I like the car to the other one.

I have to do it.

Oh yeah.

Oh yeah, which is a good idea.

I think we've just tried to get it.

Okay.

I don't have a thought.

Oh, you have another company.

I know.

Yeah, that's a happy yeah.

And the coffee gun.

Oh yeah.

But come on now.

I can't get some help where you research.

Can you come in on the presentation?

I do show you.

I don't know.

I don't think that I think I did tell her to go in and something.

And you're on the calendar.

Even though I won't be able to do that.

No, I wouldn't be like six killing.

Four hours and why you're not going to be able to do it.

They just wrote it last year.

Hey, and every year I have to do it.

I did.

I did read that.

I read it and I was like, this doesn't seem right.

So appreciate you being here and the work that we're gonna go through today.

And so we're talking to uh meeting order and Johnson Rells gonna give the invocation, leave us and cliff.

Thank you for today.

Please give us clear minds and uh we discuss the issues for the city of Nanpa.

And we remain uh friendly in our discussion in our conversation.

And you just roll everything just from joining us this morning and allow you to call the role.

Bills.

Browns here.

Here.

All right.

Hi.

Possibly one join us.

We'll see.

Today we're on some new business items, uh, discussion, and uh all of these items are uh important to the city of Napa, and so we appreciate uh those of you who are presenting uh the either.

So, Mark Storer, we're gonna allow you to kick us off with uh food truck licensing requirements.

This is one that we would like to get resolved and implemented.

So thank you, President.

Uh City Council, good morning.

Mark Steuer, Senior Director of Development Services.

Uh, here to talk about food vendors, also known as food trucks, uh, or just simply a mobile food vendors operating in the city of Napa.

So the purpose of the day is to provide an update, provide some background and really reignite discussions that have been taking place over the last three years in regard to the food trucks.

How they are currently regulated, how we might improve the current code to meet the city's objectives while at the same time and to the extent possible being fair and equitable to all interested businesses.

We're going to cover the current code as it applies to food vendors, look at the history of amending that code and the related challenges.

We'll also cover what the city is currently imposing in the code and the proposed amendments back in 23 and 24, and we'll look at what's being followed in a couple of neighboring cities as well, and then seek direction from council on next steps.

So established in 2021, the current code defines food vendors as taco trucks, lunch wagons, barbecue grills on trailers, etc.

as temporary uses, and temporary uses is defined as over 12 hours in a specific location.

If this is the case, code requires planning and zoning to issue a temporary use permit, a solicitors and peddler's license from the city clerk's office, and a valley valid permit from our local district health.

They're only allowed on commercial and industrial properties.

Can it be placed in the public right-of-way, must have authorization of the property owner out of access to bathroom facilities, no outdoor facilities for dining, like tables and separated canopies, fences, plants, etc.

No parking overnight from 12 to 6 a.m.

So obviously, if you see all the food trucks throughout the city, they are not complying with all these things before you, but we'll talk a little bit about enforcement.

So the history of this discussion has been taking place since uh fall of 2022 when staff received direction from city council to review other municipalities' code on food trucks and what they were doing.

Staff then brought this information to a council workshop in early 2023, and five council identified focal areas were established.

Staff took those focal areas and developed recommendations which were brought back to council in March of 2023.

Following this discussion, uh proposed ordinance amendments through planning and zoning were brought back to a workshop in April of 2023, and amendments were approved in August of 2023, pending approval of another ordinance from the city clerk's office establishing a mobile food vendor license.

In April 2024, the city clerk presented an ordinance to add a mobile food vendor license to the code as part of that public hearing process.

Several food truck vendors and their supporters did not feel the current code or proposed ordinances were achievable, and staff was directed by the city council to continue working with the food truck industry.

So nothing was passed, nothing was reported, and nothing was implemented.

With other council priorities coming to light, like the Fort Idaho Center, also knowing that a new mayor and council members would be seated in the near future.

So here's kind of the vicious food uh food mobile food vendor regulation cycle.

I know that many of you have seen this before.

You start off with the code, the mobile food vendors request less regulation because they can't meet that code.

Mayor and city council want to be supportive of small businesses, in this case food vendors.

So we may decrease that enforcement or looking at adopting that code, but then you have your brick and mortar restaurants that have to build vertical buildings and horizontal side improvements, pay impact fees and other fees, and meet other regulations.

So the food truck next door on a vacant lot.

Um there's an inequity there that's perceived between the two businesses.

So of course, mayor and city council wish to support tax-paying businesses and have a safe and clean city, and that brings us back to looking at adopting the code, and then round and round.

And because of this, we have not implemented anything in the last three years.

So in green here are the things that we are enforcing today, according to the code, our code compliance group.

Required to obtain a TUP, a solicitor's license from City Clerk's Office and a permit from South West District Health.

Code of compliance over the last month, identified and visited 17 operating food trucks in the city as of today.

Only a handful had all the required permits and licenses.

There are many property owners, so not the vendors, but the underlying property owners who are sent letters to comply with this requirement.

The other things shown in green here as well, these things are also being being enforced at this time.

And if they didn't meet any of these shown in green here, it was added to the letter to the property owner.

Again, it's the underlying property owner gets the letter and not the food vendor.

One exception we did make, there were two food truck vendors who came and asked if they could operate on the side of the street.

We don't usually allow them in the public right-of-way, but uh we came up with a way to to make an exception for these two barbecue uh one was parking place, one was a donut place.

And over there on Hawaii, just east of 12th, over by St.

Alphons.

We came up with uh with an idea to give them a special event permit that actually stipulated the hours of operation.

I think it was once or twice a week.

Uh it was reviewed by our city engineer for any traffic impacts, so we issued that permit and then also a solicitor's license and allow them to be in the public ride of way for a short period of time.

And these are really truly mobile food vendors because they come in, they operate for two or three hours, and then they uh remove themselves and they're not therenight.

Uh, one thing that we are not enforcing in the code is even on private properties is food trucks staying overnight.

And right now, the wage stands, we let them stay there overnight in perpetuity.

So, looking at the ordinance amendments that were done back at 23 and 24.

I just wanted to highlight some of the ideas that came before council that time.

One of them was to remove the temporary use permit from finding and zoning zoning entirely.

Um, add in new code sections addressing mobile food vendor courts and mobile food vendors that are not in the court.

We implemented an all-in-one mobile food vendor license from the clerk's office.

Uh, the commercial and industrial zone properties only that stayed.

Uh, then the remaining requirements uh, for example, location, hours of operation, right-of-way, overnight parking, waste disposal, all those were brought forward with the food vendor license ordinance, but like I mentioned before, that was never implemented.

So I think it's worth talking about what the neighboring cities are doing, especially uh in light of the fact that uh both Meridian and Caldwell have implemented new codes since uh the city council here in Nampa has met in 2024 on food trucks.

So they've implemented new codes.

So let's take a look at what Caldwell's doing.

They call food trucks mobile food units, and you need a permit from the city from the clerk's office on a yearly basis.

You also have to have your Southwest district health permit as well.

Uh, if there are two or more mobile food units, they're subject to special provisions and considered a mobile food unit park.

Uh city can prohibit any location based on reasonable grounds.

Uh hours of operation are 6 a.m.

to 2 a.m.

Uh, may operate from a permanent or semi-night semi-permanent location.

So the city of Caldwell does allow the food trucks to be overnight on a private property for the length of the permit.

Um, any uh any outdoor seating or shelter must be removed at the end of the business day.

So they allow picnic tables and tenses and potted plants and all that, but it all has to be put away at night.

Um there is a size limit on the structure of the mobile food unit, cannot be placed within or overhang the public right-away.

There is an exception if engineering approves that they can be given a special permit.

Um, mobile food units are allowed certificates of compliance for multiple sites at one time.

So that's what we're callable as good.

So a meridian, but they call that call mobile sales units.

They must have a license again from the city clerk.

It also needs approval from Meridian Fire and from the Central District Health Department.

Uh here's something that's unique.

General liability insurance required, listing Meridian as additional insured uh allowed on commercial industrial property authorized by the property owner.

City can't prohibit any location based on reasonable grounds.

Uh, hours of operation are limited to that of the primary business.

So, whatever the brick and mortar business is on that on that lot, but they if they close at 5 p.m., then the food truck also must close at 5 p.m.

then the food truck also must close at 5 p.m.

If the food trucks are a butting a residential area, the operation is 6 a.m.

to 11 p.m.

They have the public have public restroom facilities, no part of potties.

Additional requirements for food trucks again defined as two or more food trucks at a designated site, again, like a mobile food truck uh uh car.

Property owner must remove trash receptacles and waste removal for the operator.

So Meridian and Caldwell have uh very similar requirements.

I talked to staff of both of these cities.

It's working really well over the last year.

They haven't had many complaints.

Uh they didn't know in most cities that it's complaint driven.

So they won't go out and proactively enforce the food vendors unless they get a complaint.

That ends my presentation, and uh we'll look to you for further discussion and some directions.

Staff is also here to answer any questions.

Mark, uh thank you very much.

Uh hang windows here, council members.

Uh I know I've got a few questions, but I want to give opportunity for comments and uh see if we can uh move on the direction.

You can go first.

Well my basic uh concerns have been uh one I think we need to go forward has been suggested that uh license has to be issued by the clerk's office.

The issues that the clerk's office came up with uh a year plus ago should be implemented.

Uh I think we need to have a similar uh guideline listing those caldwell or meridian, but it's real clear.

Uh the other parts that I'm uh key on is eliminating the overnight the setup shop.

I think it's uh a real hit against the brick and mortar that goes through a tremendous amount of effort to get a uh certificate of occupancy and operate.

So then have somebody build a small deck around their uh dilapidated uh food truck and set up shop and that's legal and the work that we require for restaurants to go through brick and mortar restaurants of dollars more than the competing deals.

So I understand the need, but I think uh it's time for us to move forward with starting year plus ago uh with the clerk's office, and that uh we bring the policy together, and uh we might be able to in between the Caldwell and Meridian uh summary list is my thoughts.

And uh I just don't like seeing uh the setup at several locations in town where I'm driving around on a regular basis, and I I think it uh is a hit to the brick and mortar thing it's uh unsightly.

There's a couple that are tucked back in off of alleys uh in the downtown area.

Uh looks like the unit that they're working out of probably was uh manufactured in the 60s, uh and yet anybody else would be receiving uh citations or letters to uh clean up your your property and make it look uh correct.

So that's just my uh straightforward.

The actual language and I'm not trying to offer language is just more overall direction, and those who are set up on somebody's property and paying a little bit of rent, and then they leave their unit there, and you see their waste uh tanks beside them, and I don't know.

I just think it's it's a real uh front.

So that's those are my thoughts.

Uh council and hopefully that we can uh move forward and actually have an ordinance back in front of us in a short period of time and adopt it if we already have that ordinance available to us soon, then we'll get it on the agenda as an actual public hearing and adoption.

So Mark, thank you for that.

Can you remind us what the um the languages in that mobile food vendor license or sorry the the food court one?

We pass that.

It's been a couple years, I think now.

Did we pass it so that we can have a court?

So the the new mobile food vendor license that would go to the clerk's office.

Um basically what would happen is they could come, they apply for it, it goes planning and zoning engineering would review that and then return it to the license uh the city clerk's office to be submitted.

Is regards to mobile food courts, there's actual language in the license that talks about those courts that they have to have certain improvements, it has to be an improved uh pad for them to be on.

Uh you have to have a picnic table, I think, and restroom facilities there.

So there's actual improvements that go into it, and a conditional use permit would actually be uh submitted to to the owner of that property to have the court.

So it's an improved, nice property with amenities, and it's not a slightly line.

Are you aware of any that have come before you guys that have any interest for that?

Uh I believe back then there was some interest in it.

I have not personally received any interest from anyone to develop a properties.

Thank you.

Um sorry, just a little clarity here.

That can the um food truck courts were a part of that ordinance that uh that was never adopted because we were waiting on the license to put in the regulation part of it.

So while we had approved that to move forward, once the license didn't go forward through the public hearing, that food truck court, even though you approved it, we never finalized the ordinance because it relied on the license to be completed.

Okay.

So what do we need to implement that or to get that through?

Uh the license to be approved with all of the regulations, you know, the setbacks, the everything.

Um then we can move forward with the ordinance.

Okay, thanks for me.

And then quick follow-up.

Um, does the license need to be displayed?

Is that part of this?

Yeah, perfect.

Thank you.

That's all we have.

So when um back as Rodney was saying back in 2023, the planning and zoning ordinance to put in the mobile food court was approved, the language, but it was never recorded.

It was waiting on uh city clerk to issue their ordinance, and then it was all gonna be getting together too.

We have all the language for that requirements.

Thanks, Mark.

So we'll I have a follow-up question.

Um go ahead, Randy.

I'm staying to the right.

Okay, sorry about my voice.

Um Mark, currently, um, if you receive complaints, how do you handle those?

Because it sounds like a lot of things aren't being enforced.

Um we we actually have only received a couple of complaints over the last year.

Uh code compliance, Kent Lovless and code compliance will then send his staff out there to inspect the site and deal with uh with complaints on a case-by-case basis at this time.

Um, like I mentioned before, over the last couple of months, we are enforcing the entirety of the code the way it's written now, except for the fact that they can stay overnight.

We're not okay.

It's true, isn't it?

So um I don't know exactly what Meridian's language says, but it must work because their city doesn't look like ours as far as food trucks sitting everywhere.

I hate that driving around town, and I like food trucks, but I don't like the way it's become just sitting everywhere.

I'm concerned about the facilities, lack of facilities and sanitation, and um, so I think we need to address that and enforce that.

Um that being said, I'm also concerned about our staffing for co-enforcement, and if we enact an ordinance and then code to go out and try to make all this stuff right.

So however we rule it out, we need to be tentative about staffing code and not fold those in them all at one time if we can, but uh definitely we need to get something in place and get it done.

Food trucks are great, but um I um build things for a living, and uh I know the process of trying to get permit and everything else that goes into putting a restaurant together and like councilman bills it the hundreds of thousands of dollars goes into doing that.

It's just not equitable to what a food truck.

So the brick and mortar people are getting the grunt of this, and I can understand why they're upset.

Oh president.

Yes, Sebastian, thank you.

No worries.

Uh I I have been an outlier on this issue, so I'm not gonna uh stoke the fire too much on this.

I just I believe that we've had a lot of break and mortars become brick and mortars because of the opportunity to be food trucks first, get their name out there, and then move along.

I think there are unsightliness issues that this will address, and I think that's good and important.

I also believe uh we should have more freedom in our code than the Meridian.

I know they stop at 11, so we're better by being uh midnight.

Uh Callwell's at two o'clock, so I want to see maybe more opportunity for people to make more money for their family.

Uh facilities, obviously.

Uh I just I hope that this doesn't create such a burden that we uh stop the entry of some good food trucks, some good businesses.

We've had others come and talk to us and it's state to us.

If they didn't have their opportunity to be a food truck, they wouldn't be here in NAMPA now.

So it's a tough balance for me.

I think a lot of this looks good.

I really appreciate that it's complaint driven rather than us going out and and looking for a problem.

Um we're just responding to an issue.

So I just don't want to reach too far that we get backlogged in the permitting process, back logged in Southwest helps.

Uh permitting process uh to allow more businesses to thrive and ultimately and hopefully turn into more brick and mortars in lease space when it comes available in downtown and throughout the city.

So a question uh for staff here.

Is there the possibility of taking a uh piece of airland, whether in the downtown area or uh towards north side uh actually set up where three to five food trucks could come in, pull in uh waste lines would already be tied to the sewer, they got power to uh basically like a miniature mobile park and has some amenities, uh etc.

But they're there for uh a little longer duration and but not permanent, or it's a type of deal for Saturdays, you know, weekend events downtown that uh four or five vendors could say, hey, I want to be there as a pull along the curve, they're not setting up with stuff on the curb and part of the area, but actual piece of property or private sector wanted to set something up.

Is that available to us after we implement what we're discussing here?

I think that option is definitely available to us, and those are discussions that we can have moving forward for sure.

Okay, Mark, if these were on enclave properties within the city limits, the same rules apply.

Yes, the way it's written.

That's true.

Well, but I do believe they did take out the downtown zoning areas.

Uh in that you are in this Ronnie, is that correct?

That uh there were no food trucks allowed in the downtown area except for special events.

There we go.

We gotta get that vote.

Um, you have to be money zone directory.

Um I I believe our original code had said that we remove the option for downtown um you know having food trucks in the downtown, except for those special events right now.

We we could do a special event right now.

So farmers market or whatever, they can pull a special event permit and and do that right now, Wood Square or whatever.

They they already do that.

Um and we allow that uh with approval from engineering in the right-of-way, they can get a right-of-way permit for a temporary um put their their business there temporarily in the right way.

Um the the food truck court, since we don't have that in code yet.

We uh we do need to put that in code the ordinance needs to be read.

Um, and that would allow for that situation you described.

The multiple food trucks all in one place, but they have their own electrical connection for everyone that's that's an actual electrical connection, it's not daisy chaining uh an extension cord from business.

It could be on its own property, but it as Mark said, there's a lot of details there, like the the bathroom facilities, uh little part of the uh like a grass and everything would have to be a part of that.

Okay, so it'd be what I'm thinking is it's like a manager RER.

Yeah, that's how we need to look at it too.

Doing restrooms facilities on the site, but you use by multiple.

Yeah, it's a good way to look at it.

Excuse me.

So uh yeah, just for clarity, uh from the city council is to go ahead and take a look at the ordinance and amendment that we were in place a couple of years ago that were never implemented.

Uh we'll find those and work with the city clerk to uh to refine those uh those documents, bring them up to date, add a few things that we've heard from the food vendor community and bring it back to city council for uh discussion.

Um if everything is approved, the food court option would be in there, and we'll be happy to continue to talk with developers, talk to NDC and see what we could do about uh implementing one of those.

So council uh uh necessarily a formal vote unless uh we needed that formal vote.

So uh what I'm hearing is we want to bring everything back and get it fired up and get the things in motion so that we can adopt uh an ordinance and uh get the implementation that was started plus months ago.

And I I do believe too, um Shar, correct me if I'm wrong, the public hearing that was uh conducted at that time that wasn't something we had to do, but we chose to do um so we're only another public hearing, we're gonna have a public hearing which maybe that used off the doctors have them back before us.

Council President Council, uh Shark Tem City Clerk.

Uh that's correct.

So the public hearing from what um we had been given direction from our previous uh legal department, and I'll defer to President on how he'd like to handle this.

Uh we were not required to do a public hearing.

We did that because of Title 10, which is planning and zoning.

They needed to have that public hearing, but my understanding uh the license which is going to reside in Title V, which is under the city clerk, does not require public hearing.

Um I think it was just something they wanted to hear from the public as well.

But um moving forward, it's really however you'd like to do that.

Well, my suggestion is that we dust everything off and we get it in front of council for approval.

And if there's something that in that process of getting the dust off the documents uh that says we need to have it as public hearing, then we go that direction, but otherwise we get it on uh business item discretion.

Licency is adopted.

I think there's uh the desire of council to get implementation spending the MPs.

I apologize.

My alarm box has good.

I'm really well.

I am here, electrical I'm here and like you.

Thank you, Rodney Sharp.

Council President, Council members, uh Danny Badger, City Engineer.

Um was asked to come and talk about um development-related traffic considerations, uh traffic impact studies and how we go about those when we require them, and what we're looking at when we um look at that, and uh discussions.

Um traffic impact studies.

Um we adopted our current policy in 2023 when we updated our um standard construction specifications and our engineering policies.

Uh, there were not any significant changes to the traffic impact study policy document.

Um at that time they were minor tweaks for clarification and just ease of uh administration and um uh ease of understanding for the for those that are preparing those and public looking at that document.

Um so the purpose of our traffic impact studies are really to identify the um impacts from the development um on the roadway networks and the transportation methods.

Um looking at what the incremental addition of the traffic coming from those uh developments are on the roadway networks, and what needs to be done by the development to mitigate those specific um they traffic impact studies are not there to identify um the mitigations necessary to uh take care of existing traffic deficiency, though they do that.

Um their purpose though is to identify the impacts by the development, not the existing deficiency.

So it's part of that uh they do identify those but based on um the state statutes and the nexus that's required to require the development to mitigate something.

Um incremental portion that they are adding to the infrastructure.

So the triggers that require a trip traffic impact study are a any development that creates more than 100 vehicle trips in a peak hour, or more than a thousand vehicle trips in a given day.

And so when we're looking at that and establishing those um thresholds for the developments, we're using the ITE manuals uh that identify the land uses and what the trip generation numbers are from that.

Uh those manuals are um made up of studies from many different um locations throughout the United States and everywhere to identify the average trip generation for a given type of development.

So single family residential, we're looking at they they look all over the place, study those and determine here's how many trips per average are created with that.

Um and so that's the what we're looking at.

We're not looking at um specific projects here in NAMPA necessarily, but as we review those and look at that, those averages do really good at establishing what those trip generations are.

Umce we have those triggers, uh the traffic impact studies are required to be done by a licensed professional engineering uh using the industry standards and the warrants that they look at to see when things are triggered.

Um, are the manual for uniform traffic control devices, there are the warrants for signals for roundabouts, levels of service, and all of that is found in there.

Um when we receive those, um those are reviewed by myself, the city engineer.

We have a consultant that um does a technical review on those.

Uh Joe Barton from Paragon Construction or Paragon Engineering does all of those uh reviews for us on the consultant side, and then our traffic division manager Matt Ricks also looks at those.

If we have questions specifically on stuff and mitigations as we're looking at, we often talk to Crystal uh Craig, our transportation director, and between the three of us, we uh figure out you know what what makes sense here if there's questions and those types of things.

Um when we're looking at the timing for preliminary or for when we require those traffic impact studies, the two triggers that we have in the policy are that either at a preliminary plat or at a building permit.

So if we have a subdivision that comes in with a preliminary plat that has meets the threshold of either a hundred vehicle trips in a peak hour or a thousand vehicle trips per day, they're required to submit that traffic impact study that's reviewed and comes before you as part of the preliminary platation and zoning if that's associated preliminary plates.

If they're already in the city, only go to planning and zoning.

Um and then the final plats would come to you guys as a business item on the consent agenda.

So that's kind of the the timing and everything.

Um we've had a few larger annexations come in more recently for master plan communities.

We had the uh district 16 um and then the I don't remember what the one north of that was called, the other bottles one.

East Canyon, yeah, the one north of um up between Eustach and 2026 and all of that that models brought forward.

Um on that one, that does not trigger neither of those trigger either preliminary plat or a building permit being applied for.

And so as we uh had discussions with them, uh what we asked them to do was put together a scoping document for what they would be studying on that, um, realizing that the amount of time that those projects are going to take to develop, doing a traffic impact study today on the entire development uh would be very it wouldn't be meaningful to what the traffic situation would be when they actually go to put in those preliminary plats in that.

So the full traffic impact studies will come with those preliminary plats when when they get submitted, so that we are looking at the current traffic conditions when those come in rather than speculating 20 25 years down the road from now when that's gonna look at being built out.

Um so that's that's kind of what we're looking at.

Uh, when we look at the traffic impact studies, there is a threshold of size that we require.

So depending on how many uh how large the development is, how many vehicle trips we are talking about uh determines how how far away from their development they are looking and doing the analysis.

So anything with fewer than 200 vehicle trips in a peak hour is a small study.

They're looking at basically those first intersections, major intersections away from the development, um, and they're looking at what it looks like the year they open, uh assuming that really that's all happening in one phase, and and that's what we're looking at.

Uh on the medium size, so that would be between 200 and 500 vehicle trips in a peak hour.

Uh we're looking at those first intersections each way, and then everything within a half mile of the development.

And then we're looking at the opening year and then five years after the opening year, so that we're capturing more of what those impacts will be as the uh the vehicles travel farther away from that because the in the small study you as people disperse from the site, their impacts on those farther away intersections.

The the percentages and the numbers that get to those intersections get really small, and and the impacts and the likelihood of them triggering any kind of improvements at those intersections reduces down to very, very minuscule.

Um as you go to the larger developments and then the area of influence.

Um so the area of influence, that's obviously our largest size.

Um those we we go to compass and we um have them run a model scenario for that, and that identifies which intersections they are going to be impacting uh based on the percentages, and then that's what we use for the scoping documents.

So that's those are the largest ones you'll see, and they can spread quite a ways away from the development where they're having to look at those intersections and say, okay, we're we're looking at these intersections and what what's happening there, and we'd be looking at mitigations for those.

Um so that's really the the essence of what we do for the traffic impact studies and why we require them.

Uh we want the developments to be paying for the impacts that they cause from a um standpoint of what they ultimately uh fund.

Um it really is just that incremental addition of traffic that they are doing.

Uh they're not uh responsible to mitigate the existing deficiencies that we already have.

Um though when those projects are approved, they do pay impact fees that help uh with capacity issues throughout the city, though the existing deficiency portions are coming from city funds, but then we partner those with the impact fees to help stretch those dollars uh to get more improvements done for the traveling public in the city.

Any questions on the traffic impact studies?

Daniel, yes, couple of couple of questions and then uh want to throw a curveball at you if I can.

Okay, so um TIS fees, uh so when projects go in intermittently as well as they build around our our age-old issue of uh building around an existing property.

So we have a start stop on the widening of the road, we need to acquire the right-of-way, do all that.

Are we able to take any of that type of TIS money to help close those gaps?

So what we on those types of things, if the um we collect impact fees that are for road widening capacities on the arterial roadways as well as all the rest of what our capital improvement plan is for that.

Um right now Middleton Road is on our capital impact um fee uh list, and so as we get to that project, impact fees will help purchase right of way, do the roadway widening there.

Um and so the impact fees can help with that because that is adding capacity to the system.

It's just gotta be on the capital improvement uh plan list.

Um and so we prioritize that.

Uh we're currently working on an update to the transportation master plan, and that really identifies where our our needs are and uh informs what that capital improvement plan list should be uh to make sure that we're um adding the capacity that's needed um to address those existing deficiencies as well as the growth related side of things.

So impact fees certainly can um help purchase right of way if we had a project come in that was on one of those impact fee eligible corridor corridors and uh we needed to have some right of way acquired to help facilitate something there.

Uh impact fees could be used for that.

Uh we haven't run into that situation where um we've done that in the past, but that's certainly something that could be done as long as it's on that capital improvement plan.

Okay.

So a follow-up to that subject then is we as a city need to be budgeting.

So this is for yourself, but possibly also for Crystal.

Uh do we need to create a means mechanism under our public works uh to fund what I would call close the gap to go back into existing areas that were developed the last 10, 20 years and get the right-of-way and close the gaps.

And how do we be proactive in doing that?

Um so I would say that we would certainly support something like that.

Um I I think at this point I would want to wait until we had the the update to the transportation master plan so that we can identify where our priority corridors are going to be.

And then um if I remember correctly, Crystal, you've got some right-of-way preservation dollars that you you have in the street side of things that um could be used in that fashion.

It's really just on a year-by-year basis, identifying those priorities and where we're going to spend those monies.

Well, I'm just thinking that we've moved, I mean, here we are in 26, talking about 27, 28.

You know, we're 20 years past when I can think of uh some of our own projects and other uh developer projects where these gaps are uh created, and it seems like a long time's gone by and we kind of live with them, but yet they're uh they're a nuisance to a certain degree from my perspective.

And we having this you know stop start program or enclave areas, which is going to become a topic yet uh before council is what to start thinking about on these enclaves, because they're an impediment to for my side the streets and continuity of sidewalks.

So I'm just trying to get an idea along with the TIS.

So what's our time frame then on getting the traffic master plan study completed?

Morning, uh Council President and Council.

Crystal Craig, Director of Transportation.

We are currently finalizing the scoping and negotiations for the trend or for the matter plan.

I'm planning to come probably the second council in May with the scope for council Togroof.

That'll be a scope.

What's the time frame for doing the actual work?

It'll take about two years to complete the total update.

Okay.

Tough to be patient.

Council President.

Yes, sir.

If I could.

Councilman Rodriguez.

Thank you.

Um Daniel, based on the extreme increase of congestion and traffic, it would be my preference that any development that comes in ought to have a traffic impact study.

That's just my opinion.

But so however, uh do these traffic impact studies do they benefit financially the developer project or the city of Napa?

And if so, do we have to match those funds for road development?

So Council President, Councilman Rodriguez.

No, they they don't there's no specific benefit to the developer or the city for these other than identifying their mitigated traffic.

Regarding oftentimes we do hear the public question why a project has not done a traffic impact study, why we have set the thresholds where we have.

Okay, I think the the long run would be this within traffic impact studies that show that the increase of traffic and congestion, then the they would have to, as a result, have to widen the road or make a turn lane, anything like that would be a benefit for us.

And so we're already doing that, right?

Yes, and and below that threshold, we do often require that they look at and say, okay, what turn lanes would be required just at your entrances in that?

Uh but that's not necessarily a full traffic study, but we are having developments still look at those types of things.

Um as well as you know, if um it is the council's, you know, if they have the desire for turn lanes there um even without a traffic impact study um at entrances, left turn lanes, those types of things, those are conditions you can place on those even without those thresholds.

Um that's ultimately at the council's discretion if they feel that those are um important, even if they're not identified, that that's something at an annexation side of things that you would you would be able to place as a condition.

Um if it's quasi-judicial, you you would need that nexus for it.

Follow-up uh president.

Yes.

This was is for Captain Calderon.

I have a question for you, sir.

Hope you were sleeping over that.

No, not at all.

Uh I'm regarding the traffic impact studies.

Um again, this is my opinion only, my direction, that would the city of would the NAPA police department consider when there is a traffic impact study going on or being conducted, would the city of NAMPA police department say that they would do their own impact study based on traffic and your numbers of accidents and congestion and all that.

Would it be separate from that?

Would you be would do we need that?

So yeah, I I can actually take that one.

Oh, okay.

Um the as part of the traffic impact studies and those warrant analysis, they they look at the traffic um the accident history, and that is part of the warrant analysis that they do in those traffic impact studies.

So that that is already looked at.

Um and then we review that uh when we when we review the documents.

I see.

Okay.

Well, that's that's what I was wondering about, because I think the numbers are low, is because that there aren't enough officers to go and do traffic enforcement in these areas.

So I don't know those numbers are really correct.

And that's what I was thinking about, Captain Calderon.

If that's if that's true, then maybe they should increase or be more involved in those traffic impact studies.

I mean, that's just my idea.

What do you think?

Um so the the accident history, um, we need data for that, and the police department reports all accident data to the state, and we utilize that that data um from the state for the accident histories there.

Okay, yeah.

Um and so they are using the data that police has provided um to review those.

What about traffic tickets?

Um, you know, traffic tickets are not something that is reviewed in a traffic impact study that doesn't necessarily um play into any warrants or or anything uh that we would look at there.

Well, based on the compact information that they that they're used, comes that I mean.

And uh so is that taken in consideration?

Because I don't think the police department really interfaces with the traffic impact studies.

Other other than the accident history, no.

There's not speeding data and that type of stuff is not um a component of the traffic impact studies.

Do you do you think it should be?

Um for a capacity analysis, no.

There's not a that's not something that would be relevant to the capacity studies that really the um traffic impact studies are are meant to address.

Okay, I'm just trying to figure out a better solution here.

So yeah, I I get so what what we have to do.

So thank you.

That's all I have.

President.

Yes.

Rodney, it's my understanding that we can entertain the idea of mandatory annexations before Crystal and her team are done with their study in the next two years.

Is that correct?

We could state law.

Oh, excuse me, Rodney Ashby planning and zoning director.

Uh the state law does require that we go through a planning process for that.

So we have to put a plan forward.

Uh we have to go through this process, identify what properties we're looking at.

Um, and so it's gonna take a little bit of time, but not anywhere near two years.

So it's not tied to Crystals and her team specifically.

We still have to go through a process, just not that process.

Correct.

Okay.

So we can theoretically close those gaps that Councilman Bills was talking about before those two years.

We could accept uh that the only caveat there is that when development happens on its own and they're requesting annexation of us, um, we put conditions on them to make the improvements that we need.

And in this situation, if we're just going in and annexing them, I I think we would still have to purchase that right-of-way to make that happen.

Yes, if if we're ahead of if we're ahead of the development.

If we are doing a class B annexation, I think is what they call them, or whatever they call them now, um, where we're where we're going in annexing property without necessarily the consent of the property owner, we would not have the ability to require them to dedicate right of way at no cost to the city.

Uh, we would still ultimately have to go purchase that right-of-way from them to do that.

But it would still be better in the sense of growth, so that it was fluid growth if a big subdivision comes in, and then we don't have those little pockets where sidewalks come and stop, and we could purchase the city would have to come up with the funds to purchase those right-of-ways, um, similar to what we were talking, Councilman Bills was talking about earlier, that we would need to have funds to purchase that right-of-way to facilitate that.

Um, but yes, that as long as we are willing to come up with those funds to do that, we could we could make that happen.

And we don't necessarily have to have a new code in place for us to have that ability, or we do still.

No.

No, state statute already allows for those type of annexations, it just requires the political will to do it.

Um it's been a number of years.

Just keep rolling.

It's been a number of years since we've done one of those, and it was um I don't think Rodney was even here back then.

I may be the only one still around that um, yeah, it was it was a challenging process and and made people really happy.

I I certainly um from a uh planning and you know, infrastructure standpoint, think that uh eliminating enclaves is a great thing.

Um it just comes with challenges.

Sure.

And from a city standpoint, I mean it just all across the board.

Yep, it makes the most sense.

So it just drum up that political will.

So we I'm sorry, I'm gonna just jump in real quick.

We have been 20 years now with enclave properties.

Uh some 25 uh et cetera.

And so 25 years ago, 20 years ago, it wasn't too popular to do that.

Now it it's really from a public works point of view, from a operation of the city.

It it requires for us, in my mind, there that we we we need to move on those issues the next one to two years.

And as we discussed that, there has been some new state legislation this year that has some impacts to that, um, not necessarily our ability to do that, but um some impacts in the public works utilities side of things and what we are allowed to um what fees were allowed to assess on a utility side of things on properties that have been annexed without property owner consent.

So there's some um nuances there that will be new this year after with that legislation going in.

Okay.

So it'd be helpful uh when we can is to get a summary on that and have it back before us, hopefully within 60, 90 days.

Yep, we can do that.

So John Spencer for sure.

I've talked to Rodney about it for a while now.

So I would love to get moving on that if you're he wants he wants to get moving on it.

Yeah.

Yep.

Follow up really quick.

One one thing that you said, everything happening within a half mile.

So would that mean that if there was a big subdivision happening on this north side of this road, and then on the south side, another one, would those two work together in numbers to create one?

So what typically happens there is whichever one comes in first, does their traffic study.

The second one that comes in, even if it's not built, they take that traffic study that was already done and they include those numbers for that traffic generation in their study, so that they are accounting for that traffic that is going to be coming but isn't there yet.

Um so they are looking, it it is a comprehensive look each time.

So if there are projects that are not completely built out or haven't started building but are approved, those are um within the traffic studies that are done.

So if you say you have a project on the north side of the road that has 500 homes, um is doing a medium-sized um or large-sized uh study, they do their study, they identify this is our traffic generation, this is the impacts to the that, those mitigations are identified.

You have somebody else come in with another development that does a TIS, they take those numbers, put those in their background numbers, add theirs to it, and identify okay, here's the mitigations that they were required to do.

We assume those are completed, we've added our traffic, what new mitigations are required, and that oftentimes if those kind of things happen and those mitigations um kind of stack up together, those developers will work together to implement them kind of at the same time, depending on their building and that.

But yes, they do account for each each traffic study accounts for the existing traffic that's on the road today, any approved projects that will be generating traffic that's included in there, um, and then looked at globally from there.

So final quick question.

Uh if we took the north side area impact, uh the big area that was right now.

I'm not thinking of the word as far as the master plan.

East East Rank or East Canyon, the the large one there that bottles brought in.

Well, no, I'm thinking the whole area.

Oh, the the specific area plan.

I'm thinking from Birch to 2026.

Yes.

So that would be the the 2026 specific area plan.

So what does it take and or is it possible instead of the incremental on the traffic side is to look at it from the standpoint that whole area builds out with an average of X number of units.

What is every intersection need to look like?

What's our tie to 2026?

So highway 16.

What because what I what I'm concerned is we're seeing incrementally where it's at, but uh the public.

I'm I'm getting the impression the public is coming to the hearings and they're wanting to look at it from what's the totality and how are we going to solve it from a totality point of view?

And on that, that's what the transportation master plan really is.

Is that's its focus is okay.

What's our ultimate, what do we need, what's this going to look like?

They're looking at that global um stuff.

The the traffic impact studies um for this, you know, are looking at specific projects and what they trigger.

Um in the specific area plan, as I recall, there was some components of uh roadway network and that that was looked at.

Um, but the the specific area plan and the transportation master plan are really the ones that would look at okay, globally, what's this area going to look at uh look like in the future?

Uh the traffic impact studies, that's that's again the traffic impact studies are meant to identify the project-specific mitigations that are required.

Um those more global city studies look at okay, long-term, what are we looking at for this entire area?

Um and what are our needs going to be based on our land uses and that.

Um, those are the studies that would be identifying that type of information.

Okay.

So where are we at in the process of the overall?

So again, would Crystal's looking at bringing a scope here next month to you on the traffic impact study or the transportation master plan.

Um and and that again takes a takes a bit of time.

All of our master plans, they they typically take a year to two years to get done.

Um the reason I'm seeing is is because the applications coming forward, and the one that's been postponed a couple of times, I think is they're they're asking for 1400 units on 80 acres.

Um whether we approve that size is unknown, not speculating on that at this deal.

My my question is we're seeing all the approvals that we're doing incrementally, and I keep hearing the comments when we're sitting here public hearing-wise.

So I appreciate we're moving forward.

I just don't know the time frame.

It seems like we're we're gonna be after the fact of what's been approved.

So and so as we look at that, if if that gets approved, that will get incorporated into that study to to identify, okay.

This we would change the land use there, it gets changed in the comp plan in the specific area plan, and that feeds into the um transportation master plan and would be accounted for within that.

Okay.

I just see, I mean, I appreciate you working on it.

It's it's just it's it's upon us here and how to deal with you know from the from the project approval side.

Yeah, and on our master plans, we generally try try to have them done every five to seven years typically to update those.

Um, and so you know, they are yeah, 2019 was the last one we did.

So we're we're right on our our typical schedule for those updates.

Um they are not insignificant cost, nor are they insignificant efforts.

Um we are planning documents, they are all based on assumptions and and the land uses that are approved with the specific area plans, um have refined detail over just the the regular comp plan.

So with that refined detail, we get better answers um out of those studies when we have better inputs and less assumption having to go into them.

Um and yeah, so they no, I understand the difference for me is it's been a wake-up call in a sense uh the last couple of years for me.

We saw projects two to three hundred and smaller.

We're seeing much larger in projects that are 800 to 1400, and you take multiples of those, and that's pushing our envelope of information and history experience.

And so I'm concerned now, it's like kind of woke up from a bad dream and uh we're we're now seeing those.

So that's what I'm trying to look at.

And I appreciate that you're looking at it.

And I will say, as we get those larger developments, they they obviously have additional, they'll be more of those area of influence type thing.

They have a much greater likelihood of triggering significant impacts that will you know benefit the city to have those uh funded through the development rather than you know, some of those smaller, more incremental developments that don't necessarily trigger those things.

Um so there is there is advantages to those larger projects in that respect.

Um, there are also challenges that come with them as well.

So it's again, I don't envy you guys having to balance all of that and make decisions on those.

Well, it and it's you know just partly that we're trying to be as proactive versus the reactive.

Yeah.

So appreciate that.

Thank you for the presentation.

Thank you for the time.

I did have one more thing.

If do we're we're we're running against it.

So the only other thing I had was talking.

We often get comments about speed limits.

Um speed limits are um a the city council does adopt those, but it's done at the recommendation of the city engineer and the police chief.

Um so when we get calls in and look at speed limits, um, we are looking at data.

Um, we look at accident history, we look at um what the traveling public is actually going, what speeds they are going, and safety issues around that.

So that is really how we look at speed limits.

We are setting speed limits generally at an 85th percentile.

So we recognize that there are people that are going to drive faster than the speed limit.

But we we are setting those speed limits.

We don't want to set it for here's how fast the fastest person drives.

We we back that off and and do that accounting for safety and that.

We recognize that there are those people that if we set the speed limit at 100, they would still speed.

110.

110, yep.

That's you know.

So those those are kind of the things we look at.

The only two uh real things that affect how fast people actually drive on a roadway are the amount of enforcement and their comfort level while driving.

So um those are the two real levers we have to pull to affect people driving.

The posted speed limit doesn't necessarily affect how fast people drive, it's really just those two levers.

So just quick quick one on that.

Excellent.

Appreciate the update.

We're gonna move to Lindsay, I think on uh airport.

Good morning, council.

Good morning.

Just a second here, let me share my screen.

Lindsay Johnson, airport superintendent.

I'm here to share updates on the airport.

We're going to run over uh city-owned hangers and the status of insurance requirements, um, the hangar assessment that we've completed, and a quick update on the airport terminal building.

Um, I just wanted to give you a little information about the airport.

Umunicipal airport was established in 1928 by the NAMPA City Council, Chamber of Commerce, and various civic organizations.

The airport was established on 80 acres of uh ground at the corner of airport, Kings and Garrity.

It was a 1.5 miles from town at that time.

The airport is now uh it's 98 years later.

It's now 249 acres.

There's 24 city-owned buildings, 145 private hangars, home to over 300-based aircraft, and provides an economic impact to Idaho of 106 million dollars annually.

As many of you know, we recent we recently had a hangar fire in a city-owned hangar.

This has prompted us to re-evaluate the current insurance requirements for city-owned um tenants.

We currently um rely on the indemnification paragraph in that rental agreement.

This is where it gets complicated.

Aviation insurance is complicated.

There's not a federal or state requirement to ensure one's aircraft.

It's not uncommon for pilots to be self-insured.

Uh land leases for our private hangers.

We do require a general liability insurance for those folks.

Rental agreements, we just have this indemnification clause that I've provided.

What are our options?

We could begin requiring aircraft insurance for all aircraft at the airport.

We could require renters insurance for city owned hangars.

We could have the city provide hangar keepers' insurance, or we could do nothing.

No.

Yeah.

We're not going to do nothing.

No, but not a good option.

Council.

I just wanted to give you all the options.

Okay.

So we're we're going to have our buildings and our assets protected, and the tenants are going to need to insure us as for any coverage loss requirements.

Absolutely.

Okay.

So if we look at aircraft insurance, it will cover the premises, which is an option.

Um there's also renters insurance that we could require our renters to uh to provide.

The one downfall there is it doesn't cover aircraft in a tie-down on the outside of the airport.

Uh if they are just on the uh tie-downs or transient um aircraft.

Um the if the city were to provide hangers insurance, uh, legally we can't do that.

The state code does not allow us to do so.

And doing nothing is obviously not a great idea.

Yeah, we don't want to do that.

So that that's what's next.

We need to determine our insurance requirement for the rentals and how we want to do it.

Do we want to do it within the rental agreement or within the airport rules and regulations?

And this is something we'd come back to council for final adoption.

Well, legal may want to weigh in on that or have a chance to look at it, but for my perhaps of uh managing commercial properties, etc.

But for my per all the years of uh managing commercial properties, et cetera, that the tenant must carry the insurance to indemnify a fire on the building and contents, etc.

And just doing it as airport rules and regs, I think is ambiguous.

I think when somebody signs a document and it says we will, and you are required and you initial that paragraph.

I think we need to have that strength in our leases and our operation.

Okay.

So we will be coming back with an updated rental agreement with some provisions for rental insurance.

Are there other comments on this?

Yes.

Um here, what a couple of months ago, there was a fire at one of the hangars.

Yes.

Was did the city did we cover that, or did the owner of the property cover that?

I mean, not only the proper owner of the ten airplane to what it was in there.

The tenant where the fire originated, they was insured, and they're going back and forth with ICRMP currently on that on the payments on that piece.

Um, from what I understand, the final report still coming out, but I believe it was not the city's fault for that fire.

It was a something within the tenants' um possessions.

I see.

So this is what we're trying to cover is make sure that our property is is covered, but not other property within that, right?

Correct.

Okay, I got it.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh the next piece of this, we did complete a city hangar assessment.

Uh in we we had pledged to you in 2024 when we did the market rate um increase to the city owned hangars, we would assess all of the city-owned hangers.

Uh the city assess hangar owner assessment was completed by JGT architectures.

They uh evaluated the um 18 city-owned T hangers and the structural integrity, the physical condition and maintenance needs and capital repairs.

They broke the report down into short-term and long-term needs.

The um hangars outlined in red here are the city-owned hangers that were evaluated.

The assessment provided short-term recommendations, long-term recommendations, probable costs, and the building lifecycles.

The report also broke this down for each individual hangar building.

For short-term needs, um, some of the items that were identified were roof replacements, torching the eaves, replacing roof screws, skylight panels, bird medications, um, replacing some of the man doors and paint on some of the hangers.

These are some of the images of some of those uh short-term needs.

Long-term needs, there's 16 hangers that need their roofs replaced, new Eve fascia, uh, random door paneling needs to be replaced, roof edge blocking, uh, random door hangers themselves need to be replaced, and uh new floor surfaces.

The cost estimate is 2.1 million dollars for these room, these improvements.

Here are some of the images of those needs.

Of that 2.1 million dollars, there are two hangers that account for one million, just over one million dollars of the long-term improvements.

Uh, let's talk about the history of these two hangers, 450 and 540.

Both of these hangars were were constructed by a private party in the 1980s.

They had a land lease with the city at a lower rate.

When the city in the 1990s upgraded the land leases, um, I guess one of the things I should go back in the 80s, the land leases at the end of the lease, the building reverted to the city, period.

In the 1990s, the city updated the land lease, increased the land lease rate, and went back to all the leaseholders on the city and said, you can sign a new land lease at it'll be at a higher rate, but you could keep your building at the end of the lease.

The owner of these two buildings said, nope, I don't want to, I want to keep the lower land rate, and what happens at the end happens at the end.

Well, the buildings reverted to the city in 2015.

Uh, when he realized he was not going to keep the buildings, he stopped maintaining them.

Uh so both of these buildings have quite a bit of work that they need done.

Hangar 450 needs uh the floor to be regraded, doors to be repaired.

Uh it's a 12,000 foot hangar.

There's um like the storm on Monday, water just sheeted through the building.

You if you had something stored on the ground, it was soaked.

Uh it's been an issue for many of our tenants.

Hangar 540.

Uh, the biggest issue with this building, it was built on um just dirt.

Uh so there's 20 by 20 pads where the pilots pull their aircraft in and dirt in the rest of the building.

It um is a very dirty hangar.

There's um we even have problems with the groundhogs getting in there.

It's that's this so this building needs roofing, floors, door improvements.

It it has a lot of needs.

So using this hangar assessment, we did complete a return on investment.

The ROI includes revenue for rental fees, cost savings that we would have through in-house labor for some of the improvements, cost of improvements, and annual overhead costs.

The in your packets we did provide the summary for the hangers and most of our hangers that return on improvement for the proposed improvements, pencil out.

Hangers 450 and 540 both do we don't break even in 20 years with the improvements that are needed at our current rates.

What's next?

We're working with the facilities to work through our short-term maintenance needs.

We're developing a regular preventative maintenance plan for the hangers, and we need to determine the fate of hangars 450 and 540.

I also wanted to give you guys a quick terminal building update.

Do you guys have questions?

Lindsay, thank you.

Uh I not necessarily comment or question but comments.

Uh those two hangars, I personally think uh you ought to get bids to have them torn down.

And uh, and then I would release the land and let people build buildings.

Okay.

And that way they get slabs, they raise the grade, and uh we continue to be in the land lease business more than the building lease business, would be my recommendation.

So you might look at that cost, and but I think uh there's people who could go in and demo those or put it out for bid to get a bid on the demolition.

Uh but there's no reason to put money in those those buildings as they sit to take in water every time it rains is inappropriate.

And uh so we took over the the buildings.

Obviously, the person I'm gonna lose them, so I'm not gonna maintain them.

I didn't do a good job when they built them.

Uh I I just think council that we should be encouraging get off the dime and let's get future forward with assets and doing what we do well is leasing ground and let the private sector deal with the buildings from my perspective.

Okay, we'll work on a plan forward.

I'm saying nod heads and and I think we ought to move that right on ahead if that helps you.

Helps a lot.

I appreciate that input, council.

Anything else that you need from us or no, that's everything at this point.

Okay, we'll be back with updates on the insurance requirements and progress on those hangers as well.

Yeah, we we we definitely need to act like we're the landlord, and we expect our tenants to carry insurance, and if their fire go bleeds over to the next unit, they've got that next unit covered.

And soon some of the tenants will say, Well, that's just too expensive, we can't handle that.

They'll be in your office.

I understand they'll be whining.

The reality is MAMPA needs to operate as an appropriate landlord and uh not beef on the hook for when these things happen.

Sounds good.

I I hope that's concurrence with council.

So okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

So our next item is uh Purdom Drain, Doug Racine.

Is everybody okay or do we need a five-minute break?

We're good.

We're good.

Sharing your file.

Okay.

Let me share a file very quickly here, and then we'll get started.

All right, let's get that readable.

Councilman Griffin, are you still with us?

Still here, councilman.

Excellent.

I was concerned you were up so late you'd be sleeping by now.

No, and I was gonna say I concurred with everything you said, but I figured I'd practice brevity.

Wow.

That's the first.

Man, that is a first.

I heard that has definitely risen.

Okay.

So, council, what this is is uh Doug is giving us uh his team met uh roughly 20, 30 days ago with different uh folks.

And uh I sat in that meeting and talked about the Purdom Drain uh improvement trunk sewer, the improvements, what's going in, the cost, how we're gonna continue to be a part of funding it, and his plan on that.

And so this is the report uh for that.

And uh we appreciate uh Doug and team uh putting it together.

Fantastic.

Uh president and council.

Uh just a bit of background here.

So we've been building this file for probably before uh Mayor Rick was elected, and we kept we've kept refining it uh based on meetings with um uh both Rodney and with conversation with Daniel and with Mark, and we've gone through this probably five or six different iterations to try and make this as as comprehensive as we can get it without um uh trying to capture every little minute detail.

The goal is to capture the totality of the cost, when the cost will be incurred, and how the cost will be funded.

That's the first stage.

The second stage is to look at the potential revenues that will be generated over time by this cost.

So, what I want to have uh Chris Boaz do is walk through the cost and the funding, and then I'll come back and walk through the revenue sheet.

So, quick question.

Do you have an updated printout that we can physically see those numbers in front of us?

I think he does.

The the file included in your deck.

We have two presentations.

One was the original, and then we have a slight update to it because some cost changed uh recently.

So that's what Chris has got for you.

Thank you very much.

Councilman Griffin, do you have uh are you able to see this online or do you have this graph in I do, I I see the XL, the Purdue drain cost slash funding summary.

I don't I don't have that full packet, but if you can email it, I'll pull it up on my additional screen.

Yeah, we can definitely do that.

Uh just for the record, Chris Boaz, Capital and Grants Manager.

Um, so President Council, just want to kind of walk you through this.

Uh been asked to make this as simplified as possible with knowing that this is not a simple project.

We have about eight different funding sources over three years over three different work packages.

It's a bit like playing three D chess.

Um so what we're gonna do is we're gonna walk through uh our funding sources, which is that that top box or top section that you're seeing, and then we'll walk through uh the project expenses by phase um and by fiscal year on the in the bottom section.

So uh that very top line we can see we have uh the 1.214 million dollars.

That's coming from uh money that's been budgeted in FY25 and prior.

And um so we are gonna roll over that last amount, which is the uh 538,000 UC in FY26, and then that will be done with that funding source.

Uh the next funding source we come to is the sewer impact fees.

This is straight from sewer impact fees.

I believe they have uh roughly uh it's either nine or twelve million dollars.

I would have to double check.

Um, that number, but enough to cover that that eight million dollars um just straight from sewer impact fees.

Uh the next line down you'll see again sewer impact fees.

The way we're gonna approach this is that nine and a half million dollars is actually gonna come out of water renewals fund balance first, and then it will be reimbursed um through the sewer impact fees.

I we're collecting about 230,000 a month in sewer impact fees, and so it'll take uh roughly three to four years to reimburse that 9.5 million dollars.

Uh the next funding source down is we have our water and irrigation funds.

This is money that is coming from uh the water and irrigation fund balance, but it will be uh reimbursed through latecomers fee.

I'm gonna say late covers fee a couple times.

These are separate latecomers fees for the water and irrigation.

Um our next funding source is the development services fund.

As you can tell, that's a quite a big chunk.

I know we have ample fund balance in there uh to cover that 10 million dollars coming from development services.

Um our next one is our foregone taxes that were uh approved in FY25 for 1.6 million dollars.

Uh so far we've expensed about $800,000 of that, and we'll be using the the remainder in FY26.

Um the next one is the developer latecomers fees.

This is what Mark Stour has been working on so diligently.

That's the eight and a half million dollars we've secured from the developers that are gonna benefit from the city putting the pipeline in.

Um believe 60 days after we sign work package two is when we will get our first payment, roughly half of the 8.5 million dollars.

And I'm not quite sure of the timing of the second tranche, but I'm sure Mark has that that nailed down.

Uh the next one we have down is the the repayment of land behind behind FM.

FM stands for Fred Meyer.

Um so this was the uh I believe four acres of land that's what was oh sorry, my my apologies 11 or 12 acres of land behind Fred Meyer that we purchased that uh the water renewal is slowly repaying Gengov for.

Uh finally, in that um underneath the currently unfunded section, we have the the Gengov loan.

So what we're proposing, and um this obviously for council to decide is for uh the Gengov to loan water renewal.

It's up to seven and a half million dollars um over the course of the next two and a half years.

Um it's your guys' prerogative if you want to just call it a straight out, we'll call it a gift to water renewal, or if we want to repay that through latecomers fees, or we have several several different mechanisms on how we can recoup that seven and a half million dollars.

So can I ask a question?

Yes, thank you.

Uh Chris.

Yeah.

I don't recall bodying 1.6 orgon to the entire Purden Trunk sewer line.

I thought half of that.

400,000 something is going to the police department.

No, the totality of the foregone in that year was about um we had two percent for capital that we reserved aside should be this one point six, and we had a one percent for operations was an additional four hundred thousand dollars, two separate chunks.

We took the but what we did is we it was split into two years.

So since the one percent operations was built into our base, in the first year of that, we gave the two percent capital and the one percent operation, which totaled the one point six million dollars.

We put that entire amount to the foregone.

In the succeeding year, that additional one percent next year in 26 this year, it went to fund police.

So we usually we used it twice appropriately.

Okay, so all right.

Next question, Doug, while you're up there.

We are I don't recall that no, you have that's that's the presentation portion.

This has not been formally approved by council yet.

Okay, that's so let me add just a little flavor around that in terms of fund balance.

Yeah, so clarification, council.

That line is what is this presentation is about is for information.

Okay, for information, no action today, but it will come back for action uh at some point here soon through our budget times here.

We'll have a public hearing on it down the road then, right?

Well, it'll be a part of our budget uh sessions round.

We can do it, you can do it as council wishes as a separate action item to approve the totality of the project and the use of the fund balance, and then we can include that use of the fund balance into the budgeting process for the next three years.

Yeah.

So we're gonna be looking for an action item on a meeting coming forward.

We're just not taking action today on it.

So today today's an information session.

And then item but very briefly you were correct.

You're correct, president.

Uh, in terms of capacity to fund that seven uh and a half million dollars, uh we have um roughly thirty nine million dollars of general gov fund balance.

About that is statutorily reserved for um we can't embate it unless there's a disaster, and council approves that.

That leaves the remaining half available for us to uh present to you for your use how what is the highest and best purpose for the use of that fund.

So you've got roughly 17 million dollars of available funding to use for the purpose you should choose.

So there's not a problem.

My preference would be to initiate this as a loan that is repacked, repaid over time by developer fees to rebuild that into the capital balance so we have it again five years down the road to use it again for another project.

So we'll follow up.

Yeah.

So we're not going out and getting a loan, we are giving the loan.

Exactly.

Correct, that's what I want to do.

So the the cost to us would be interesting.

We're lending to ourselves out of one bucket to another bucket.

And what Doug is saying is do we just transfer that money or do we do it as a loan with the expectation that other development and building monies are going to reimburse it?

That's the approach I would like to see us take is the reimbursement back.

Yeah.

Thank you.

So that's my fault.

I should have clarified that better.

So I just want to draw your attention to one thing in that column G that you can see.

You can see do two different colors, kind of a salmon pinkish and then the green.

Anything in that uh or reddish orange, whatever you want to call it, that's something that has not been budgeted this year.

And so there will be a that will be on either our first amendment or our second amendment later in the fall.

Uh the shaded green are is what actually has been budgeted so far in FY26.

So if we move down to the lower section, then we get into kind of our different uh phases of the project.

Uh we have the JUB who's doing the majority of the design consulting, uh, Brown and Caldwell, uh, who's working with our CMGC to kind of oversee the project.

Um, and we have our construction engineering and inspection, public involvement easements, and then we get into our construction piece, which is the CMGC contract, and our three work packages.

As you can see over the three fiscal years, our two biggest spends are in FY26 and FY27.

Uh, we'll say the getting this project going, it took some time uh because that the first section of the project is so deep in underground that it it took time to get down that that far.

And now that we are down that far, we're starting to really pick up steam, and we're seeing um just trudge forward, and it's uh we're yeah, like I said, we're we're definitely picking up steam.

So we're we are hoping to get the majority of this done this year and next fiscal year.

And I believe I'm if I understand everything correctly.

Um once we get the pipe in the ground and we're moving further down the road, then we're coming back, and then we're paving over top of that, putting the road in, and that's why we're seeing a lot of those uh costs happen in that that first and second year.

Uh do we have any questions before I move on to the the funding plan?

No, let's keep let's keep going on it second page, right?

Correct.

Of what you handed out to us.

Yes, that is correct, Council President.

Maybe we don't need to go, maybe you've already gone through this.

I want to just talk about a couple things real briefly on this.

So, what this does is this lays out a very specific funding plan for our finance department.

It's we're going funding source by funding source, knocking them off one at a time rather than pulling from seven different buckets at once.

We're gonna knock one or use one funding source, then we'll move on to the next and then move on to the next.

So that's what's laid out in that top section.

Um if you look down on the bottom right hand um section, you'll see two boxes.

The first one is um funds that are coming from uh water renewal fund balance, and then uh so we wanted to give you that entire picture and then what's being reimbursed to water renewal and then how it's being reimbursed.

So um just just to clarify just a clarification the five million eight hundred and fifty-six thousand dollars, that will be the totality being used by wastewater water renewal over the life of this contract after all of the impact fees have been repaid.

So that's the net value.

Then that's so that will take place over three years.

Big investment up front, repaid in the second half.

Again, which number was that?

It's the let me point to it.

It's this five point eight million dollars right here.

So we're it looks like we're gonna be using 15,000 or 15 million from water renewal fund balance, but then that 9.5 that we're reimbursing again from impact fees is gonna drop that number to the 5.8 million.

Then if you just follow that down, then we'll see kind of our final once this project is done and completed, all the dust is settled.

This is what these are the amounts that are coming from each funding source.

So we have that 5.8 from water renewal fund balance, the 17.6 from water renewal impact fees, 10 million from development service fund balance, eight and a half from the lakecomer agreements, um, the 1.9 from the water and irrigation developer agreements, and then the seven and a half proposed from the Gengov.

And with that, I'll turn it back over to Doug.

Any Chris, thank you.

Questions on the funding, Chris.

Thank you.

Very good job.

Any questions on the funding?

It took us a while to put that together and figure out where the money is coming from and the flow of the monies to get the most most effective use out of each individual funding source.

Question.

Okay.

In our water renewal plan uh payment system that we have.

For the new plant?

Yes.

Yes.

I think we are reducing our prices to our customers.

But now it appears that we may have to increase to make up the difference.

Is that no?

This will not by itself, in and of itself, this will not impact the customer pricing model.

Now, if you have a significant number of pipe breakages, well, this is not a pressurized line.

I'm not the expert here, but if you had significant issues on other sewer issues and it used up the remaining reserve, then potentially I think we'll have at least uh a five to eight million dollar reserve outside of all these values that wastewater or water renewal can call enough and need it, but this won't drive costs up for the customer.

Right, exactly.

So, Doug, a little clarification.

Is it possible for us at some point to re reimburse back that Gen Gov.

The 7.5?

Yes.

Yes.

Uh in time in dialogue, I think Mark was talked about this a little bit, uh, how to get the um the number of uh the dwelling units to repay the government back or the general government portion back, and I think that was through uh I don't know if it was kind of a latecomers fee, but it was more of a developer fee per unit that we talked about.

Council President, Council members.

Um the the discussion Mark and I had had regarding that was that we could implement a purdom drain specific area fee similar to what we did back in the early 2000s for the uh Middleton trunk fee that would be able to then recoup that cost back.

Okay.

We need to do that.

Yep.

Yeah.

It it worked well back then.

And I I think that's the right thing to do, and then we get the money back in for the GenGov side.

Because it's so difficult to go up on the levy to to recoup that from uh overall.

Yeah, yeah.

And that that was our discussion.

Yep.

And that would be if we can do that, that would be my preference as well.

That way, in 10 years' time, you've got that money to use for another project.

So I'd appreciate if we can plan to implement that in sometime while we're approving this, that we're moving that implementation forward for council to approve if if council needs to approve or do something on.

So thank you.

So that was the cost.

Let's talk about the potential revenues that this project could drive.

Now, based on conversations a lot with Rodney and uh impact fees with uh Daniel and more with Mark Sware to help bring this together.

This is kind of what we find for the undeveloped portion, the currently undeveloped portion that goes along this Purdom drain.

So there are high density, medium density, low density, and so forth.

And these are the number of acres in each of those categories.

So a total of 1,700 acres that is currently undeveloped that's likely to be developed as the the uh after the completion.

These are the this is the value per acre.

Rodney is giving me a lot of this information.

I've massaged a bit of it.

Uh, but mostly keep in mind that most of these numbers are conservative.

They I purposely downgrade them so we don't have an overinflation of values, but I tried to be very conservative on it.

We have the number of dwelling units per high density residential, eight, maybe some might be more, but that's what we put in for here.

For medium, we have four low density two, and then when we get down to the uh commercial, um it gets a little more guesstimated on what it might be, and then the commer comic community mixed use is uh 31 percent of its high density residential and some of its commercial.

So we have an estimated total of 7,039 dwelling units.

Now for population, we just use the average value or average population per acre right now.

I didn't try and guess what the difference between high density and median density.

I took this based on the number of acres at the average.

So we would come up with a population increase potential of 17,361 at the completion of this project once it's all developed, if those population per unit per acreage is correct.

Now, what this results in is a midpoint valuation increase to the city's total asset base of almost $3 billion.

That's the increase in valuation once this project is completed.

If we go down the road and kind of figure out what's that what that means in taxation, we take off the 10% that 389 removes.

Remove the estimated impact from the 125,000 homeowners deduction, the 478 million dollars, gets us down to a taxable value, a net taxable value of 2.2 billion dollars.

At our current levy rate of 0.002791911.

If this were all billed out, that would be six million one hundred and seventy thousand dollars per year in property taxes.

That's per year.

We're gonna we're gonna break that down to more detail.

Let's go over just for a moment and look up here at the impact fees.

Now this is based again on the dwelling units and the rates uh that uh Daniel and I talked about.

There's a little bit of guesstimation when we get down to the irrigation and a little bit on some of the other areas, but we've I've tried to be conservative on the number of dwelling units.

So I've taken the dwelling units down to 5206 instead of 70, 39.

Again, there's calculation behind it, but the attempt is to be conservative on the type of values and the amounts we could receive over time.

So if anything, I'm understating revenues here.

The total revenues once it's all completed from impact fees would be 44.7 million dollars.

Again, that can be used for growth, but not for current operations.

So let's go over and look start looking at some of the one there's one of the revenue stream we can add in here.

Sales tax.

We receive right now quarterly installments on sales tax based on the population per capita of NAMPA.

Uh two quarters ago that was $25.85 per capita.

I've scaled that down, saying that maybe 25% of those people are just relocating from one part of NAMPA to the other.

So I'm not adding the 100% of that in.

If I scale that to 75% of new, that would take the net tax per residence in 1940, or 336,000 per quarter equaling 1.347 million per year in new projected sales tax at the current rate.

So we have a revenue stream there.

Now let's start looking at some of the cost, a little bit of the cost.

We have we know we have a population increase of say 17,000.

What's that going to cost in police?

Well, that might need 21.7 new officers when all is said and done.

At a cost of 130,000 per officer, that's 2.8 million dollars, just in new officer costs.

Then we've got the vehicles, $100,000 a year.

In today's dollars, it's $100,000 a year.

That would be for the number of vehicles we need, a million eighty-five thousand dollars out of the gate.

Now that's again, keep in mind that that's today's dollars, not future dollars.

So let's look and see if we start bringing this all together down here.

And this is off by the cost increase, but assuming that we net out the late comer fees of $1.8.5 million, and I think there's another one of $1.6, we could pull out.

The funding mechanism coming from the city is about $40 million, probably $42 with the increase that Chris just showed this morning.

So let's look at what that means per year.

Now, what we built here is a annual process that stretches out to 30, a 30-year total.

We're estimating that we will grow by 10% per year, meaning out of the $1,700 acres you've got, you'll do $170 the first year, $170 the second.

I can change this up or down, I can make it 5%, I can make it 20%.

But we've chosen 10%.

That would complete the growth in this area over 10 years, which seems reasonable if the growth rate continues as it is.

That means in year one, I would get $617,000 of new property taxes, 10% of the $6.17 million that was on the further up on the screen.

And in year one, we would have $134,000 of sales tax.

For annual inflows uh before impact fees of $751,000.

You'd get $4.4 million of impact fees for total revenues of $5.2.

And then we start pulling out costs.

So we're going to have the police cost, $282,000, the cost of the investment, which is the total cost of the project net the latecomers fees.

And then we have we've also tried to factor in vehicles.

The first years of vehicles will be paid by impact fees.

So not from the city.

So I didn't include that in year one.

But over here we have what's going to happen to the streets down the road.

We know we have a seven-year cycle for doing chip seal.

So we need to factor in that for the new road.

So we've factored in chip seal over here in the various cycles that uh Chris has worked with uh traffic uh to get streets to get this estimated amount in here.

And uh those are the primary costs, the safety and the streets and the the vehicles.

Now I've also factored in here the safety, public safety is growing at a rate of six percent per year.

That's their cost growth rate.

So I want to factor that in going down the road.

I factored in the the sales taxes might grow by one percent per year.

That's reasonable.

Property taxes will apply the 3% statutory growth per year, and the growth in the investment is 10% per year.

So when we look down here at year seven, in this gray section right here, we find that over here in these two highlighted colorful columns, we have a cumulative net revenues.

The first column in column O is without impact fees, and the second column P is with impact fees.

The reason I've highlighted this column is this means by year seven, we will have broken even.

We will have recouped all of the funds we put into it, and we begin to make money at that point in time.

Um I will tell you from a business standpoint, working 20 years at Albertsons.

I loved a seven-year ROI.

If it went longer, it became more dubious.

You get a seven year ROI, um, you're in the right track.

We're we're paying this back in seven years.

If you include the impact fees.

If you pull out the impact fees and say, well, I really don't care about those, I'm gonna leave those separate.

I'm so sorry.

Shame on me.

Okay.

Um if you pull out the impact fees and say, I don't really care about them, it will take us until year 14 until we break even.

But we still have the money from the impact fees coming in.

Um then over the life of this project for 30 years, the net cumulative revenues would be a hundred, this is after expenses, 102 million with the impact fees and 57 million dollars without the impact fees.

So over 30 years.

Now a lot's gonna happen in 30 years, up and down.

And I'm not trying to capture every single cost, but I'm trying to capture the ones that are driven directly by this project.

Um it's a lot to absorb.

This is included in your packet.

Uh, but it's it's about as comprehensive as I can get it, but it gives us that view that over time this will pay more than pay for itself.

Which is why if if we don't do it, well, we're we're pretty much committed to the sewer.

But if we didn't do it, another city would come in and say, yeah, we'll take it.

Questions.

Anybody have questions for Doug?

Okay.

Council President.

Oh, yes.

Sebastian.

Thank you.

Uh Doug, I'm sure you've gotten the same inquiries from the same group of concerned citizens.

Is this publicly and readily available for distribution to be able to give to them so we can alleviate some of their concerns and give them some of the same timelines that uh they've been requesting that we just got a full presentation on today?

Yeah, once I present it to you, this becomes a public document.

So it's I couldn't keep it hidden if I wanted to.

It's available.

My suggestion is if we're gonna put something out that we put it out in a little less detail, more summary fashion.

Exactly.

And uh and then just reference back this document.

If those who want to get this document, it's available.

But um I think I think if we get if we could do a little more summary, we will put a summary page together.

It will be easier for the public to digest.

I think it's tough for even for council members to digest this much.

This is the big nut to crack right here.

Yeah.

So appreciate that.

Did I I would ask from Mark or um Heather?

Did I did I miss anything here?

Rodney, could we get a copy of that?

It's in the packet.

Oh, okay.

Just a quick note.

We were um we were just discussing here about the estimated amount of time to build that area out.

Um that seems a little rushed uh for 10 years uh to be developed out within 10 years, but ultimately I think it is a conservative approach, and so that a conservative approach kind of balances that that uh quicker time frame for build out uh a little bit.

So again, some some serious assumptions in this that we don't know the actuals yet.

Nope, understand.

Just want to I I think it's gonna help us as we continue to navigate through some of the public hearings that are on the docket coming and uh to to know this, and I think it's gonna be important that we continue to communicate, and if we have that summary sheet, uh we may end up needing to have uh staff use it and continue to remind the public uh where we're at, and that we are looking at the financial side, and it's not the existing uh property owners who are picking up uh the fees and the cost, so that it is truly being understood how NAMPA is operating.

Uh I think the clarities may help on some, won't make a difference for a few in terms of position on approval of PLATs and and going forward, but uh we're we're making a full faith effort here in my mind.

This is the side the the the best estimate I can give, but it is an estimate.

Um there could be uh other people with different assumptions that would look at it differently, and we can address those if and when they come up.

But this is I think this is a relatively reasonable process.

If council says let's go back and scale it to five percent a year, I can scale it to five percent a year and show you what it looks like.

Over time, it will still pencil out.

It's it's just the rate.

It depends on what the market does, what the economy does, uh, what war we're into.

But that's why things are going globally, nationally, and state of idole legislature can affect us.

So the levy rate will change, that will change the numbers over time, but I don't know whether the levy is gonna go down or up.

It's been very stable for the last few years, just moderate decreases.

Growth rate will change, and council could decide to increase impact fees.

That would increase them over time too.

So a lot of things could happen.

Yes.

Okay.

Then Doug, this is important.

Thank you.

Is there any other questions for Doug at this point?

We're coming up on our uh two-hour for this meeting.

Uh council members, any follow-up questions from this morning?

Want to thank uh staff for putting together the information for these four topics.

Uh hopefully you've received direction on path forward and that we're desirous to move and implement, and we'd like to do it sooner than later.

So that would be helpful uh on these topics.

If you have questions, please uh direct them to our chief of staff, Clay Long, and uh he'll help continue to keep council informed on on this part of it at this point in time.

We'll adjourn the meeting.

Second.

Aye.

Yes, all in favor?

Aye.

I excellent.

That's that's my weak spot is uh calling for the vote to adjourn it.

So