All right, I I think we're gonna start maybe not I'll just turn off the mic so this this one there's a cup here okay so those online can you hear us I can hear you great thank you thank you okay really sorry about that um if you have the uh IT director here and he can't figure it out you know something's really wrong so um thank you so much for being here this morning and we'll go as fast as we can now um uh Rodney Ashby planning and zoning director we're excited to have you here this is an important um piece of your job responsibility and it I know I'm really biased but if we can't get the vision right for our community then something's wrong right like that that's a serious serious hurdle for us so um the uh comprehensive plan is a ground up effort it's it's not intended to be those who are in uh positions making the decisions it's intended to be gathering input from the public and then sharing that input with others and then coalescing around ideas that really matter to the community that's the the purpose of the comprehensive plan so uh what uh will be a failure today is if we don't hear anything from you if we do hear um uh aspects that you are concerned about if you feel like we just can't implement what we've heard from the public then that's actually somewhat of a success for us because we gotta redirect things we've got to make sure that it is workable if we have heard things from the public that's just not implementable we need to know that right so it's also a success if you give us your your input and um you tell us that we're we're doing the right thing we're heading the right direction and so I just want to really encourage you uh at the start of this to be engaged here um there is a lot of information as you can see in your packets there's a lot of information but we're gonna try to summarize that and um and then seek your feedback on on the input that we've gotten and then are giving you um so with that I'm gonna turn time over to Doug uh critchfield who is from our team leading this effort and then Mary McGillvray did I say that right okay um our consultant um and project manager for this um I just want uh first want to introduce we have two new staff members there's uh Hayden Draper if you could stand Hayden um he's a new senior planner for long range planning took Bree's place this is his first day so I said we're gonna break in Hayden so um and so uh Hayden just if just a couple of seconds you want to tell a little bit about yourself

Um I just uh first want to introduce.

We have two new staff members.

There's uh Hayden Draper, if you could stand, Hayden.

Um he's a new senior planner for long-range planning, took Bree's place.

This is first day.

So I said we're gonna break in, Hayden.

So um, and so uh Hayden, just if just a couple of seconds, you want to tell a little bit about yourself.

He's a talented landscape architect, so uh we're excited to have his skills here.

Um and then I have Michael McCormick.

Would you stand and introduce yourself?

He's an intern.

Thank you.

Yeah, really great support, and we're glad to have both of them.

So uh we're welcome, both of you.

Um, I'm gonna do a real quick uh just a recap of how we got to this point, and then uh Miriam from Logan Simpson is gonna take us through the rest of the discussion today.

Um so this is our timeline.

You've seen this before.

We're now on phase two uh where we're taking all of vision work that we did over the summer last year, and we're starting now to put that into tangible uh implementation uh plan, which includes objectives and strategies similar to what you see on the current um plan.

And those we're gonna bring those forward to you.

We've also shared a lot of that work with you already through an email connection.

Um after this work today, we're gonna go out to the public again this summer.

We're gonna do a similar type of outreach.

Uh, we're gonna have another survey, and we're gonna ask people essentially um the direction that we're going and and where they can see um significant needs in the community.

And uh we'll have more details about that as we start to as we continue to develop that that work.

Um, and then phase three is gonna be um some drop-in events um and then a final workshop and the uh final public hearings.

Um just a small recap.

We did quite a bit of engagement uh that led up to this.

We had several inter interactions, face a lot of face-to-face work, over 200 hours of staff time, uh university and in uh high school classes, uh drop-in events, things like that.

We had uh uh good results.

We shared these with you last time around.

Uh most people that we interviewed live here or work here, or they're a student here.

Uh there was a few business owners and some other folks.

Um it was uh good for us to see that the um the the census shows a certain demographic in this area age-wise, and we were able to pretty much match that demographic in terms of the people that we outreach to.

So um we were pretty uh happy with those results.

Um these are some of the things that we heard primarily.

People want a safe, walkable, and affordable community.

They want it to be clean, uh family-friendly.

So uh they want the NAMPA feel here, and they want to maintain that and preserve that feeling here as a community.

Um, the number one issue that people are concerned about is affordability, public safety, and preservation of natural areas, which we think uh we've interpreted to mean both natural areas and probably agricultural land.

So we've we've joined those two together, and that was pretty clear in the focus group work that we had.

Um, some of the things that people would like to see us do is uh continue to work on downtown, solve traffic problems, um, and uh deal with growth.

Um those are the uh and manage growth, and so those are the primary issues that people would like to see here.

Um so uh Miriam's gonna take us into the the focus group work that we did and the the meat of the discussion today.

If you have any questions, we'd be glad to take those whether we do that during the discussion or we take a few afterwards.

It's kind of up to you as to how you want to do this, but uh we're glad to take any questions that you had and try and work through those.

We're gonna try and stay focused on the issues.

We have quite a few issues to cover today, so we're gonna try and stay focused on those.

If we start going down a rabbit hole here and there, maybe we can just flag that a little bit and have a little bit more discussion uh via vis-a-vis email or some other methodology.

So okay, Miriam, thank you.

Thanks, Doug, and thanks for having me come back.

I think the last time I was in front of both of you was last October, September.

So I'm glad to be here again.

Based on the conversations that we had last phase with the public and the information that we collected with those conversations, we coalesced it into seven vision themes, as you see on screen.

Um and within those seven vision themes, we embarked on a steering committee, a focus group-led process to really help us understand uh the direction, uh new ideas, being able to uh think through more specifically about what we could include within these vision themes.

And so the steering committee met early this spring and we divided them into seven focus groups.

A number of you participated in them.

We really appreciate that.

Um, some of you participated in more than one, which is above and beyond.

Uh, but the task that we put forward to that focus group process was to develop a list of or a series of objectives, uh, which are essentially goals, their broad aspirational statements of how we what do we want to be in the future?

Where are we what are we working toward?

Um, and then under those objectives, we've asked the steering committee and focus groups to think through what are the strategies, what are the kind of the actions, the um the projects that will help us reach that objective.

So that's what we tasked the group with.

Um, and so I'm gonna walk through what the recommendations were from that process, and we're gonna integrate the group discussion after each um after I walk through each of the themes with you.

So connected and accessible was the first vision theme.

Um we based on the conversations with public, the original vision uh intent for this group was to uh develop a safe, efficient, and well-connected transportation network that includes freight, uh, rail, neighborhood, you know, neighborhood connections, pedestrian connections, transit connections, um, really thinking through how people are getting around the community.

The draft objectives that the the focus group came up with are five uh different topics or buckets.

This is actually the most um I don't want to say comprehensive, but it is the the broadest section that we we have with 13 objectives.

The other vision theme sections have five to eight.

So we really went pretty deep into this connected and accessible communities section.

Um, and as you can see through the draft objectives, it includes both the um you know the safety of getting around, the ability to have transportation choice, the financial stewardship, the financial responsibility of how you're building in that infrastructure, and then thinking through some SMAR technology, thinking through how we can use the data we have, um how we can build in a more efficient system.

So you have the pack in front of you, unless you'd like me to run through each of these individually.

Um meeting with you.

Um as a recap, we did meet with the steering committee just a few weeks ago.

They had the full uh the full draft objectives and strategies document that you have in front of you uh for a final conversation, thinking through how the other focus groups um came with their recommendations, so more of a holistic, uh fully thought-through conversation.

And we did have some refinements based on that conversation.

We have not made those refinements to the draft that you have in front of you yet, but I wanted to make sure that um we articulated some of those uh those conversation touch points.

But really the discussion that I'm hoping to have with um with you all this morning is to make sure that these draft objectives are giving you enough direction to make the decisions you need to make, if there are any fatal flaws uh or gaps and issues with with us.

So I'll be asking these same three questions as we go through each of the the seven focus group uh or vision theme topics.

As you've been able to review, and I can um go back a slide or two to have the objectives up on screen.

Um, but I'll throw this back out to you.

As you were reading and reviewing this section about transportation specifically, did any what was your gut reaction?

Were there any fatal flaws?

Uh did anything seem amiss, or do you need additional detail to be able to make your own or to make your decisions in within City Council and Planning Commission?

Yes, go ahead.

But I think it's thinking through what is the future going to be with electrification and being able to have the connections and the coordination with Idaho Power to be able to accommodate those needs in the future.

So both.

Some of it's probably public gathering places to make sure you have availability of electrical vehicle stations, but also being able to have the power grid set up for it.

In consideration of expanding the connections between modes of travel, I assume that's sidewalks, uh walking paths within neighborhoods that connect.

In NAPA, we have a significant amount of enclave zones in between each of our city developments.

So the actual connection points aren't there.

Have you seen other cities similarly in a situation that we're in, and what was their resolve in achieving this objective?

So in many communities that I've worked in, you uh they've put in requirements at least for pedestrian paths between uh subdivisions, so that uh you might still have cul-de-sacks or kind of an uh contained subdivision, but as a pedestrian as a bicyclist, as someone who's walking a stroller can get to the uh subdivision uh neighboring subdivision.

Um so it's it's at least providing pedestrian paths, um, if not having um they call them stub streets.

So if a neighboring subdivision hasn't developed yet, having a future connection possibility uh be there.

Uh more quick way.

Uh the meeting that police department uh electric bikes that are doing 40,000 on our pathways.

So back to ways to be unlocking.

Unfortunately, any of the paths are now used for uh uh eating uh transportation and uh speed so thinking that's one of the issues we say we want to support the pathways set up uh I think somewhere in where you distinguish the use where how those are used to a certain degree because of the safety factors here in the last week, but are you famous interested is that calendar invite gone out actually not uh extending it out right now?

Um Miriam, can I just um so I I wanted to get back to your question about connecting, you know, where we have Enclave, where we have county development in between city subdivisions, and that is uh that is something that uh we're we're we've been talking about.

We're trying to figure that out with the county uh a little bit, but we're also talking talking about the focus groups.

Don't know if I have a really good answer for that because it's not our jurisdiction.

And uh so we're working through that.

We'd love to hear if you have any thoughts about that or anybody's thoughts about that of how we could approach that issue, that would be really helpful.

Well, I think what's go ahead.

I think what's being I don't know the word um considered, thank you, is forced annexation within city limits.

I know that's not I I'm not making a position on it, but I know it's not a popular one, so that's just what we're trying to decide what that looks like, especially with the usage on the roads in the infrastructure in the facilities of the city.

Should that not be factored in and considered?

So I don't know if you've seen another city do that and how quick they all got thrown out after the fact, but I'd love to know.

Uh no, I actually haven't worked in a community that's forced annexation.

They have um incentivized or or facilitated that um so that like interested property owners would have um an easier time through annexation or uh a streamlined process to do it.

considered so I don't know if you've seen another city do that and how quick they all got thrown out after the fact but I'd love to know uh no I actually I haven't worked in a community that's forced annexation they have um incentivized or or facilitated that um so that like interested property owners would have um an easier time through annexation or uh a um a streamlined process to do it um certainly I think it's in the city's best interest to make sure that um development that's happening in and within the the planning area uh is up to the standards uh for NAMPA so that um and having kind of a set um you know level of service and and kind of infrastructure uh understanding for when and if those property owners do want to um to make that step well talk about connection accessible our challenge and wrong over the last five years as enclosed multiple county so uh just quickly uh connectivity uh one sense we also have a system we get the system you have it it is an issue for uh and it couldn't be potentially dealt with it's plan uh or a paragraph or a phase two section that is city should be nothing for games people need it whatever the definition is gonna be the two bodies uh are the ones who make this decision that's been done is that I think that would be the and first guys at my side we did it with both there's well known what the tenant city does if there is an intention and support for some exception exist to do that uh have other folks who order have asked me for fixing because they can replace up to this and out uh totally is those one bills very beneficial and uh comes a point when as I experienced as it comes to us for give I state uh took place and um it's it's been a common thing it's just uh NAPA's been very considerate and not to do one NAPA's been considerate to allow us to grow and but at the same time you know we surround uh those communities that have been there for 40 50 years uh there's a point when their well systems gonna have problems or their subject systems are gonna have problems and I think we have to be proactive and I think we've got to call it out in the future and how we're going to deal with the subject so that's that's what I'm trying to exact answers for you but I think it's an issue that's on the horizon for us.

I I think uh just in response to that I think this really good what I'll put down here is connected and accessible growth has created enclave areas that make it difficult to connect throughout the city we need a strategy for how to address the need for connectivity maybe consider annexing enclave properties what are the highest priorities um so just keep in mind that when when we annex um enclave properties when if we forced annexation we couldn't put um we couldn't require them to give us right of way and build the pathway and right like we couldn't require that we would just force them to annex so we lose a little bit in forcing annexation because now we're responsible for purchasing rightway or um building the infrastructure but it that's a priority in certain areas if there's connectivity problems in specific areas and we know we just have to make connectivity maybe that's something we can address uh at least uh identify the need for planning effort in the comprehensive plan and say we need to identify priority areas that the city will take responsibility for making a connection I think that's a really wise thing for us to have in the comprehensive plan.

I think that's a really wise thing for us to have in the comprehensive plan.

Robbie, I appreciate that.

I also the other part is if we think back to some items that were before planning and zoning, and I think one came on forward to council.

We have counting neighborhoods that we've also, through our comp plans said we're gonna put light industrial or industrial uh near those projects because it fit with the growth plan of NAMPA, and of course, we've heard from neighbors saying that's just a stupid idea.

But from our perspective, from a city perspective and industrial base needing to go in, uh it is very what we've done is correct.

The difficulty is folks went in 20, 40 years ago into that county sub with their one acre, two-acre lots, and having they arrive at their destination of wanting to live out in the country, and then the city has come to them, and that creates aims.

But the reality is we're doing what would be typical.

Um this plan, I think we have to have those conflicts called out and identified so that it's not that oh, we're just plowing ahead or we're not sensitive to the issue, but we're cognizant of the issue, and this is how we're going to deal with it.

Rodney, how do we lose if we do that?

Because we have to acquire them again either way.

So when we have a development occur, then we in order for them to annex into the city, if they're seeking annexation in order to get sewer and water, we can also require that they dedicate right of way, just they give it as part of the development, right?

And we can require that they do impact fees and or make improvements to the building.

So what we're losing when we force annexation is the ability to exact those things from them as part of the lack of development, right?

They're not developing yet, so we don't have that ability.

So we annex them now they're in the city, but we don't have all those benefits.

Unless we pay fund, yeah, unless we pay.

But at some point we have a checkerboard uh mile roadways where we're in and out of that area, and at some point from a traffic point of view, we have to take the position of it's time to acquire, yes, expensive.

Um in order to get the two lanes or to take a road from a two-lane to at least a three with turnouts or four uh to move the traffic, and um we we keep planning and we keep putting out the document and we keep saying we want to annex and we want to do, but I don't believe we're dealing with what we're leaving behind.

It's like plowing snow, but we're leaving a road behind us, and it's still a hazard.

It's the same thing, we're moving out ahead, but we're not we're not dealing in this document, I don't believe, with the aftermath and the leftover, and I think we we need to incorporate those issues into what this plan is about.

Agreed, Council President.

Robbie, sorry, just on that.

Isn't there any language that we can put in the city code though that would allow us to acquire that land under annexation?

So we mandatory annexation, a large piece that's gonna be development.

Is there something in the language that we can put so that when that time comes that when they start developing that we would get that right of point?

It's a high looking at you here.

Yeah, we need to be on mics.

I thought we had the overheads.

Oh, we have the overheads.

Okay.

In the quiet zone, though, except at a certain point.

Um just to clarify that impact fees, it really is driven by the project.

So we can acquire the land if we went, you know, towards annexation.

There's different ways to call it.

Um, but the project will dictate and drive whether impact fees are eligible.

So that is one option that's still in the city's tool build.

You can still use impact fees even on these um forced annexation parcels.

As to uh requiring the the right-of-way, that's got to be a nexus analysis.

Um it's possible we might get there.

Uh, it is it touches on an area that you got to be pretty delicate in on an exaction piece.

And so it's something that staff we can look into more for more closely.

That's something the council wants to pursue.

Again, I think this has been successful because these are the kind of comments that we need to think about, go back with our consultant and say, how do we make sure this is in the comprehensive plan?

But I think this has been really good.

That's because I think similar to the thing, council president Bills was going down.

I think on my roadways I use Middleton's a great example.

There's kids coming off sidewalks and then hugging them two, three foot shoulder to get to Lone Star between Smith and Lone Star.

As we expand that roadway, it should be uh something that the city factors in to the infrastructure improvements that we acquire the right-of-ways and we build the sidewalks.

Yeah, out of that standard.

And so I think it's what councilman Bills is stating.

That's something I'm more supportive of rather than the forced annexation side, and even on the forced annexation side, maybe it's more so a discussion that we need to have with the title companies or somebody else outside of the city to say upon the sale, it's been annexed rather than waiting to force a family that's been there 50 years to annex into the city upon the sale of the property that it's noted or deeded or coveted, however, the mechanism is, and the title company knows that once it's sold, the next set of hands will be city property.

I know we lose the leverage of pulling that lever of David said patchwork, right?

Like little properties here and there.

I'm not sure you're gonna get that same overall benefit.

Yeah.

In years past when subdivisions that were put in with septic and a joint water systems, uh there came a time when it was needed to put in sewer.

And and you got your onesie twosie properties up and down the corridor roads that are an impediment to uh expanding the road system.

We experienced that council uh plan zoning experience it on greenhurst.

When the good property came in, they wanted to still hold out a piece of property, and we insisted no the the developers got to go back to the property owner and get that strip.

That's the last piece.

There's still one other little piece to getting that road to be able to expand one day to a four-lane is how it's designed is how part of this built.

So if we leave these patchworks all along without a game plan, how to deal with the individual stuff and also the annexation of a 30 uh unit uh county sub that's been there for 40 years, and while they're getting along right now, I got to believe some of them are gonna start aging out.

And the issue soon is gonna be oh city, we need your help.

We didn't want you before until it's crisis management time, and that's that's why I'm bringing these things up, I believe in our plans.

So I appreciate the patience with me here.

But this is really helpful, actually.

It gives staff a good direction as to what we should be thinking about in the coming future, but also in the to what to put into the plan.

And and I I think we've captured it here.

Council president, yes.

So Rodney lately, we've been we've been trying to study from certain certain uh projects that we voted on what years ago that we approved it, and the direction was correct, but now it's not so on a case-by-case basis on project is what I'm worried about.

And so with this development, this was correction.

Will it be the same for impact area development connection as well as the enclaves?

Or are we gonna go depending on environment geography, traffic, all that stuff?

That's a huge idea there, but that's what I'm thinking.

How can we make it smoother so we can just blow it to the developments?

Into existing developments, um existing development agreements on projects that have been approved in the past.

So making these changes for enclaves, how do we force somebody that got approved in 2009 to maintain the same standard that we're holding to enclaves when they end up having seeds?

Challenging yes, thank you.

Yeah, it's not what we guess that is challenging.

Um I think if it's we've talked before, maybe about exploring expiration of development agreements, but if they go away, then what happens to that property?

It goes, it needs to go back to the county or something.

So that would be the solution.

It would go back to county development.

We'd have to do a deannexation.

Um that's the only way I can think of if we had some kind of condition in the development agreement if it didn't develop out.

Okay, here's something for us to think about from planning side and legal say property gifts approved for annexation.

Uh as a DA put on the property.

I believe in our development agreements, we should be requiring that right-of-way dedication is done within a certain period of time.

So if the development never goes, the city has the right-of-way and ends the start stop checkerboard system.

And if we can legally do it, uh then maybe we're already doing it.

But so currently, the way on the on the major roadways, the existing roadways that come in when a property is annexed, the dedication of right-of-way happens prior to the third reading of the ordinance.

Um, so unless some something really strange happens, that right of way happens before we even record that development agreement.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

What about the construction of the infrastructure, i.e.

a sidewalk?

So the construction of the infrastructure doesn't happen until the development actually develops, but the right-of-way dedication itself, um, so that's preserved if the city say on Middleton Road, that's part of our impact that's on the impact fee list.

If if a development were to have come in, dedicated the right-of-way, but not proceeded with construction, we would be able to use that right-of-way that's been dedicated with the city project.

It wouldn't impede our ability to do that, and it helps by having the right-of-way to bring the cost for that project down.

Do you see any projects not happening if we force that they put in the infrastructure of sidewalks?

Where developer would say prior to the development of the remainder of the lots, a similar 2008, if they're up in North Neva, and now we're waiting until today that develop that that infrastructure should have been put in in 2008, at least for connectivity's sake, and then they can do the remainder of the construction thereafter.

That'd be a challenging one.

Um I think we would be unique in the valley, certainly, to do that.

Um the the challenge, obviously, there is there's capital outlay prior to them having a return.

Um so that would be something that we'd have to discuss with the development community and see what their thoughts on.

Council president, you may have some thoughts there, but uh it's it would require code change, but is it's certainly a possibility.

And we're kind of crossing over between a couple of themes here.

As you can see, Miriam's got the uh sustainable infrastructure and services objectives up there.

Oh things.

Uh yes, I just want I skipped ahead because I do think that this conversation was relevant to the sustainable services section.

I wanted to call it specifically objective number 32, and if any more follow-along data document from scene, um the states align the annexation decisions and long-term growth principle.

Can we have three strategies under there related to evaluation criteria to infer annexation can be served by city services, standardizing of pre-annexation agreements or requirements to clarify expectations for infrastructure and then coordinating annexation planning with adjacent jurisdictions?

Um, I have made some notes here as an opportunity to maybe strengthen some of those strategies in order to get to that objective.

Um but this focus group really really dug into a lot of these these conversations.

What we heard maybe do you remember on the slide that uh Doug had up, um managed growth was a huge uh conversation topic in phase one with the public, not only making trying to make sure that we have uh the infrastructure in place before we have transportation problems due to development and growth, um, but thinking about how schools are built or laid out, where we make parks, how thinking through the future amenities that come along with growth law.

So uh this session we went into a lot of um a lot of uh of that conversation um and thinking also through some of the transportation connections and infrastructure needs there.

So I think we can probably move into the session.

If there were other comments related to sustainable infrastructure services, I will say one of the top things that came out of this discussion with our focus group, um, not only this one, but a number of them was really um the desire to put and maybe incentivize growth where you already have infrastructure and services.

So thinking through those enclave developments or uh areas that have um vacant parcels right adjacent to develop parcels, um, thinking through that redevelopment and an infill um as opposed to prioritizing the continued expansion or green field development on the fringe.

So I think across a lot of the focus groups, there was a desire to um to pull in uh or prioritize in field development, both from a physically sustainable uh perspective, but also thinking through uh how do you create a vibrant community?

You want people in their core areas, you want um to you know build community with those neighborhoods.

Um, so you have connections, you you don't have the gaps and services or infrastructure.

So uh just to preface uh the conversation there.

Any other conversation uh that we need to know about related to this section specifically?

You don't show how we're gonna do all this, how we're gonna fund all this.

Funding, yes.

We do have some strategies, there's more detail in your packet.

I am focusing on the draft.

Um, but there was some great conversation about uh approaches to it.

So whether it's code and regulatory approach, um, we had some understanding or conversation about land trusts or um you know impact fees, that kind of thing.

So there's a little bit more detail that I'm not gonna cover necessarily, but you have it in your package.

Um where um your question of are there any fatal flaws or things in this draft of Jeff Tis?

One of the things that I keep thinking about as we're reading through all of this is yeah, we do need to fill in these enclave, you know, develop where we have the infrastructure, but builders and do not want to do that.

They want to go out and purchase AD acres and fill that in, which would be on the, you know.

So, how do you give builders incentives to um to take these smaller properties or um enclaved areas and and produce some housing on those or you know, commercial or whatever we need?

Yeah, yeah.

Yes, this may or may not be relevant.

I don't know, it's a question that I'm curious about.

Um, because I know the northern had the urban growth boundary, right?

Did that force development of those like what um Scott was saying?

Um plate parcel comes with all sorts of difficulties to it, and that's why it hasn't been developed, right?

Because it's easier to go out and find virtual piece of land and it must develop this and let's just leave that because that's got too many complications.

So does the urban growth boundary actually do that to force them to use the barcodes that are available instead of being able to go grab personal land, you know, and are there other examples of cities that have used that tool to force the development of the interior encrypties?

It's like instances it really depends on the relationship with the county, um, because if it's just as easy to go into county land outside of an urban growth boundary um to the same density or level you know of development that you might have in city, then it it you're not um you're not making it any more desirable to meet city standards and come in.

Um so it it is a case-by-case situation.

Um I I don't think I could give you the answer about Portland specifically, but there are other communities that do have either a green belt or growth management area.

Um I think in the the case of Treasure Valley, uh, with all these communities growing into each other in some way or another, um you really have to put in some pretty you really want to if if it's really a priority to have that separation between communities, you got to plan for it.

Um so for instance, in in front range of Colorado, um, there are communities that have in, for instance, put in a transfer of development rights program to ensure that there is some green space or a separation, physical separation of development between communities, um, which is an incentive, right?

Of an program that you can put in place, but that also had the the desired effect of um a feeling of entering into a new city, right?

You're leaving the last one, there's a you know, an agriculture or a nature area, and then now you're in a new community.

Um it it takes a lot of years of planning to actually do that, and you've got to have some pretty specific tools.

Um, but I think what you're thinking of also is kind of incentivizing or pulling, making it more desirable for developers to actually build within certain areas or city limits as well.

Yeah, that was my priority basically.

Yeah.

Um we have thought a little bit about that as we've had these conversations.

Um, and I think one of the outcomes is thinking through a tool or a series of tools that would incentivize infill development and just make it a little bit harder where you have to pay a little bit more, the impact fees are a little bit more for areas that are less desirable by uh the city in terms of um it's not as physically responsible for infrastructure development, services need to expand, you know, you're straining your services if you expand out in certain areas.

Um, so we want to kind of give the carrot to the to the developers who want to build in and give more of a stick to the folks that um will go buy that those 80 acres somewhere else.

Okay, president.

Yeah, so uh I think we've got to be a little careful, and I guess it's it's tough.

Those enclave properties, I think a lot of it they're talking about are the one acre, the acre and a half, maybe three at the most, and we've seen plenty of them come through.

Um it's got a pencil, plain and simple.

It has to pencil.

No developer is gonna go in and say, I'm gonna lose money to develop this property because it's important for me to see the city grow the right way.

There's no way they're gonna do that, they can't afford to.

So that's why there are codes set aside for us to allow certain developments to go in uh higher density, and then what happens is the neighbors come in and say, Well, I don't want our sport going in there because our subdivisions are a seven, and so I don't want that, and so how do we explain or how do we say, well, if we allow this to go in, then it's gonna develop, it's gonna get curved gutter and sidewalk, you're gonna pay taxes, and it's gonna be better for the road system because now this 500 foot of frontage road is gonna have you know what I mean, it's gonna be finished, it's not gonna be dirt, kids are gonna be able to walk down the sidewalk.

So I struggle with that because I want to see those things happen, but we just keep denying them because we're listening to the community say, Well, I don't want that next to me.

Well, then how do we do it?

How do we develop those things?

Like I said, the developers aren't gonna go in and lose money, they just can't do it.

And there's so many around town that if we started approving some of them, I think the developers would naturally say, Hey, they're working with this here.

There's gotta be better incentives.

There are incentives, but we're denying them, even though they're doing what is in code, they're saying, hey, this is allowable because it is enclaved, and we're still denying it because the neighbors say, Well, I don't want RS4 next to my R7.

If I could, I think for an example that we're all familiar with, Lake Lowell and Midland.

A little stretch pathway, RS, I think it was eight or eight point five, I don't know.

Wanted 12, and the neighbors were able to made them at eight, and I think we ultimately approved eight.

I don't think they ever signed their development agreement, but I don't know if they're even planning to develop it.

I think why I make this comment, it would be nice to know authentically from the developers.

This will not pencil if it's at this level.

Because we say, Well, what can you do?

I know everybody, if I was up there, I'd shoot for the stars and then get shut down still in profitability.

But I would also like to know as a council member the range of profitability.

Is it worth your time if we reduce the density from RS4 and force RS7?

No countsman.

If you do that, we will not sign a development agreement because it's not possible.

I wouldn't take that snobbish or they're forced in the hand.

I think it gives us a reality check of do we care about the infrastructure being put in or not?

And if so, how much do we care to do that with our voting?

Because I think we're aiming at a dartboard and throwing anywhere when it comes to terms of viability of projects.

Lake Lowland Midland, I hope to see that done.

Maybe it wasn't feasible for them when they put pen to paper in their bottom line.

So I think knowing that going into projects to be able to express to neighbors as well.

Because I think we've all heard it.

Developers are greedy, greedy, greedy.

That hasn't been my experience.

But we need to articulate here's how the numbers work, and this is why it won't work or does work.

Maybe not a cash cow, and we can save that for the 160 acres up north.

Those can be cash cows.

Well, maybe maybe it'd be a simple staff could during their presentation say, you know, they're asking for RS4.

If it was RS6, this is how many fewer units would be on a piece of property.

Because in a lot of those, you know, one acre, acre and a half parcels, it's a matter of one unit.

And that's going to make or break whether it's going to be profitable or not.

And that's what I think most of us need to really think about.

And I think if if staff could do that during the presentations, then we could really see, okay, this guy's not trying to put 50 units on an acre.

He's trying to put six or five.

And if we do this instead of this, it's gonna be a difference of one unit, but that one unit is enough that now he's not gonna be profitable, and there's just no way it's gonna develop.

So this is great.

Yeah, I think that in this conversation, I think in terms of the company's plan, what we're the language that you're talking about, the vision language of how we're going to admit to the tissue.

I think some of this stuff could be put in there saying that the city could say we're going to incentivize the development of the properties inside the city boundaries, and we're going to make it more difficult for them to take over and go out and take more country land.

Um talk about some of these things that we're stuck in, and that can be in that language so that it is clear that this is the city's position that we want to utilize the infrastructure that we have now and not just keep pushing the boundaries.

We want to use these properties that are inside the city so that we don't have the mask work that we have now.

Yes.

I'm all for the incentivizing for enclave properties within the boundaries.

However, I think that we have to be careful on making it harder for um developers to come in and buy farmland because then we're infringing on property rights.

We have to be careful there.

If somebody wants to sell their land, they need to be able to.

And if a developer wants to develop, they should be able to.

I think, you know, and and it makes us sit into this framework like a box almost, because then think about like the USIC expansion that we have going on.

Without those developers, we wouldn't be able to have that connectivity to the highway 16, and that's huge for the north side.

So we have to make sure that we're not hindering development too much to make it so that the city can't grow in the way that it should.

I think it's more important that we have codes in place that make it so that it's smart growth, which is what we should do without hindering or making it harder for developers in that sense, make it work for us.

On that thing of a cook, council president, and I don't know how it connects.

I think the discussion of property rights is very difficult.

And even in recent conversations on properties where the farmers no longer able to even farm because they're concerned about their liability.

One of the arguments that I recently heard that I because I was right there with you, we cannot infringe on property rights, and somebody said to me, Well, councilman, nobody's saying they can't sell their land at the value of AG.

Right.

Sell it farm to farm.

What's difficult, and we and even farm to farm, if you ask some farmers and it's different for others, ag selling at ag prices, they can retire with, but they're not going to go build a house mcall.

Ag to development, they're able to retire and they're going to retire well.

And it's the balance of what do we foresee.

Do we want to focus our outskirts on ag to ag or are we going to open up?

And that's it.

Not going to be solved today, but I think there's a diversity, if not, at least on this council, of what is property rights at this point with the aging infrastructure and the amount of deferred maintenance.

Because I'm having a real difficult time growing out when we're having a hard time funding what's currently in.

Yes.

So in terms of the conversation about incentivizing versus unanalizing, right?

I don't think there's an infringement on property rights to increase the amount of um impact feature, right?

By developers.

I don't, I'm all for property rights 100%.

But as far as trying to incentivize developing inside the city limits versus going out and taking other land, I think that's a viable option, right?

So you know that's fine if you want to do this out here, then you're just gonna pay a higher impact fee because we're gonna have to take infrastructure farther out to do it.

So I think that's part of it, right?

Sure, but we already identified people digital papers and land in the middle.

Is that easier?

It's a great idea, man.

Um, I'm sorry.

I just councilwoman Scog and then okay.

Sorry, we're getting close to where we're gonna do it.

I'm sorry, yeah.

Just on the vein of that.

Um I totally last just go ahead.

I last I was gonna say it's just got all confused.

Uh just real quickly, I think there is a strategic approach that we can take to this.

We need to know how many acres of enclave properties.

We need to know how much green fields we have that are on the range of the city, and we need to understand what infrastructures in place so that we know the cost benefit to the city.

We we have to have a little bit of understanding of that, and I that was kind of built into some of our discussions in the focus group.

Okay, so so that's kind of how we can do this from a long-range running perspective for the good.

It came um the impact fees is what I was thinking about too.

Is um I I my understanding was that they're the same across the board, um, according to the houses and that sort of thing, but um raising them uh when they're not in within the development of the city and the enclaves, I think is an excellent idea according to the project, the impact fees should accommodate that.

Yeah, yeah, impact fees.

Uh Daniel's quite versed in it, but from my perspective, the summary side is uh it's a very code on impact fees, it's very controlled as to how the numbers play out and what the city is collecting.

The city's gonna have within their within the toolbox of the city of exactly what the value is on those things to be identified.

I think it's good because otherwise you can have the exaction type fees or other fees and other communities, other uh other uh means in other states that some people have experienced, uh they're very penalty oriented, and it becomes an inhibitor to development uh and providing for housing.

Um and so there's a balance in there as far as um I think I think it's the it's the in and out so it's driving down multiple roads where we got improved properties, and then we have uh 50 feet, 100 feet of unimproved property, and then we pick back up sidewalk again.

Uh, how do we go in and deal with that?

How do we uh work with those issues um type of deal?

I think uh Brett, your comments on uh, and I think there's a couple other comments from the standpoint of the difficulty.

There's a project, and I'm not sure it's exactly what you're referring to, Council Griffin, but uh on Lake Lowell, uh West of Midland, an infield piece.

They wanted 12 units, get down to 35, 30, 35 wide lots, and both times uh council uh the first time was nine lots, second time was eight lots, and of course uh it doesn't pencil, so it's understandable.

The difference is you're balancing with folks who physically live there, and next thing you know, after 20 years of living there, I've got whether two story, single story, but I'm looking at three homes now out my back window.

Um and that's uh that's a difficult balance because those citizens who are already there, they're citizens of NAPA.

The other piece hasn't been annexed yet, and here's the parameters for annexation, but it may financially doesn't work, and so it continues to say the big deal.

That's a tough balance.

Um, but we can't take property tax money, we don't have that type of monies or incentive monies and go in and buy out these parcels and develop them ourselves per se.

Um but I understand your comments, but I also understand uh the impact of a person who hasn't looked at that to not look at compatible uh type stuff.

So those are tough issues for both bodies to deal with, so it's recognizable.

Um this for the document as a whole, if I could.

Yes, because we should be on this document where you got flowed up into the weeds on certain issues, sorry for the legal recourse when it's actually approved and binding per se.

If there are objectives that are spelled out comprehensive plan that we actually go the opposite direction on, does that open the door for litigation from a developer from an agency or from a uh taxpayer to be able to say this was spelled out in your comprehensive plan, and now you've allowed us to sue you because you said this was your vision.

We financially went in on a project depending on this document.

I'm looking more towards the agency sense because you got a three-letter word at the very bottom of page one, and I don't want to give agencies the opportunity to come and sue us if we end up cutting funding from them this year, and there's no longer fixed routes in AMPA to catch my drift.

Well, yeah, I I in this plan has a big deal about uh transportation and VRP, etc.

And we're gonna need to moderate that language.

Yeah, uh, we're gonna need to uh potentially um we we will we'll get guidance, you guys are gonna talk about it and so forth.

But we're gonna have to moderate in our plans how specifically we're referring to VRT from the standpoint of changes forthcoming.

So that's good feedback.

We we can change that in our document to just essentially talk about transit services.

You had a you had a better word multi-model modal, sorry, model modal.

I should know better.

But uh more language that broad and vague is a lot better than spelling out a specific agency within our document.

Yeah, um comment on the question you had in regard to it's going around legally binding if you wanted to open the cracking the door open for real is a comprehensive plan is it's um the the you have are is the land use map, however, the comprehensive plan narrative that describes your vision, describes what you want NAMPA to see, is used when you um go through an ad uh zoning.

So if you say it, you know, one of the criteria is does it comply with the comprehensive plan?

I think that's actually in a COP and in a rezone.

That's the only connection there, but frankly, um comprehensive plans most of the time cover so much material that you can almost use your comprehensive plan in most cases to argue any point, right?

So it's kind of this weighing out all the and you're saying our comprehensive plan is really focused on this, and yeah, it has a little bit of this too, but mostly it's focused on this, and that's your job in your position to say, but does our comprehensive plan guide us to that?

And it did does it is it supported?

That's your job.

I don't know.

I'm not an attorney, so I can't speak to this, and I don't see Preston in here, but yeah, yes, interview meetings too.

Yeah, so uh so I can't I can't speak to whether we get litigated, but my guess, my guess is that that would be really challenging for somebody to say I'm really challenging for somebody to say that the city messed up by not following their comprehensive plan.

If there's any support in the comprehensive plan for one way or the other, president the thing that I concerned me the most about all this companies plan is we have a yeah, but quote from the council, we do it does comply, yeah.

But here's the circumstances why it doesn't fit, and so I'm I can I get concerned about that, but we've been taking it, we've been handling it the best we can, and it and it causes issues, but are we following the plan the way it's no?

I don't think well we try to do our best.

We're balancing legislative versus quasi-judicial situations here, too, right?

An annexation is legislative action.

You assign the zone, it's a quasi-judicial legislative action, you have all kinds of ability to make it a decision.

You can you can decide.

And it doesn't even really, you don't even need to really give too much of a reason for why.

But quasi judicial, that gets a little more difficult.

Well, you you saw just recently we had an issue where potential litigation was afoot because we tacked on annexation and zoning as one agreement.

It met the uh requirements of annexation.

So we wanted to approve, but it did not meet the requirements from zoning, so it ultimately all got denied.

Yeah, and maybe future motions or future decisions are two pronged all in the same evening of okay.

If you want to sign a development agreement to be able to annex, I know we can't take it on that's the zoning, but annex, sure, go ahead.

But until something's moved here, we're not going to approve this prong.

Um and just just quickly, our our annexation criteria is uh we're we're thinking of it more after we talk with Preston about it.

We're thinking of it more as do they have the ability to apply for annexation rather than these are criteria that you have to go through to make sure whether they can or can't be annexed.

That's your decision.

That's a legislative decision.

So we're trying to reword that.

So even if you said, well, it doesn't meet this criteria for zoning.

So I'm I'm all for it, not annexing, that's fine too.

You you have your reason, it's fine.

Um range planning is also contributing more to the staff report, and and we're looking at each application that comes through, we'll provide a comment to you so that you know how your decision stacks up against the comprehensive plan.

So I appreciate that.

Uh as a wrap up, uh, the comp plan is candidly what the development community and property owners are looking at.

And it is the guiding document to say, do I explore doing something?

And uh when the comp plan is written to encourage uh and to uh encourage people to to move forward, it's difficult from experience side that you could take a project in that meets the comp plan that meets zoning criteria been expressed, and then have the decision-making body say no, and for whatever reason, and somebody says, well, then there's a conflict here because what I've brought to you paid your fees and paid engineering fees, survey fees, and a fair amount of there's free money is put out there, and on a project of any formal size, typically it's a minimum of 50, but upwards of 150,000 has been expended to get in front of planning and zoning and in front of city council.

So it's a high risk uh deal.

If you're going against the grain, asking for something other than what the plan calls for, then typically the applicant knows I'm going against the grain, but I think I've got a good argument why uh the bodies would approve uh and go with us on this.

Um but that's why I think this is really important.

Certainly we've taken more time because we got in some of the other weeds that maybe that plan on in terms of just putting together.

Uh potentially if it works sometime again, possibly August, we should be circling back or September, whatever your time frames are that we may need another session to uh carry forward because obviously we didn't get very far after your presentation and far as that part, etc.

But hopefully, this also helps you your team.

Uh if you don't mind, maybe maybe so right now we are at a critical moment where we're we have to say, are we heading the right direction?

We've heard some really good feedback today on a couple of important.

We we've taken notes, we'll make those changes, but we're at a junction point where now we're gonna start going out to the community and say, here's what we heard from our uh from the public, here's what the security committee came up with for objectives.

We passed this on to our planning and zoning commission and our city council, and they were seeing major flaws in this, and so here's here's what we're moving forward with.

So is it would it be trying to how best to get your comfort moving forward I'd like I'd like to offer or suggest that each member here today and those who weren't that are going to go back and listen to the conversation is if you're willing to is get on through the presentation do some personal reading time and send an email to Rodney and communicate any concerns that you're seeing and those type comments we need to get said to you for your theme and not to leave dugout but we we need to communicate are reading the document and we say yep this fits with what I've been setting up the diasp and hearing from the public hearing from the applicants making decisions is this moving us towards what we think uh we want and I think uh it behooves us to have another ten days um to get you that feedback and uh if you don't respond then you're indifferent about it or um not not too worried about what this is communicating.

If you're concerned about it then we need to read through it and we need to fire off a bullet point here's my concern so that hopefully that information will give you and Doug and team consultant uh here's where we're going to the public council president just very quickly there's only one so far that I flip through the objectives and goals affordable attainable and diverse housing I would like me personally to see affordable struck from that because I think it's a talking point that's never achieved because we do not decide the market and we can add supply into the market we've added a lot of supply into the market and we move zero two percent and houses are still median of four hundred and ten thousand so I think it's a smoking mirrors.

Correct good to raise that put it in your writing thank you that's uh portable is not too more on it's it's not defined it's not known it's objective uh but it's been set of a great talking point so let's let's do that let's have a little homework here let's get some feedback then to drive me and thank you for your time this morning and motion for adjournment seconds okay all right thank you and yes yeah I think we need that