You want me to have three or him?

Good evening.

We're going to uh convene uh special city council meeting uh March thirtieth, and we appreciate those who are here and with us.

So I'm gonna call the meeting to order.

And uh this evening, Pastor Chris Evanson is going to uh provide the invocation and lead us in the pledge.

So if he will we'll please rise.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here this evening.

I was supposed to be here two weeks ago when the meeting was canceled, and so I counted privileged to be here to invite uh God to be here as uh we as a city mourn and as we carry on the business of this city.

Father in heaven, Lord, we thank you this evening that we can be here to do the business that you've called us to do, to lead this city.

And Lord, as uh the city is grieving right now for Major Mayor Hogoboam, Lord, we lift his family up to you right now, as they're in a time of confusion and loss and grief and uh hoping that it's not real.

Lord, we pray that your Holy Spirit will be with them in a special way that you will give them peace and comfort, that you'll provide for them what it is that they need at this very moment.

We pray for our council members, Lord, as they grieve uh this loss as well.

Give them strength and courage and direction as they continue to lead this city forward.

Lord, we we pray that tomorrow as we honor Mayor Hogoboam in the memorial service, Lord, that that it'll be a time of healing and a time uh of blessing for this community, uh for the family, and uh Lord, just just for all of us.

Lord, we ask that you will be here this evening in this meeting.

We pray for wisdom for our council members as they decide matters that affect lives tonight.

You say that if if anyone is lacking wisdom, we can ask and that you will give it to us.

You're more willing to give us wisdom than a parent is good gifts for their children.

So Lord, we ask for that now.

We we claim that promise that you will hear and answer that prayer.

Thank you, Lord, for your love for us and blessing all that takes place this evening.

We pray in Jesus' name.

Amen.

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 of the Chris.

Yes.

Reynolds, Rodriguez, Griffin.

All present.

Uh items for as uh business.

There are no public hearings this evening.

Uh to then catch up to where we need to be on our sequence of uh agenda items.

Council uh any amendments?

I think we're pretty well set, but asking the question.

Mr.

President.

Yes.

Can we pull uh one seven A for discussion, please?

One seven A.

That's correct.

Off of consent.

Need a motion to approve the agenda subject to review of 17A.

So move.

Sorry again.

All in favor?

Aye.

Consent agenda.

Need a motion.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor, say aye.

So we'll next, then we're gonna go to is 17A.

Licenses.

Mr.

President, my uh question on this one is uh no if the clerk can answer this question or not.

Um I didn't see anything in packet about uh the restaurant portion of this or what it is they're doing.

It doesn't really, it's not really clear.

So I wondered if we could get some clarification on that.

Uh council president and um council member Rodriguez, uh Rodriguez.

Oh Reynolds.

Um the reason why you're not seeing anything like a menu or whatever is because they are only requesting an on-premise beer and wine.

So they are not required to be connected to a restaurant like um they would be um the other item one seven B because they are asking for a full liquor license.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions on this motion the one license or line?

Second.

Been moved and second.

All in favor?

I with that we're going to uh move to staff communications and Matt.

Uh good evening, uh council uh Matt Jameson, economic and community development.

Um just here to give a quick staff report about the C D B Glocation and allocation process that we are um currently uh in the middle of uh so the application itself for our uh our next fiscal year, so our 27 fiscal year, our 26th program year, um opened up on February 17th, and it will actually close tomorrow uh in the tomorrow evening uh where we will uh begin as staff to review all those applications for eligibility and risk, um at which point um we will come to you at the April 20th uh public hearing for an actual funding allocation of the of the applicants that are approved to move forward.

Apologies that that's not moving forward.

So um all eligible applications that I just mentioned.

So anyone that that uh meets the level of risk and eligibility will be moved forward uh to possibly receive funding from council at the April 20th uh allocation hearing at that time.

Uh we'll provide just like normal a summary of all applications uh for public service and non-public service applications.

So we'll provide a summary of what they plan to do, their scope of work, their budget, um, and anything that we think would be relevant uh for your decision.

We will also provide uh an actual copy of their application should you want to review the full application uh and then uh specifically with the public service applications, um, and then at that point we will ask council to allocate all available funding at that hearing uh to activities, um and in some cases with public works and parks, we will probably ask you to allocate to parks and public works primary and secondary um activity choice for the year, so that if something can't move forward, we don't have to do any amendments.

We can just pivot to the next one and without having it.

We'll come back to you, but we won't have to go back to HUD for approval.

Uh it'll just give us the most flexibility, but we will ask for all funding to be allocated at that hearing.

And then uh after we have a successful allocation, uh staff will begin writing the annual action plan uh that we hope to have out as a substantially complete plan by June 1st out for a 30-day public comment period and then back before you all again for our second public hearing, which will be July 20th, um, or the first one in August, depending on uh how things go.

But uh hopefully in July 20th, which we'll ask you just to adopt the plan as presented and submit for two HUD for approval by the August 16th deadline.

Uh so we moved everything up a little bit, hoping to give us a little more leeway if if if we have any complications.

Um the only real difference I think between last year and this year is we'll probably ask you to allocate everything in one hearing.

Um, and then HUD has HUD has given down some guidance that they want to make sure we're having two public hearings as part of our action planning process.

So that in the past it's just been an action item uh for the allocation, but this time it will be a public hearing, and then followed by a second public hearing at the alloc or at the adoption phase.

So the that's the really the two differences at this one.

You will have the three minutes from the applicants like you used to, but that you'll actually be able to ask them questions uh since it's public hearing if you so choose.

Uh but that's just wanted to give you a quick highlight of the possible small changes to that process and some timeline just to get it on your radar uh between now and then.

If you have any questions about that, you're welcome to reach out to me.

Uh but that's pretty much it.

So by uh April 20th, uh we're back for a public hearing uh to hear from the applicants and then ask you to allocate all of those funding that we have available.

So if anyone has questions, I'm happy to answer.

Otherwise, I just wanted to make sure we were on your radio radar because it's a little little bit different this year than it has been in the past.

Uh thank you.

In fact, we'll probably follow up just to make sure the dates are meshing with some other dates that we've been already starting to pre-plan.

Okay.

Uh so we'll stay in touch with you.

Okay.

Great.

Council, any questions for Matt.

All right.

Thank you, sir.

We'll see you on the 20th.

Next item is Rodney.

Excellent.

Council President and City Council, Rodney Ashby, planning and zoning director for the record.

Um I have quite a bit to report on from planning and zoning since we didn't meet on the 16th.

Uh, so give me uh a little grace as I go through each of these.

Uh subdivision final plat approval for Northland number one subdivision.

Um, that was recommended for approval and on your agenda for consent tonight and approved.

Subdivision final plat approval for New York landing number six was also recommended and approved uh tonight.

Um next are public hearings annexation and zoning, planned unit development and subdivision preliminary plat for the Breckenwood subdivision.

And um this is near the or northeast of North Cherry Lane and North Canada Road.

And if you recall, this one uh was denied in the past and they've revised it and uh planning and zoning did recommend that for approval.

And that will come before you on April 20th.

The next one is annexation and zoning for clear water landscape.

Um this is uh annexation to ensure regulatory land use consistency in order to continue to operate the clearwater landscape construction company.

Um you approved uh a comprehensive plan map amendment for for this one.

Uh it was an already operating in the county.

Um, and then they made the comp plan amendment so that they can continue to operate that industrial use, and you approved that, and now they're coming in with the annexation and zoning.

So that one was recommended for uh approval unanimously, and that will come before you on May 18th.

Um the next one is annexation and zoning and subdivision preliminary plat for Sagewood.

Um this one is east, uh excuse me, northeast of East Lewis Lane and South Side Boulevard.

And this was for 95 single family detached dwelling units, 83 single family attached dwelling units, four commercial lots, and eighteen common lots.

And this one was recommended for denial, and that will come before you on the fourth of May.

Um, and we'll give you the details then.

Um the next one is annexation and zoning.

And this is for property northwest of East Iowa and Chicago Street.

And the original concept is annexation required by county in order to build an accessory structure on the property.

It's a it's a shed that they're wanting to build build, and there's some complexities with how the lot was split in the county, and so the county directed them to come to the city for that.

That was recommended for approval, and that will come before you on the 4th of May as well.

Um next one is pre-annexation and pre-zoning for shoe the shoemaker storage development.

Um open air RV storage, and this is southeast of highway 2026 and Prescott Lane.

This one was recommended for approval, and it will come before you on the 4th of May as well.

Uh the next two are conditional use permits.

Um the first one is requesting a permit to be tied to a the address and owner instead of a tenant for an auto repair shop that has been operating for a long time, but their conditional use permit expired, and it had a it had a dead, it had a um expiration date on the CP.

So they're requesting to continue to operate their auto repair shop and um not have that have an expiration date.

Um that one was uh approved by city count or by the planning and zoning commission.

Next one is a conditional use permit for the sugar district apartments and town homes.

This is 284 units in 11 three to four-story buildings and 77 townhome style apartments in 17 two-story buildings.

Um, this is consistent with the uh development agreement that uh you approved um let's see, early last year, and uh or updated it at least early last year.

Um at that time you directed them to come back in with conditional use permits for every project, and um that is what they're doing.

They're coming in with apartments, and that one was approved by uh the planning and zoning commission.

And that uh oh, I've got one more.

Um preliminary plat for Tierra Bello, and this was northwest of West Orchard Avenue and North Middleton Road for 146 single family uh 60-foot wide detached lots, 127 front-loaded town home lots, and 99 alley loaded town home lots.

And this was recommended for approval, and or excuse me, this was approved because it was consistent with the um annexation and the development agreement in place.

And that's all I have.

Rodney, thank you.

Council members, any questions for Rodney.

Thank you.

Our next update is uh Preston, and you're gonna stay at the bench, right?

That's all right, Council President.

I shouldn't take it tonight.

Yes.

Um for the record, Preston Rutter, city attorney.

Um, as noted here in the agenda with the new council coming in and with budget season underway.

Um, a question had come up uh prior to Mayor Hogobaum's passing of doing a refresher on this topic of um elected official salaries.

And again, there'll be a refresher if you'll recall last year.

We did change it after some period of time of not touching it.

Um the the quick refresher here is for state law, it governs the procedure almost entirely.

And what it does, it doesn't allow any salary change for any elected official to take effect until the January right after the general city election, and where these happen on a two-year basis, if any change were to be made or contemplated, let's say this year or next, um, it would not take effect until January 1, 2028, provided the general election was just the November prior and 27.

One thing to keep in mind there is a cutoff date.

It is somewhat crucial.

It is 75 days out from the general election.

And as long as the ordinances adopted and passed back prior to that date, it will then take effect the January following the city election.

Otherwise, you wait for another two years.

Again, a pretty simple, straightforward statute, and more or less just a quick refresher for this new council body.

And with that, I'll stand for any questions.

Thank you, Preston.

Any questions on the subject matter?

So it's just clarification as we uh start workshops on budgets and uh continue to work towards the budget uh through the actual hearings coming up.

So thank you for the update.

Welcome.

Council, we're gonna move on to new business.

Item 51.

It's an action item authorizing public works to re allocate 50,000 from waste to energy project to research and development of carbon construction materials, finish air permit, and complete power provider forms.

Um this was approved in the FY26 budget, and uh Tom Points is going to talk to us about it, and it is an action item.

Tom uh Mayor Council, thank you for the opportunity to talk about this just for the record.

Um Tom Points, senior public works director here in NAPA.

Um so this this is a bit of an update and follow-up from our council workshop back in November.

Remember, we went through several waste energy projects and not just paralysis.

We looked at combined heat to power, biosolids, dryers, uh backup power.

So this is this is putting all this information into one package.

And so just to be clear, we're not asking for any additional money this fiscal year besides this ask, and then we're not asking for any additional money next year either.

This the purpose of all this work is to figure out what we want to do, how much it'll cost, and then use our uh waste energy task force to help vet these ideas, and then give us information and then we can come to council with it when we're ready.

We're not ready to build anything yet.

We're just trying to figure out all the various risk items and the steps that it takes.

And it takes some a little bit of time to do that, but it's important because you don't want to get in one of these projects and then have it go backwards and sideways.

Um we have to have it right the first time as a city.

Uh, the other part about the funding, um, we're not asking for property tax, we're not asking for rate increases.

All these projects, they're all the renewable energy that they pay, they can you can get loans for them, and we can get grants for them.

So we're not asking for additional funds.

That's why there's nothing in next year's budget for because that was the intent was to find a way to pay pay for itself.

So um baked into this also are a couple other important things, which I want to just touch on about uh carbon and concrete and then um biosolids.

We do need to figure out a solution for our biosolids regardless of these energy projects because we're not as you saw, we're not taking it to Timber Creek anymore.

That was on the consent item that contract no longer exists.

Landfills, it's good for a while, but not on long-term solution.

Uh farmers land applying, they're not they're getting concerned and they're starting to turn it away.

So this is besides be turning this into a resource, we need to figure out this for the city.

Um let's see.

I want to check my notes and make sure.

So some of the things like on the travel, I want to talk a little bit about that.

That's for five of our operations people to go look at uh existing like combined heat to power units, for example, that are in operations, so they can they can ask the operators that are doing it, what worked well, what didn't work well, and that gives them good information.

We can bring back to the city and bring back to the committee and council.

Uh what we're asking to do is probably four times less than it would be if we were to hire a consultant to tell us the same thing.

And we'll learn a ton more about this, and we will make sure we're accountable on the travel.

Um on the concrete, we've talked a lot about that.

We've we've actually found some research where we can build our own mix designs for about five thousand dollars and direct it into a the US DIC project, and that's that'll give us some really good information that we can feed to the universities, and then they can pay for the rest of this.

We got a big list of different funders for the research on that, which include um ISU slash INL, National Science Foundation and U of I, USDA Wood Innovation Grant, and then um ITD and Ash Grove Cement.

So very little money out of NAMPA's pocket, but a big payoff for us to be able to figure this out for NAMPA and in Idaho.

And that the concrete part is something I think we would want to do regardless of the energy projects, just because it helps us come up with different ways to go farther with our our funding.

So I think that's important.

It also is a critical path that we've identified in the waste energy project because we have to have carbon cells off the get-go to in order to make the project pencil.

So that's I just want to make sure that's clear.

The other one, like you mentioned in in the um the ask is the power provider forms and then the air permit, which has already been authorized.

Those take over a year to put together.

So we again we won't be asking for any money for some time to actually fund this.

We just want to finish what we started.

Make sure the critical paths are vetted so we can continue and be ready when we're ready.

Uh I've mentioned this at the waste energy task force.

Some of these concepts, the city may not be ready to do yet, just because we don't have enough volume of material to do it yet.

But until we actually get into it and start looking at some of these systems, we don't know what we don't know.

And then we put this on the shelf and then we'd come back to it when we are ready and we're ready to grow into it.

So we're just trying to be proactive on all kinds of different fronts on this one.

Um let's see, construction material.

So the but budget, what we are asking for.

So $200,000 was authorized in the budget to do a demonstration project.

We decided we did the RFP, we decided we're not ready to do a demonstration project.

So we'd just like to take some of that money and finish up some of the work that we need to do to identify critical paths.

So 95,000 of that was already approved through the air permit process, which we put on hold until we get we get an answer on this.

And then that leaves 105,000 remaining.

And then we'd like to use uh 50,000 of that to finish up those items on the power provider forms, the the research that we want to do on our own mixed designs, and then the um the uh air permit.

So does council have any questions?

Mr.

President.

Yes.

Tom, I have a couple questions.

Sure.

Uh so you say finish the air permit for what?

We don't have a piece of equipment identified yet.

So we've talked to the Idaho DEQ that if we can provide them some uh some air emission data based on other similar types of equipment that's being used in the US, give them a matrix.

Uh we can run it through the the air model and do an MOU without knowing exactly what air uh make and model we want on the paralysis machine.

On the buy on the dryers, there's commercial dryers all over the US.

So that that was where that travel comes in for Andy and their team to be able to figure out which make and model that we want that will be work the best so we can tell the DEQ which make and model we can follow that traditional process.

So there's and then the same thing with the combined heat to power.

There's there's actually one of those at the sugar beet factory that are about ready to commission uh the combined heat to power engine.

So we just need to figure out which one we want so we can we can do an air permit.

But the only thing that we've contracted out to do so far was the paralysis air permit.

And one more question, Mr.

President.

Yes, sir.

What have we already spent on RD um as far as all your trips and extensive research that you've done?

What do you think we've spent?

Um so we probably around 50,000 roughly so far over the past 18, two years.

18 months, two years, somewhere in there.

And do you have a log of that or I can get it?

Yeah, okay.

Yep.

Yeah, I think that would be important for me to understand how much we're spending here.

I I um I think some of this stuff is uh gonna be great for the city.

But I I don't think we're there yet.

I think we have a ways to go and and trying to catch up with our budget and some other things.

I'm not really in favor of spending another 50,000 on it at this point.

Um that's just my opinion.

Um but uh I would like to know what we've spent on it.

Okay.

So yep.

Mr.

President.

Other other questions.

Yes.

Uh this is not necessarily for you, Tom.

This is for our our CFO.

So when employees like Tom go to do research.

The allowment for his salary doesn't come from the the public works, it comes from tax dollars, right?

Well, it depends on the department, correct.

So Tom is not Tom's power is paid from public works, not from tax dollars.

Public works is funded by fees for services.

Um if it's somebody in general government that does the research, then it would be tax dollars, but we typically don't do that much of that.

Yeah, okay.

So this money, Tom, what you're referring to is is already within the 26th budget, but it said within the public works.

Correct.

Yeah.

It's okay.

Water renewal funds.

Okay, that's what I wanted to make.

That I wasn't quite sure.

So it's already done in it's already there.

So thank you.

Other questions, yes.

Thank you.

Tom, if we don't fund this 50,000, how much does that set back this moving forward?

Um, I that's a great question, counselor.

I don't I won't be able to do the project if we don't do this.

Because I I won't have any answers to advise people with.

So, like I said, I mean in the past, what we've done is when we we've know that okay, we want to do something with our bios, we want to do something with our gas, we'd go hire a consultant and we come to the council and say, here's a 250,000 dollar contract to give us an answer.

So but we're trying to do it in-house because we we've got the technical capabilities now.

That's something that we've transitioned over time.

That's why we've got Garrett and Shandy.

We we we brought in these uh project managers that are very bright and smart and capable to help out with these types of things.

So I don't if we're not able to do this, I don't think I could do it to continue the project for you.

Honestly, I'd and and I don't think that we're as appetite to hire as a consultant because it'll be able to come back a lot more.

Thank you.

Yeah, I appreciate your always very innovative in in thinking ahead and I know we have the skills in in-house to do certain things, and so I just was curious as far as what that looks like for you guys.

So appreciate that.

Council President.

Okay, Tom, I I appreciate you um explaining this to me ahead of time.

I I really enjoy the idea of your creativity and what to do with all of our you know what and make an energy.

Um what I am wondering, I I it's a reallocation of the money.

So is that going to um cause a problem from where you're taking it to where you're putting it?

Or and are we gonna have to come back and add more on to that um for the public works department and all that?

So explain to me what you mean by okay, this money is already there, we're moving it.

So then what's gonna put replace it?

So that that's a good question, counselor.

So the the 200,000 dollars, which this is coming out of that bucket was allocated to do a demonstration project.

So to bring in uh a piece of equipment, test it with our own biosolids, our own, and then that that was just the setup cost in order to do that.

We decided we're not doing that.

We we've we're finding different routes to do that.

In fact, we could probably even get some of this bench scale stuff done from the universities at U of I.

So that saved us some money there.

We said we're not we don't need to come back and ask for that again because we've already so that we're just out allocating it to doing the research that we need to continue to figure out the critical pass.

And we're not asking for any additional money this fiscal year or next fiscal year.

If we're gonna ask for something, it would be the the the year after.

And then again, I'm trying to find for council and NAMPA loans and uh grants so it'll pay for itself, and I don't have to be asking for property tax, which is a difficult thing to ask for.

Excellent.

Thank you.

But clarify you just use the word property tax.

I was understanding from Doug, that's it's coming from the user fee.

It's not coming from property taxes.

This is all user fees out of the public works budget.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

So no there's no property.

It's just important for us to clarify that so that you serial property tax.

If I could add one comment, I love the this process is what I I want to go on more often whenever we reallocate a budgetary issue that it comes back for council for this dialogue, this back and forth.

This is what my hope I have opinions on it.

I'm not going to share them, but I love this dialogue and this process is what I'm going to try and foster more and more.

Eric?

Or council president?

Yes.

Yeah, not my own.

With with it being biosolids and gas, is that something that we can separate in the two projects?

I have a list of questions.

So if you say let me answer that first, or I can keep bringing up.

Let's start with that.

Could it be separated in the two separate projects?

Counselor, yes.

We can study biosolids, we can study gas.

They are tot totally separate, different processes.

Is there one that could come online quicker and start generating a return on investment for the city faster than the other?

A good question.

So that's part of the the question and that why we wanted to do a little more research on it.

So the gas, for example, I'm gonna get technical on here for just a second, so excuse me.

The gas that we produce today at the plant and flare off has got 50 percent methane.

It's about 120 cubic foot per minute.

We've done all the math to know that that's not enough volume to actually pencil out to a generator to make to make enough money to pay back the project within 10 years.

We need to have 200 uh cubic foot per minute, which means that but there's certain things that we could add to our digester what can get us there that is being done over in Portland area, for example.

That we could go ask them, hey, is this something that we could we could do?

Or we could also just, like I said, maybe we're not ready yet.

App uh operators don't have the appetite for it.

We're gonna have two thousand two hundred cubic foot per minute someday af after we grow keep growing like we're growing, and then we're ready.

But I'll have the answer on the shelf for so we have it ready to go.

I appreciate that.

I the at least in the sense of gas, and I I personally don't have an appetite to keep pursuing that until we get to that date in time.

I know that's uh but the funding that you're requesting the 50,000, is that to pursue both projects or just one or the other or to investigate further in biosolids and gas or just bio solids?

It's intended to be both, but we can take direction from council on whichever how you how you want us to focus on it.

If it's if there's no if their desire is not to be with gas and there's a consensus on that, which we expect that decision, and we can take those off the table.

On the biosolids side, how quick could we have that live operational and generating a a return back to its original investment?

So I we're gonna it's gonna take 18 months to get through all these permits and and research, so we won't we won't be back to do anything until I think I've got it in here actually.

Um soonest to be able to recoup that at that investment that we're oh oh as far as the investment goes.

Sorry, I didn't understand your question, Counselor.

So it depends on the the by the paralysis we came up with uh like three to four years to get the ROI, so it it meets that 10-year test.

All these have to be under 10 years.

And I wanted to be way under 10 years.

So thank you.

Mr.

President?

Yes.

I'll take a shot at this and uh see where we go from here, but uh I I would like to make a motion that we um table this until we get uh information back from Tom on what we've already spent on RD, and uh when we get that back at uh upcoming council meeting, make a decision on how we want to allocate or if we want to redirect those funds to the 50,000 We have a motion to table the topic and tell uh staff and Tom Points particularly comes back with more information and clear on our direction and the amount of money being spent.

Uh is there a second second we have a motion and a second, and uh this will be a roll call vote.

Cog, yes.

No.

Bills, yes.

Rodriguez.

No.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

So once again, we're gonna take table, have you get some more info and we'll schedule a time to come back and present that and gain clarity of where how we're headed and how we're spending those funds.

So even though they're user fees, we still want to know which direction.

So we'll do.

Thank you, Tom.

Yep, thank you.

Our next item is an action item to authorize council president to and public works director to sign a task order with precision engineering LLC for the Franklin Boulevard and Eustach Road intersection improvements in the amount of not to exceed 256, 137.50.

It's approved in the FY26 budget with an job number.

We have a motion for approvals.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Is there any discussion?

The roll call vote?

Ingula.

Yes.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Scog.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Our next item is uh uh action item 53 authorize council president public works director to sign a task order with precision engineering LLC for Northside Boulevard Birch to Cherry in the amount not to exceed 198,200.

So moved.

Second.

We have a motion and a second roll call.

Scog, yes.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Tingula.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Action uh item 54 is to authorize a budget reallocation from water renewal Moses drain project and authorize council present to sign a task order with Jacobs to update water renewal facility SCADA system in the amount not to exceed 459,600.

So move.

Got a motion.

Second.

Then we have a second.

Councilwoman Scog?

Yes, sorry.

Second.

Then it's a roll call vote as well.

Ingula, yes.

Bills?

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin?

Yes.

Scog?

Yes.

Reynolds?

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Our next item is roll call vote.

Action item 5-5 authorized budget reallocation from water renewal Moses drain project and authorized water renewal facility.

Staff to proceed with purchasing replacement server hardware and hypervisor software from Wright Systems Inc.

in the amount of 112,438.

Council President.

Yes.

I have some questions on this one.

I'm not sure if this is John Spencer.

John.

Evening, John.

Good evening, Council President.

John Spencer, Director of Water Resources.

Hi, John.

Hi.

So my question is there three bids on this?

It looked like there was with the uh right systems.

Council President, uh, Councilman Reynolds, yes, we had three bids.

Um they're not exactly the same type of product.

It was similar products that could do similar things, but we did get three quotes from three different uh entities.

Okay, and a follow-up uh Mr.

President.

Yes, sir.

So uh there was an RFP put out for this process.

Uh no, we just went through uh quote process obtaining quotes.

Okay.

And um it uh the the quotes weren't in here, so I'm kind of wondering where the quotes came in, who was a low bid.

Um we would it it says that staff selected this one basically in our packet because that's who they liked.

Um but we would have to take a low bid on this.

So I don't see the bids attached, so I was wondering what they were.

So uh councilman Reynolds, again, they were not they're not apples to apples bids because each entity provides different type of products within their package.

And when we got those quotes, um staff evaluated them based on the needs of the of the system and worked with IT because this is the software side of the SCADA project.

So this is the IT side.

The previous one was the OT side.

So they evaluated that with IT to determine which was the best product relative to those bids that we received.

Or those quotes, sorry, that we received.

Okay, um council president, I'd follow up and I'm wondering if uh maybe Rick can clarify this.

Um Rick Kennedy.

Because you know, public works bidding process is very standardized, um, you know, under 100,000, three bids, low bid get to over 100,000 formal RF process.

Um I'm concerned that we haven't followed that process, and why would there's not an RFP?

And if not, if we need to sole source it because that's who it is, and there again we are we need to go back for a sole source request.

That's my concern here.

Rick Kennedy, director of procurement and risk management, uh mayor and council.

Uh new state statutes, anything between 100,000 and 250, we do not need to do an RFP anymore.

We can go out for three quotes, and that's what we did in this case.

Is my understanding that the the one that was selected, yes, it was a little bit more money, but the amount of work to have IT and other how do I say internal services would not match what we needed.

So this was the most perfect match for their needs.

That makes sense.

Follow-up president.

So it makes sense to me, but it doesn't make sense as far as bidding process.

If we have to have this product, because that's what we need for our system, we have to sole source this.

If we're asking for three numbers and they're not apples to apples, that's not a fair bidding process.

That's the whole point of public works bidding law.

And so I'm concerned.

I'm like, um, we I sounds to me like we have a very specific set of specs that we want, and they need to be followed, and that's fine, but um we need to sole source it.

Uh mayor, or sorry, council president and Dale.

In this case, I can understand possibly going out to an RFP, should we need so, but I don't think trying to put this together in a three bids came in.

They looked at the bids and they selected the one that they thought would work best for this.

There was not a specification of we're looking for this.

They looked for these systems, and this one matched the closest.

So if you'd like, we could go back to an RP situation.

So almost it's like a category B on a construction contract.

However, we didn't pre-qualify pre-qualify anybody, so it wasn't really a category B.

So yeah, I think we missed a step there, in my opinion, in my assessment.

I know from the outside looking in as a uh contractor, I would be like, hey, wait a minute.

This is goofy.

You just picked you took three proposals and you're like, well, I really like this guy, so I'm gonna take this.

And that's that's the whole point of public works bidding law or procurement in general, is so we can avoid that.

So but there again, if they're the only company that provides what you're looking for, then that's fine, but we have to prove that through a sole source notification, and then we're covered and we don't get sued.

If that's the direction, we'll follow that direction.

Sorry to be difficult.

Well, the this is not a formal bid though.

So 100 to 250 is informal.

Right.

We could convert it to a formal.

But we still have to put a lot of work.

On folks, which we did.

But we didn't take little bid.

No, but like you said, we will do the sole source if that's what you'd like us to do.

Is the product council president?

Yes.

Is the product unique enough that it would have to be a sole source bid?

Dude, do either of the other two bidders have in their capability if we were fine down saying this is the specific unit product example that we need to be able to go through an RFP process that they have that in stock and we just didn't offer that to them, or how do we come to this point here and now to where it is either a sole source or it should go to RFP?

Is it RFP or RFQ?

I apologize.

That would be a formal bid.

It's not council president, uh Councilman Griffin.

Um we asked these entities to provide what modules, what um not IT, but the provide us what we were requesting as far as um the need for the server and uh and hardware for that server and software for that server.

Um so we got the information from them as to what they can provide us, and based on that, that's how we then took that information and made the determination.

Now whether they can match what right system has, I don't I don't know whether they can or or cannot.

My understanding though is that they provided us the with the product or products that they have the capabilities of providing.

Um so that that's my understanding.

We can certainly um try to vet that and determine whether these other entities can provide exactly the same product that right systems is uh providing or if there are other entities out there that can provide it.

Um I know these were the ones, these were the entities that we reached out to that do have that information.

Mayor follow-up or council president follow-up.

Yeah, let me let me ask a quick question.

You're fine, thank you.

Uh I'd like to get some clarity.

It seems that you've gotten three quotes both on spec or product and price.

You've zeroed in on one.

Could at this point we just re-notify and name the sole source of who you're asking to be approved, and they re-quote, and we're able to go forward with a purchase order next meeting.

Is that can that work or does that work?

Is that alleviate the issues, Preston?

Thank you.

This uh council president, if I may chime in on this.

To get the sole source, you do need to justify it under the statutory criteria.

Um there's some common ones we usually fit into.

That's where you have existing um data infrastructure that needs to be compatible.

Um that's usually a common one.

I don't know the specifics on this one, John, but um I defer to you guys on the compatibility, but there's other grounds.

So it's a to-be-determined analysis, council president, maybe.

Um, but without looking at it more definitively with staff, um, it's a to be determined if we can do sole source.

Okay, councilman Griffin.

My follow-up is you now have a uh, and maybe these are specific part numbers for uh the company right systems.

So I I don't know if they're like a vehicle where it's VIN and it's a certain model Toyota, whatever, that we have part numbers.

Are we able to go out to bid and do the RFP process with these bid our part numbers and say we're looking for this system with these parts, get us quotes so we can go the low bid route, or are we making this more complicated than it needs to be?

I I uh I'm not opposed to the sole source, I'm not opposed to the RFP.

I'm just trying to find out are we in a position where even we could just approve this now?

So I'm trying to flesh it all out.

Council President, Councilman Griffin.

Um I would have to reach back out to IT to fully understand what the the capabilities are within this product that we are requesting and and understand um if there are other entities out there that have that same uh those same type of products and would provide us those same type of results that we're looking for.

Um I I don't know the answer to that, so we can certainly do that, but as uh Preston mentioned, we would have to evaluate that to see if if we are if we meet that threshold for sole source or if there are other uh manufacturers out there that can provide us the same same exactly the same thing that we're looking for.

Well it seems that we've found what we want at a price that we think is a good price.

The question is is whether our procedure meets the letter of the law, and whether we just need to clean that portion up at a at another meeting.

I don't I don't think we've got to go out and dissect the the problem again.

I think it's more of if we've just crossed the T and dotted the I's correctly.

Seems to be the question that I'm hearing, and that we're wanting to make sure that we've we've done this with Council President.

So seems like we had a portion of what would be a formal process where we said, look, this is our spec.

And we asked for that.

We got three quotes back, two of them were basically non-responsive, but it wasn't really a formal process.

It was informal, but we had two that were basically non-responsive, so we tossed them and we went with the guy that had it.

So can I respond?

I believe the other two could have worked, but they just weren't to the gratification, the satisfaction of the IT department in this case.

But the more I'm thinking about this, I'm wondering, and I think you're right.

I think a sole source.

Now, this is gonna sound like a sales pitch.

RAM.

This is um rapid, what's it called?

Random access memory or whatever is called is skyrocketing.

And so one of the things was we we were to tie this price in, it may go up a little bit.

I it will.

So council president And it is a professional services, it's not public works.

Go ahead.

I don't like this any more than you do, but it's just a it's a rule we have to follow.

And uh to me, it's like uh yeah, no.

Uh I I want you guys to have this product of what you need to fit your needs, but uh this we have to do it different, so in my assessment.

Council president, yes.

So I'm according to your your subject action item.

And there's a question of procedure and policy.

But it says here that it was approved by legal.

So I don't see a problem with it.

So I'm I think we should just move forward with it.

Nickel dime this thing.

I'll do what the council wants.

What I might say here is um we're a large organization, and if for those were here this morning, we actually had a massive multi-department meeting to address our review process, our procedures for these type of things.

NAMPA is growing at such a clip and it to such a degree.

Um from time to time, not unique to us.

There are matters like this that may need to go back out for a tighter legal process.

Um this matter here, if if it were me, I know there is some time constraints.

Um I would advise that we go back, make sure the procedure was solid, compliant, and rather than proceed forward like this.

Otherwise, you might go down farther or further in the process and find ourselves having the backtrack even more down the road.

Um again, we do have a review process by staff.

Um there are things that come up where it may warrant to do uh review of it.

This is one I I would advise to do that.

And if it's a sole source or an RFP, whatever course is viable, um, that would be my recommendation.

Okay.

So uh would encourage you to put the negotiating hat on with the company and try to buy us a few days to get we meet again.

We can we could add this to the April 6th uh hearing.

I know it's gonna cross April.

I mean, we're here at the 30th, so council it are you asking to go off for sole source?

So if we do the sole source, we could probably have the documents ready to go off for sole source on April 6th, but that'll take two weeks.

If we're doing an RFP, that's gonna take it I'm thinking at this point we've we've dialed in what we are after, so we should be able to do a sole source.

I'm trying to beat the price increase or trying to encourage that they would hold to the price and recognize it's just a procedural thing that we need to walk through.

And we'd be back uh on the sixth.

We are trying to do only public hearings, but I think there's a couple other business items that need to be done that day, and whether your folks can the vendor can respond quickly and we come back with it, Mr.

President.

Yes.

If Rick and John, if you can justify that with uh pressing on your sole source, I'm absolutely for that.

I think that's the proper way to go, and it sounds like you'll be able to get there easy enough.

So we can do a sole source quick.

Let's let's go that way.

And can't guarantee the price, but we'll we'll negotiate the best we can.

Mr.

President, I'll make the motion that we uh put this back out for a sole source advertisement and have it back on the 6th of April.

Second.

We have a motion and a second roll call.

Gog, yes.

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

Next item is uh 56, authorize water renewal staff to publish notice of intent to proceed with sole source procurement procurement for UV replacement bulbs and associated parts with uh Trojan technologies and the amount of 448,996 ten cents.

So moved do we have a motion.

We got a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

You'll recall council.

This was one that uh we were concerned about sole source and didn't know if we had things done correctly, and so we asked for it to be confirmed and back on today's agenda.

Council President, I just have a comment real quick for John.

Thank you for all your hard work on this and for providing all the information you did on the UV bulb and type and why we needed that.

I really appreciate your help on that.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions?

Clerk will call the roll.

Gog, yes.

Jingula, yes.

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

Next item is item 57.

It's an action item.

Approve the administrative office license agreement between the city of Nampa and the Nappa Fire Protection District.

Clay is going to lead the discussion.

And Chief Carpenter is also here for any questions as well.

I move to approve.

Second.

Can I appreciate one second?

I think.

Okay.

Yeah.

Only because I need a in the agreement, it references June 1st instead of what should have been June 15th.

Okay.

And so if we can update that to June 15th, then we're good to go.

I just need that in the motion.

Council President, I move to approve with the amendment of the date June 1st to June 15th.

Second.

We have a second.

Further discussion.

Chief.

Any thoughts, comments?

Do you think your acquisitions gonna go through?

Thumbs up on it.

Okay, excellent.

Well, these are good things to finally get worked out.

Happy for you on your on your move as far as location.

Hope it works well.

Okay, clerk call the roll.

Scott.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Jingua.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor.

Motion carries.

Next item is uh to approve uh action item 58.

Approve uh payment to the Nappa Fire Protection District in the amount of 880,000.

Uh it does require a budget amendment, but this is a item if council recalls that uh this is the negotiated amount that we did several months ago with the fire district in resolving office and buildings.

And so moved.

Second.

Got a motion and a second.

Any other discussion or questions?

Council President, just for clarification.

Doug, which pot of money are we taking from and amending into?

This is impact fees.

Thank you.

The impact fee issue.

Yep, great.

Thank you, Doug.

So anything else?

Clerk will call the roll.

Gog, yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin?

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Next item is Action 5-9.

Authorize IT to proceed with purchase and installation of new council microphones and replace the outdated audio digital signal processor.

Controller from CTI and the amount of 98,940.

Mayor.

I would be honored to make the motion to approve this coming from the guy that still has a red light on, but somehow I'm speaking in the green.

I was going to say I kind of like only hearing him half the time.

Yeah, don't worry.

I you hear me the full amount of time.

You just hear this before.

Oh, yeah, okay.

We're live.

I'll think of that.

Great.

And so Council President, I have some questions.

Yep, there's questions, and I want to make sure that we clarified a couple of things that are listed there.

Councilman Reynolds.

So the same thing I was talking about on 5-5.

Did we get three bids on this?

Was there an RP?

Did we take low bid?

How did we end up with this?

Was there a spec on it?

Okay.

Uh Council President Bills and Councilman Reynolds.

This particular one is uh we're trying to we're trying to do uh leverage the equipment that we already have from CTI, the uh overhead microphones that are right up here above us in the ceiling, and some of the other equipment that's already there is in compatibility with this.

Um we don't want to replace that because we just spent money on it.

And so we went with the company that had had been supporting us uh where it was under 100,000 uh for sole source to purchase that.

And that was that was the premise that we came from for that um to save to save us the money.

Follow-up.

So you want to sole source this, but we didn't have a sole source notice.

Correct.

That's that is correct, yes, Councilman Rends.

Okay.

So I I have a problem with that.

And then the down payment of 60 percent is unheard of in the city, as far as I know, we don't give a down payment for anything.

Um I understand the order and equipment, but uh even in the private sector, 60 percent down payments pretty much unheard of.

So I think I got a clarification on that earlier.

Okay.

It would be an it'd be an order and an invoice to come in after it's received.

It's it's actually not a down payment.

So that's that's an ambiguity that needs to be noted that we're not we're not fronting the money.

Furthermore, we wouldn't be fronting on a service contract.

Uh and their numbers are a little bit that way.

So um right.

Um so follow-up on the uh on the sole source.

Uh Rick, do you want to speak to that and maybe Preston chime in?

Council President Dale Rick Kennedy, Director of Procurement Risk Management.

Anything from up to 100,000 we can self-select as of July 1, 2025.

Okay.

So we aren't doing a sole source on this.

And I agree we do not want to put any money down other than I believe I talked to uh chief of staff about this.

It's there is precedent in allowing contractors to invoice us for money they're going to put out to buy equipment and I have given authorization to go that far.

But we don't want to do uh 60 percent or whatever you said, we're not gonna do that.

Yeah, follow-up uh council president.

Yes, it's 60 percent in our package, so that's why I was clarifying that.

And then um Councilman Bills, you were talking about the uh service contract.

I see that list set out as 14,557 50.

Were you saying that that would well when they were asking for the 60 percent down or the explanation, the 60 percent was on the total amount of 98, and we wouldn't be we wouldn't be fronting money on a service contract.

And so, but that's that's not how it was listed in our packet.

And and so I was noting those notes that we understand what we're actually we're gonna get invoice, something near the 50,000, and then uh we're gonna probably get a final invoice uh on the install side, and then we'll sign a contract if we so choose on the warranty service part.

So we're kind of it's three issues there.

Yeah.

So we're just breaking out.

So right now we're buying the equipment, and then uh from there we got the install.

Yep.

Now we can approve it, clarify it, and so it's uh able to roll forward or council's decision if you want it to come back after the equipment there and do the second part for the service agreement.

And Councilman uh Bills and the rest of the council.

The this purchase includes with it a full one year coverage.

That's why there's four years there that would give us the five years.

That's the uh the um life expectancy on the on the equipment for warranties and things like that, and that comes with that $14,000 includes during that uh while the equipment is under warranty full replacement if anything goes wrong and the um presence of all of the labor and things that would be required to to put that into place.

And they also come out whenever we have a problem, so like last week when we had a crash, we were able to have them come out.

That's not charged to us.

That's covered with this with this warranty.

Great.

Appreciate the clarification.

Uh the clerk reminded me, we do have a motion and a second on the on the table.

Go ahead.

Mayor, just or council president, just one follow up.

Previously, when I have been attending remotely, I've had real bad time getting the feedback from YouTube or even sometimes from teams.

I think teams more as a network issue, but YouTube is a transmission error.

Will that solve that problem?

So citizens listening live aren't hearing the crackle.

CTI has assured me that they will resolve that issue.

Part of the problem was they weren't aware of the source of where that was coming from now that we fully understand what the cause is.

The only time we're getting feedback at this point is if a remote person speaks, it's the remote people out there that are hearing the feedback.

If you are speaking in here, it sounds fine.

Now we know the source and we know how it, and they they will work to resolve that.

Thank you.

Council President.

Yes.

I have a question for Councilman Griffin.

Um dollar amounts on page 539.

Um would you be willing to amend your motion to pull out the 14,557 50 for the service agreement?

I just happy as can be to do that.

I am my motion to withhold the how much of the amount?

539 is the page.

14,000 five fifty-seven and 14,557 and 50 cents be removed and the remainder be approved.

Second.

So, I looked at me five.

I was looking at the second.

I've already said, President Bills and Council for clarification.

Is that something then that we can bring back?

Or are you asked suggesting we just don't have the warranty?

No, we want the warranty.

We're just wanting to break it out.

And so what we would like is is once the equipment is coming and you're getting close to the final, is we have another quick action item uh authorizing the warranty.

So sole and separate, but we haven't noticed it that way, so we want to we want to approve it so you can get buying the equipment and get moving.

Um and then we want to have it back on the agenda in a week or somewhere either the sixth or preferably the 20th.

And we have it we'll we'll take this up as a straight business item.

Council.

And potentially it could be on the consent at that point.

Just to follow up, we will not lose the opportunity of being able to have this warranty if we don't purchase at the exact same time as the equipment and implementation, correct?

Thank you.

Roll call.

Yes.

I haven't amended the motion yet.

Which which amendment?

It was the original secondary when I amended, but he hasn't confirmed that you want to do the second.

Thank you, Councilman Rodriguez.

You're welcome.

Uh Natalie.

Sorry.

Question before I go further.

So the 14557 is already budgeted for this.

Total package.

Or if not.

This this entire uh budget piece would require a budget amendment that was listed in there.

Okay, so would it be more money if we did give it in the budget amendment?

Or not?

No, no, Councilman uh Rodriguez.

That 14,000 is the same price whether we buy it with the package right now or whether we do it later.

Yeah.

Correct.

I don't get the reason for this, but yeah, I'll I'll amend my second.

Just because the motion, uh clerk will call the roll.

Fog, yes.

Jingula.

Because councilman Griffin's voice matters too, yes.

Bill's Reynolds.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

And it's uh the first reading of private street naming ordinance for West Meadowcrest Lane with Carriage Lane with Cornelian Street, North Waypoint Lane, and North Parlor Lane.

And as an ordinance, do we have to read that?

Yes.

Okay.

That's under suspension of rules.

And we're going to pass it under suspension of rules.

Thank you.

I have that down for the other issues.

In order to the city of Napa, Canyon County, Idaho, naming of private streets, West Meadow Crest Lane, West Carriage Lane, West Cornelian Lane, North Waypoint Lane, North Parter Lane.

Mr.

President, I move that we pass this under suspension of rules.

Second.

Then moved in second to pass this ordinance under suspension of rules.

Clerk will call the rule.

Scog.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor.

Motion carries.

That completes our business items.

And we're going to move in to unfinished business.

And the first item on 6-1 is an action item.

And it's the first reading of ordinance for annexation and zoning to RMH, multifamily residential and GB2 gateway business zoning districts and potential development agreement at 17672 North Canada Road and Zero Eust Road, a total of 77.87 acres for Renee Strand of Holtz Architecture representing Mike ArdooneyO of Murphy Development.

And then this is a request to pass under suspension of rules.

In orderance of the City of Napa, Idaho, determining that certain lands commonly known as 17672 North Canada Road and Zero U Stick Road, parcels number R 303960110 and R 30395, located in the northwest one fourth of section six, township three north range one west Boise Meridian, totaling 77.87 acres more or less by contiguous to the limits of the city of Napa, Candy County State of Idaho.

And that said land should be annexed into the City of Napa and be zoned, RMH multiple family residential on 67.9 acres more or less and GB2 gateway business on 9.95 acres more or less, declaring said lands by proper legal description as described below as described to be part of the city of Napa, determining 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 RMH multiple family residential and GB2 gateway business as set forth herein on the official zoning map and other area maps of the city, providing for conditions of approval, providing for recordation, subject to the terms of that certain development agreement between the applicant and the city, providing for several ability, providing effective date, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof in conflict here with.

And directing the city clerk to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the area to be annexed with Canyon County State of Idaho and the Idaho State Tax Commission pursuant to Idaho Code Section 63-215.

President then make a motion to pass under suspension of rules.

Second.

Clerk will call the rule.

Scog.

Bills.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

No.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Five in favor, one opposed.

Motion carries.

Our next one is uh to pass under suspension of the rule as well.

6-2 is the first reading of ordinance for annexation and zoning of right-of-way along Cherry Lane to IL Light Industrial and RS4 single family residential for roadway adjacent to parcel next to East Ranch Subdivision at Zero Middleton Road for Idaho Holdings LLC.

Under suspension.

And we're requesting under suspension of rules.

In order to the City of Napa, Idaho determine that certain lands be annexed and zoned as follows.

Number one, 2.115 acres parallel to the northeast side of I-84 between Middleton Road and the new Cherry Lane alignment to IL Light Industrial Zoning District.

Number two, point seven eight seven acres parallel to the east side of North Middleton Road between I-84 and a point south of Lastor Street to RS4 single family residential zoning district for a total of 2.902 acres more or less.

That said land should be annexed into the city of Napa, declaring said lands by proper legal description as described below to be a part of the city of Napa, determining that said annexation and zoning is in the best interest of the public and is consistent with a comprehensive plan.

Directing the city engineer and the planning and zoning director to add said property to the official zoning maps and other area maps of the city, 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 in the map of the area to be annexed with Canyon County State of Idaho and the Idaho State Tax Commission pursuant to Idaho Code Section 63-215.

Go ahead.

Mr.

President, I move this pass and suspension of rules.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

If you remember, this is on approving the ordinance, not the project itself.

And I didn't mention that on the prior one, so I just wanted to say that on this as well.

Clerk will call the roll.

Jingula.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Next is item 63.

For an action item to be under is requested to pass under suspension of rules.

First reading of ordinance and approval of publication of ordinance summary for zoning text amendment to repeal and replace City Code Title 10, Chapter 23, signs to eliminate redundant language, remove unnecessary definitions, provide clarity, reorganize the chapter, align standards with building code for when a licensed design professional is required.

Add language restricting placement of temporary signs on city properties and add language for when additional sign code is required to be followed in city planning areas.

This ordinance repeals and fully replaces Chapter 23 signs in its entirety, providing for several ability, providing for a savings clause, providing for an effective date, and repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, rules, and regulations and parts thereof in conflict here with We have a motion.

Mr.

President, move this pass and suspension rules.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Clerk will call the roll.

Scog.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Our next item is uh 6-4 and first reading of ordinance for zoning map amendment from RA suburban residential to RS6, single family residential zoning district for a.37 acre parcel at 602 Chicago Street for Dylan Shivley representing Denise Smith.

And this also is requested to be passed under suspension of rules.

And ordinance of the City of Napa, Idaho, determining that a certain land commonly known as 602 Chicago Street, parcel number R2528, located in the southeast one-fourth of section 26, Township 3 North, Range 2 West, Boise Meridian, totaling 0.37 acres more or less, is currently zoned RA suburban residential by Candy County and is contiguous to the limits of the City of Napa, Canyon County State of Idaho, and that said land should be rezoned RS6 single family residential zoning district on.37 acres more or less, declaring said lands by proper legal description as described below to be a part of the city of Napa, determining that said rezoning is in the best interest of the public and is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Directing the city engineer and the planning and zoning director to add said property to the official zoning map of the city of Napa and to designate said property as RS6 single family residential on the official zoning map and other area maps of the city, providing for conditions of approval, providing for recordation, providing for several ability, providing an effective date, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith, and directing the city clerk to file a certified copy of the ordinance and the map of the area to be rezoned with Canyon County State of Idaho and the Idaho State Tax Commission for certain to Idaho Code Section 63-215.

Mr.

President, I move this pass and suspension of rules.

Second.

Any discussion?

Clerk call the role.

Scog.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Our last agenda item is an executive session.

And so we'll need a motion to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 74-206-1.

And it's J to consider labor contract matters authorized under Section 74206A 1A and B, Idaho Code to meet and discuss Napa Police Protective Association matters.

Council President.

Real quick question before we adjourn the executive session.

Do we need to bring up the potential meeting with the Uber here or can we discuss there?

I I've got a we had a procedural issue, so it's going to be on next Monday's agenda.

And it will be noticed and be on the agenda.

So thank you for asking that question.

So moved for executive.

Second.

Move and second clerk will call the roll.

Gog, yes.

Jingula Bills Yes.

Rodriguez Griffin Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor motion carries and with that no other business we'll adjourn to executive