, I'm not beating up on you for wanting to see it.

I want to see it as well.

So if we have it, let's just get it done rather than pushing it out and leaving the hearing open and going through the whole process.

Okay, so this exhibit will I once Daniel gets the email and pulls it up, we'll just um I know Rodney's uh conferring with staff, but um what or legal can refer that this would just be added to the record.

Yeah, Mary would be, and what I'd recommend where this is uh new evidence, uh it may have a material or substantial nature to it to the application.

Um I would ask if anybody in the audience would want to give comment to it to which the applicant could then rebut if I remember right, nobody came up for comments.

Should be a quick yeah.

If they didn't have comment on the original look, maybe this will take it in there.

While that's being pulled up for councilman Reynolds, because I'm not an expert, and while I'm trying to figure this out, the concern with the shared drain field, can you explain what what the concern is with that?

Because I don't know.

Sure.

Mayor uh councilwoman Jangula.

So the drain field is what takes the affluent off of a septic tank, the solids run into a septic tank, and then the affluent runs into a drain field.

So if you have two homes and two tanks, uh they're each taking their own solid waste and then the affluent runs off.

Said uh Councilman Bills is my neighbor in one of the homes, and and I take care of my seput tank, I have it pumped every two years regularly, like it should be.

And Councilman Bills is like, I don't want to do that, that's dumb.

And he has 28 million grandchildren, and they're all over there using the bathroom and toilet paper and whatever, and his tank fills up and the bacteria is not working correctly, and it runs out under the drain field, then it plugs the drain field.

Now all of a sudden one guy that was the good steward, he gets stuck with the bad actors drain field problem because they're sharing a drain field.

So uh it's just um a real sticky situation.

I understand that they're family, but it might not always be family.

And if this was a um city sewer, I wouldn't have a question about this at all.

But the drain field creates a problem.

So just for I don't know what Southwest District Health is gonna require, but it's so many square foot of drain field for how big the home is, how many bathrooms, how many members are living in that home.

So he's mentioning the applicant about 1200 square feet.

600 square feet's a good size drain field, 1200 square feet would make sense because it's two homes.

1200 square feet, so your ditches are two foot wide, 100 foot long, typically, or there's different stuff ways to do it, but you're like four foot on center.

That takes up a lot of square footage to put in a drain field that big, and then have an alternate location to go to.

I don't see an alternate location on that map.

And Southwest District Health is gonna require an alternate location.

When you apply for a permit, you have to show them two places where you can have a drain field.

So one of them's already failed or been replaced, it sounds like so.

Where was that?

The only way to mitigate that is to X-fill everything out of it and bring in new soil and start over again.

You know, you could spend for a cheap drain field nowadays, it's about 12,000 for a cheap one, $35,000 for a decent one, like probably 600 square feet, and then uh for something like that to replace if you had to ex-fill the soil, you could drop 100,000 on that thing.

And if you got rock, you got worse problems.

And then um the other thing that comes to mind is we don't know if the neighbors have wells or if they have um city water.

Um if they have wells, there's setbacks that go with those wells on a drain field.

So you start adding to a drain field, does it take away from your 100-foot setback from your well?

So if you're putting so much of fluid back in the ground, all of a sudden your neighbor's drinking it.

So I I just without having it completely plotted and having something from Southwest District Health that says this will work, I'm not comfortable with voting yes on this.

I would want to see some more explanation.

I I don't think that uh it's um I think it would be great for this family to be able to do this, but I don't like the way it is.

It to me it's uh it's uh future headache.

So hopefully that explains.

Yeah, thanks for the clarification.

Mayor, um, so I've I've rotated it so that it gets a little bit larger.

So north would be to the right-hand side of the screen.

Um that would be Dewey, and then Chicago.

Um, the map that he's provided does show this would be the primary location and this would be the replacement drain field.

Um so they are showing both the the first and replacement um for that.

Um and then they are showing their five-foot setbacks from the new property line and the structure.

Okay, yeah.

Um thanks.

And thanks for clarifying the process.

I think councils wanting to see some things that the applicant would was glad, happy to share, but it wasn't you know required um in the process per se.

And um seeing that there is due diligence, and this is not some napkin drawing, this is clearly um work at you know, and Southwest District Health has an obligation.

Um you could approve the split, but if Southwest District Health isn't satisfied, they're not gonna approve um a situation that would allow the building of a second um property.

Um it is an infill project.

The zoning is consistent and um compatible with the existing uses immediately adjacent to the property, and so um I think I think I'm hearing from council there's um there's not a request for variance here.

This is literally a request for uh zoning uh change that's consistent with what the future land use map is.

It's a medium density project.

It's similar to all the properties south of it, but I think the concerns about whether or not those properties are on wells, septic, city water, sewer.

Well, they're not on sewer, right?

Because you said there is no sewer.

Correct, Mr.

Mayor.

All of these properties are there is city water available all around there.

They the other adjacent properties are on city domestic water, they are not on wells.

You can see here this is the water map.

You can see the water meter locations at each of those homes that are in proximity to this.

Okay, so that helps.

I think that speaks to some of the legitimate concerns that councilman Reynolds spoke about that are neighborly concerns about whether or not discharging is is you know feeding someone's well adjacent.

So you're saying all the property owners abutting this are on city water correct, they're not on wells.

Okay.

Uh and thanks to the applicant for providing uh the rendering.

Um I think there's a couple options, but I'm hearing I we we are seeing some stuff that I think councilman Bills was asking again.

I don't know what the will of council is collectively.

Um we've not closed public hearing yet.

So Mayor, I move the closed public hearing.

Okay.

And before that, Mayor, could you just for the record asked anybody in the audience would be anyone from the audience seeing this new evidence brought into the record, um, wish to testify.

You have three minutes if anyone would like to testify.

Okay.

Nothing, Mark.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

All right.

So okay, public testimony.

The applicant has provided closing remarks.

We we reopen to the public.

Oh, I'm here.

I I thought it was sarcastic, but uh it was being sarcastic.

Mr.

Visual, sorry, no, I I Mark Mitchell, one two three four one, two, three, five five Landau Wayne, Idaho.

I I what councilman Reynolds had to say it makes a lot of sense.

Um being in the construction trade, I have seen that happen.

And when you come to loans, um, what can happen is if they're still on septic, there is always a well inspection for a VA or an FHA loan.

The nitrates can be too high, then they have to put in a reverse osmosis system.

Um it can get nasty.

City sewer, absolutely 100%.

But when it's on septic, it can really affect your neighbors much much more than just drinking water.

Stellability, all of that.

So hey, I still got three minutes.

Okay.

Just to be clear, no one's on a well though.

Um everyone's on a septic.

Correct.

And these properties, the the new structure will connect to city domestic water um as well.

Not trying to read by, I just want the record to reflect what they're asking for is no different than what everyone, all their neighbors are on, if that's what you're confirming.

Okay, but those are legitimate concerns as far as um yes, uh septic feeding into potential well neighbors.

But mayor, and mayor, if uh pardon me, um, because there was testimony from the public.

Um if there be any rebuttal, you can ask that of the applicant now.

Okay, very good.

Any other public testimony?

Okay, all right.

There is none.

Okay, so the applicant you have any closing comments in light of concerns raised in the testimony.

No, you're shaking your head now.

Okay.

May I remove the motion to close public hearing?

So moved.

Second.

Second.

Okay, all in favor.

I'm all right.

So what's the will of council on this one?

Mayor.

Yes.

I it might be a split here, but I think there are the safeguards.

We have city code, we have other agency approval before this even gets off the ground.

I appreciate you having this read readily available.

I think it would have gone a different direction for me, but you are doing your due diligence.

You have invested money into the property, and it is something that we're looking to have come into the city as infill.

So, Mayor, I move to approve the zoning map amendment for um RA to RS6 as stated on the screen with the conditions outlined.

Um the landscaping is already part of the project for the property that is being split and future a future development correct.

That's just part of the code.

to um have come into the city as infill so mayor I move to approve the zoning map amendment for um RA to RS6 um as stated on the screen with the conditions outlined um the landscaping is already part of the project for the property that is being split and future a future development correct that that's just part of the code just part of the code nothing's going to happen to the current property just what's going to be developed the current home the existing current home unless you direct otherwise as a condition of approval would nothing would happen there okay except for the yeah except for the access which is one of the conditions of approval so that would be my motion and I'm open to potentially an amendment to add something to the development agreement on the current home but I'm not going to add that at this point unless it's asked of okay we have a motion um is there a second okay there's a second to the motion mayor I have a question councilman reynolds um for councilman griffin so you said there's other agency approval I just wanted to clarify what agency that was Southwest health district health has to approve before permit is issued correct that's correct I I and I have similar concern with the drain field but there is a process that that agency has put through with properties using one drain field on two properties they have levers in place to be able to make sure that it is safe accessible and not going to be a headache potentially that is Southwest district health purview we will make sure that the agreements are in place um between the two properties and recorded so that both property future owners um would be aware of the situation and it is something that's marked on the deed or title or something along those lines that you have a property that we that's that's what we would we would verify that they have something recorded on both properties prior to any certificate of occupancy issuing of the permit or anything of that nature.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other council deliberation on the motion in the second that's on the floor.

Mayor yes councilwoman Jingula Councilman Reynolds did what was provided did that satisfy your discomfort with it mayor councilwoman jangula if I'm being completely honest no I think it will work I think it will work but I think going down the road that it's a potential for a a big problem it's not to my level of comfort thank you.

Mayor if I could also comment it isn't my preference either but just not having the ability to have the utility if it was a an ability that we tap into the sewer obviously I'd want to get rid of the option of having a drain field for one property on somebody else's property but not having the space to have a drain field on the originating property I see this as a potential headache for you on sale but you're building next to your mom so that's why I or your mother in law and that's why I think um providing the opportunity to do that is why I would make the motion.

Okay and I just I'm not trying to answer into the deliberation on this I just facilitating the deliberation but to be clear if this is not approved the status quo is allowed which is an ADU with a toilet going into what kind of subtext system it has a it has its own well okay gotcha okay gotcha okay gotcha thanks for that clarification.

So I I you know I find it interesting because we allow the ADUs is this by right in this area I mean satisfy a building permit but the ADU they it was already on there when they got this mayor um that's correct with an RS zone anywhere there's a single family property they can have an ADU of 500 square feet max and meet the standards for setbacks and everything um obviously the parcel split allows the building of a distinct home a second unit I I think the shared uh drain field I I'm not familiar enough with how common that is with with Southwest district health but um I do trust that they would approve this unless you know the the the health and safety concerns are paramount for Southwest district health and so those conditions would have to be met um how this would affect future um future owners of these properties and the relative value of the properties is yeah possibly a concern I um but that would be I think not unique necessarily to these properties there's other homes that fall on this and that would be on those you know future property owners I I think the responsibilities of the city city would be met with the the conditions having to be met whether it's ideal or not is I think the decision made by the uh occupants or future occupants of the property um short

I um but that would be I think uh not unique necessarily to these properties.

There's other homes that fall on this, and that would be on those, you know, future property owners.

I I think the responsibilities of the city city would be met with the the conditions having to be met.

Whether it's ideal or not is I think a decision made by the uh occupants or future occupants of the property um short of us having uh sewer uh to this location, it it seems like I unless there's other reasonable uh conditions to be met short of sewer hookup, the you know um I don't know what else could be done by the applicant unless we're saying that they must tap into sewer, which it sounds like that's not really a realistic option considering how far away they are and what other property owners and neighbors have.

So it is a challenge, but the in the in fill nature of it, the fact that this isn't a variance, there's no variance here.

It's it satisfies the zoning requirements um the medium density residential and it's an in-fill project for family.

Um whether whether you you you will enjoy living next door to each other or not in the future.

That's that's entirely up to you guys.

Um but um yeah, yes.

One additional uh question for staff is there a way that we can add a part of the development agreement that when sewer is available that they must tap into that to maybe alleviate in 10 years a drain field gets clogged and backed up.

I don't know when we'll have sewer a bit available, or maybe if it isn't ever available, but as maybe a mechanism to potentially alleviate that problem in the future.

Mayor uh council, I'd look to Preston to whether that can be a reasonable nexus.

I think probably sour becoming available.

There is development ground across the street from this that um we've had a pre-application meeting on back in 2022.

Um that Rodney is showing there just north of the church.

Um with the industrial development to the north of second that will is planning to bring sewer up from the dog park area, that uh brings it quite a bit closer to that development property and uh makes it more likely that that would develop at some point um in the closer future.

Um no guarantees, but um I think that's certainly something that would be a reasonable condition to alleviate those concerns.

What would the cost be to the uh owner of the property to tap into sewer ballpark?

Um so current connection fees on sewer all in are around five thousand dollars per single family dwelling.

Um and then there's the cost of the plumber to make the physical connections.

Um that I don't have those are cost dependent depending on what they have to do.

Mayor?

Yeah.

One last, and I know we close public hearings, so through staff, if the applicant is able or a nod, and we can speak it into the record.

Would that be something that you would be okay with having as a condition on the development agreement?

Or legal.

I think very I think we've beat it to death, and I think we're trying to uh circumvent the issue.

And so uh I I'd call for well I we move it forward.

I would like to amend my motion.

Yeah.

Who's seconded, Rodriguez uh Councilman Rodriguez?

What's the amendment?

That when sewer become available, the applicant tap into the the sewer utility, whatever that time and date be at the cost to the uh homeowner.

Mayor I speak to that real quick, I want to see if he's amending a motion.

I want to see if the second or is agreeable to that amendment.

Oh yeah, yeah.

I don't know that we can uh force anybody do that.

Okay.

So it sounds like um not signing off on the amendment.

No, I'm not gonna do that.

I'm gonna stay put.

Okay.

So we still have a motion on the floor.

Uh councilwoman Scog.

Well, as a proponent of property rights, I I think that we are trying too hard to put hardship on this.

We truly are voting on uh a rezone here.

And we need to trust our building codes that um the property will be handled properly.

And um having lived in a home for twenty-five years with a septic tank and a drain field and having to replace the drain field.

It's not the end of the property.

It it can happen and it it's enough of its own cost without having to add you know more to the applicant.

So I definitely um would not vote for um adding all kinds of um extras on to the applicant.

I think that just approving the re the zoning is what's important here.

I withdraw my amendment or do we need a full new motion?

I I think your effort to amend just failed, so I think it reverts back to the motion that's still on the floor.

Unless you wanted to retract and the second or would have to agree with that.

So we're still debating the motion on the floor right now, which is to approve um with the conditions.

All right.

Yes, councilwoman.

This one's a difficult one.

It's unique in of itself, but I am very I am pro-property rights, and this is what I'm struggling with is hearing the concerns of the drain field, and that's not my expert, Southwest district health.

That's their expertise, so it's almost like we have to for me.

I'm struggling wanting to have faith knowing that they're gonna be able to do what they need to do to make sure that it's sufficient.

But so often we hear um families not be able to get into homes.

And that is a true concern in our community, and here this young man and he has an opportunity to build a home next to family.

I'm glad my mom left because I would not want to live that close to her, but um I'm I'm glad that you do.

So record not his comments.

I'm glad that you do, and that's awesome.

But he has a unique opportunity to be my family and and have a home, start a life, and I that I think that's a great thing.

Um I'm struggling with the landscape stuff's on the previous home, and I know I I don't know how much it would cost just to put grass in, but it would be really nice to have that improved just so that it's it's fluid.

Um those are just my thoughts.

Still processing.

Okay.

So we can um we can move to the vote.

I don't want to preempt or prevent further deliberation, but I I we do have a motion on the floor and second and Mayor, did you have a second?

Oh yeah, yeah.

Yeah, it just went back.

He he didn't there wasn't the amendment to force them into uh sewer.

So um I would call for a vote on this motion, see where we're at.

Councilman Griffin, would you consider putting improvements on the existing home?

Okay.

And I think she stayed multiple times they're going to.

They're on that path.

They've they've been um making the property better.

The fence unfortunately was the expense rather than the front yard, and now the fence is going away, but I think they she wants to have a nice place to live in as well, so I'm sure that's going to come.

That's a nice fence.

It's nice for that.

It was all right.

Just vote, please.

All right, so we will do a roll call vote on this.

Scog, yes.

Yes.

No.

Reynolds.

No.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

For in favor to oppose, motion carries.

All right.

That concludes eight-three.

Thank you, thank you.

Um council, we have one more public hearing and then unfinished business.

Um do we need a break or do you want to go for a keep going break?

Let's take a quick one.

Yes, we will take a five-minute break.

Um thanks to the applicants for eight four, you're gonna have to wait a little bit longer.

Okay.

We are all here.

Okay.

And we're freshly nourished and ready to go.

Our mental acuity is ready to go.

So eight four is a public hearing item.

This is for a vacation of are we live again?

Um okay, sorry.

Uh vacation of an approximately uh twelve hundred and sixty-two square foot public utility easement.

And um the applicant is present, so you will come up and introduce to us and kind of state the c state what your application is before us this evening.

So co go ahead and come on up.

Jake Standerwick, four one one two West Dorian Street in Boise.

I'm gonna yield my time to staff.

Very good.

Okay.

Thank you.

So they're vacating it now.

It follows code.

It's appropriate for them to be able to use their property this way.

There's no conditions of approval.

They match Idaho State code for vacation of easement.

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

Very good.

Um staff, counsel?

Seeing that there are no questions.

Uh thanks, Christy.

You're welcome.

Um just getting over.

Okay.

There's no one here to testify.

Mr.

Mayor, there's no one that did advance sign up.

Okay.

Sorry, thanks.

Thanks.

Sorry, I didn't look to you to get that confirmation.

I was very presumptive on that.

Okay.

Okay, all in favor?

I make a motion to approve the vacation of the uh twelve sixty-two square foot public utilities as show shown on the screen.

Okay, Griffin got the second.

Um so we have a motion second.

Any discussion?

We'll do roll call.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Yeah.

All right, we move to nine one unfinished business.

This is an action item.

This is an action item for our first reading of ordinance for annexation of zoning to RS6.

Zoning district for seven acres and two parcels.

At 11281 Moss Lane for Craig Kolchak of RCK Consultants representing Lyle and Sharon Johnson.

And this was approved by the city attorney Preston Rutter, and it is requested to pass under suspension of rules.

And ordinance of the city of Napa, Idaho, determine that certain lands commonly known as 11281 Moss Lane.

Parcels number R 3096 and R30960013.

Located in the southeast, one fourth of section 7, Township 3, North, Range 2 West, Boise Meridian, totaling 7.0 acres more or less.

They can take us to the limits of the City of Napa, Kenning County, State of Idaho, and that said land should be annexed into the city of Napa and be zoned RS6 single family residential on 7.

More or less.

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

Determine that said annexation and zoning has a consent of 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 it designates 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 several ability, provide an effective date, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict here with.

And directing the city clerk to file certified copy of the ordinance of the map of the area to be annexed with Canning County State of Idaho and the Idaho State Tax Commission pursuant to Idaho Code Section 63-215.

Move to approve under suspension of rules.

Second.

All right, we have a motion second.

This is a roll call.

Scog.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

All right.

There is no item for executive session tonight.

So I'd entertain a motion for adjournment.

So moved.

Second.

All right.

All in favor?

Aye.

All right.

Meeting is