All right.

Here we go.

Thanks again for being here.

And it's an honor and uh have these good people beside me, especially this lady here that'll keep me hopefully on in tack on task and not making too many mistakes.

But uh again, I'm honored to have you all here and uh and for this council and for this meeting.

We're gonna start uh as we always do with a word of prayer and then the pledge and stake president uh Mr.

Wusterhume.

If I pronounce that even close, okay.

So we're gonna stand and we'll have the prayer and the pledge, please.

Our Father who art in heaven, we love thee so much.

We come before thee at the beginning of this meeting, recognizing thee, that thou art almighty.

We're grateful to thee, especially for thy love to us first and foremost through Jesus Christ, that we would have one who is the way, is the truth, is the life.

So grateful to live in this country, this state, and in a city like ours, that the praise thee.

So we we take many things for granted.

We are so grateful to thee.

We can worship how we may, and to have moral agency, and to have respect and regard one to another.

We thank thee for these things and recognize that we fall short to ask thee, Father.

We ask thee for thy help, especially those who lead in our community, first and foremost, moms and dads.

We pray the parents and the families in this community, especially those who are raising children and youth, this rising generation that we have great responsibility for.

We pray, Father, that thou would ever bless us to have them on our minds and on our hearts.

And as a community, Father, we pray that we would we would be together, that we would stand together, that we would work together, especially supporting those we've elected, and the the great work that they do.

We pray for them tonight, uh, specifically our mayor.

We pray for him, our council members.

Tonight will be a productive night.

Altruism will prevail.

We will be further unified as a city and as a people because of tonight.

We pray.

Humbly, we pray with gratitude, the name of Jesus Christ.

Amen.

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

One nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thanks so very much.

Appreciate you being here.

Mayor.

If I could, just one comment.

Corey Wolsenhume.

We also have the great privilege of having him be a principal of one of our high schools at Columbia.

The Wolsenhumes are a pillar in my opinion of the whole community.

So I was glad to see him and his good sister Christy here tonight, too.

So thanks, thanks for for being doing that role.

That is so important for our young people.

So thank you, sir.

I believe it's time for a roll call.

Is that correct?

Okay.

So I'm at Madam Clerk.

Gog, present.

Cangula.

Bills.

Here.

Reynolds.

Rodriguez.

Here.

Griffin.

Here.

Hi, present, one absent.

Okay, no proclamations tonight, but I just want to just uh couple sentences.

This is such a special week for the city of Nampa.

Snake River Stampede.

And uh I don't see any of the board members, I don't believe here, but I'm sure they're busy, busy, busy.

But uh can't boy, what a what a great asset it is for the for the city of Napa.

And hopefully you all get go out there and get your friends and neighbors to support the Stampede, the book Buckaroo Breakquest.

I believe there's one more morning tomorrow morning.

So anyway, that's that's the proclamation.

So here we go.

All right, now we have a public forum, and that's where individuals up to five individuals in the city of Napa here.

We allow to speak for three minutes on whatever subject.

Uh please let us know if it's an agenda item or not that you're speaking to, and then we also need to know your phone name and your address.

So we have uh madam clerk who is first.

Mr.

Mayor, we have three people that have signed up.

Our first speaker is Jeremiah Matthot.

Okay.

Is Jared Matta here?

No.

Our next speaker then is Melissa Robinson.

Okay.

Thanks, Melissa.

You're welcome.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council, Melissa Sue Robinson, 15 Fifth Street North, Unit 210 here in Nampa.

As NAMPA continues to grow, it becomes increasingly important for citizens to feel connected to their local government.

While city council meetings provide important forum for the public participant participation, many residents are unable to attend due to work schedules, family obligations, transportation challenges, or simply because they may not feel comfortable speaking in a formal council setting.

One way to bridge that gap would be for each council member to hold quarterly or semi-annual town hall meetings within their council district.

These meetings could be hosted at local schools, which are already familiar, gathering places within our neighborhoods and are generally accessible to residents.

The purpose of these town halls would be simple.

Listen to the people.

Residents could discuss neighborhood concerns, ask questions, offer ideas, and learn more about city projects that affect their area.

Such meetings would create a direct line of communications between citizens and their elected representatives.

To further encourage participation, the city could support the formation neighborhood groups within each district.

These groups could elect or appoint neighborhood captains who would serve as community liaisons.

Their role would not be political but informational, helping notify residents about upcoming town halls, sharing information about local issues, and encouraging broader community involvement.

Neighborhood captains could help identify concerns before they become larger problems, ensure that a wider range of voices are heard.

This grassroots approach would help build stronger neighborhoods, strengthen civic engagement, and create a greater sense of community ownership.

The benefits are significant.

Residents would become more informed.

Council members would receive valuable feedback directly from the people they represent.

Trust between the government and citizens could improve.

Most importantly, Nampa would become a more connected and responsive city.

Strong communities are built through communications, participations and partnerships.

By bringing government closer to the people through district town halls and neighborhood outreach efforts, we can ensure that every resident has an opportunity to be heard and involved in shaping the future of our city.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

I'll just we don't usually respond, but I just will uh since there's something coming up here in just a couple days.

I'm totally in favor of that.

And uh council, they make that decision, but uh I am hoping that at least maybe a couple times a year, every council person would want to have some type of town hall in their district.

But we have what coming up on Friday, and I'll let uh either councilman uh Rodriguez or Griffin announce what that's what's happening.

I'll be I was the first one to um volunteer for the neighborhood captain in the north side neighborhood, okay.

Bill this Friday we are having a district five, district six town hall at Midway Park starting at 6 p.m.

Food will be provided uh in addition to that.

So right on the money with what you're saying today.

Uh we're doing a West Nampa town hall on Friday, and all are welcome.

Doesn't have to be your district.

One one other person.

Yes, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh the our last speaker is Santiago Nino.

Okay.

Santiago.

That's Thiago's not here.

Okay.

Oh, he's just right outside.

Well, you're supposed to wanted to present for about three minutes.

Are you gonna do it for him?

I guess I'm gonna have to jump in before you're gonna be able to do that.

We just need your name name and address.

Not a problem.

Thank you for that.

Uh first of all, thank you for giving me a chance to speak here today.

My name's Salvador George.

I'm a representative with the Carpenters Union.

We're over on uh 4911 Grand Mogul Drive.

I think that's just right outside city limits, right?

Uh the reason why I'm out here today is because we do have a grand opening coming up.

It's gonna be July 23rd from 47 p.m.

at our training center.

It's a brand new training center.

And we love uh for Napa to be there.

There's a lot of construction that's gonna be happening in the area.

And what better than to upscale the community and give these kids a chance to work on these projects.

Santiago's here, he is a local, and uh yes.

Yes, I thank you.

Thank you, thank you, and congratulations.

Yes, I'm Santiago Nino, and my address is 2808 Bobcat Drive here in Nampa, Idaho, this beautiful place that we call home.

Thanks for having me.

I appreciate it.

I'm also a representative of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters, and I come today to extend the invites on behalf of the Carpenters Union and our new training center that we have here in Meridian off of 10 mile and I-84.

Um I imagine some of you that travel through have been able to see that.

Um we are sitting now about 1,600 members, carpenters, 600 in Canyon County, and 400, which live right here in the in Nampa.

So uh on behalf of the um ribbon cutting, it's going to be July 23rd at four o'clock, and I we're asking everybody in the treasure valley to come in today.

And I'm very uh have a good pleasure from being here to uh to see my and meet my city council members and getting used to all of this moving forward.

And um why do we do this?

Um we uh so I was born and raised in Idaho, but I moved, I've been a resident in Nampa since 2014.

Uh I've been in the Carpenters Union since 2006 here in uh in the area in this valley right here, and it's been tough, but and we've all seen tough.

We can all agree that in these communities, it has been tough, and just like the um pastor came up here and prayed and said, you know what, God bless us for everything that we do.

That is the intent behind what we gotta do.

I get chills just speaking of it, but moving forward, what we just we want to conglomerate, we want to make sure that we're communicating with our whole communities to make sure that this um process that we call moving forward here in our communities is a good thing.

We couldn't have said it any better, Mayor, that we need to we see that there's so many uh um debris in the road, but we needed to make it as smooth as we can.

I've been a carpenter once again since uh 2006.

I got to raise my beautiful two children here in this uh place we all call home here in Nampa, Idaho.

And uh we're gonna have uh our executive um boards from our all ten states coming down.

It's gonna be a pretty big thing, and uh we really uh biggest thing of all, we want our communities to grow, and what better way to do it together?

So uh thanks, Santiago.

It's gonna be I appreciate your day.

Thank you very much.

Could you tell me the time again?

It's July 23rd, and I also brought cards for each and every one signed with your guys' name.

May I hand it out to you guys?

Thank you.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, next next on the agenda is from the council if there's any proposed amendments to the agenda.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

If I could pull 16A and 19B and C16A.

And the other one was one one nine B and C do uh Madam Clerk.

Do we need to uh take a real call on that?

Okay.

So uh next next is the adoption of the agenda, and that is an action item, and that's uh all in favor say aye.

So moved to adopt the agenda.

Okay, thank you.

So do we need to do the aye all over again?

Okay, here we go again.

All in favor say aye.

Aye opposed.

Okay.

Okay, consent agenda, which I think there's several items there.

Okay, okay, consent agenda, which I think there's several items there, and uh this is this again is uh what we'll need a motion and a second, and uh regarding the consent agenda.

Is that before we discuss one six and one nine?

Okay, second.

Okay, all in favor, aye posed, same sign.

Okay, go on.

Okay, madam clerk.

On the next uh next item, we are we ready for some uh action items?

So Mr.

Mayor, uh, what we'll do is we'll go back to the three items that were polled.

Um so our first one is going to be one six A.

Okay.

So we need to have a row call or just an eye or eye on that.

We need to have Councilmember Griffin um discuss why he'd like to have it poll.

Okay, councilman griffin, you're on.

Thank you so much.

And this is for accounting, Mr.

Mayor.

Just in regard to a few of the impact fee account balances.

I see that they're zeroed out.

Does that mean the city does not have impact fees regarding streets, water, and irrigation at this time or water irrigation and wastewater collections at this time?

Is that uh by Mr.

Mr.

Points or by finance?

Well, uh Mr.

Mayor, Councilman Griffin.

I can answer that.

That is that is incorrect.

We do have balances.

Um unfortunately, I have not been able to take a look at this um file yet, but I can definitely get you those amounts.

Okay, that would be great.

And just uh looking at it holistically, there was a few that were zeroed out, so and round even numbers on the parks and police and streets.

Do we have a cumulative amount or is I I'm just trying to understand why for May it's just showing an ending balance of round even numbers?

Are we polling from a specific account to put into these impact fee buckets?

Or is this what's in there?

I think they're just a little bit of confusion.

Mayor, Councilman Griffin.

The the impact fees go straight into the accounts, and again, I would have to do a little research as to why these are showing zero, but I can definitely get you that information.

Thank you.

Okay, and also the next one then on the motion.

Okay, so moved.

Do you get a move for us?

So moved.

Second.

Is that a roll call or all in favor?

We can do all in favor.

Okay, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, same.

Nope.

Okay, the next one you also have that you would like to have uh vote.

So the one nine B and C or along the same vein.

I believe it's for Crystal, or it could be for Tom.

Just in regard to receiving these grants, are there any uh expectations or strings required to receive in these grants that we have to maintain any specific programs in order to receive these monies?

Mayor, Councilman Griffin.

On the ITD grant for why don't you go ahead just for the public?

I know most people.

Don Peg, uh Lieutenant Napa, please.

Okay.

Uh the ITD grant that is for traffic enforcement, so that is a PD grant.

We do have a match that we do on that, but a lot of that is done through on duty time.

Uh so we are able to use uh our step team, our motor team, the time and miles that they drive.

We use a lot of that for the match to that grant.

Thank you.

Do we need to take one at a time or do we go ahead and have Crystal?

Okay, Crystal Mayor, Councilman Griffin for the record, Crystal Craig, Director of Transportation.

Uh Councilman Griffin, for the um active transportation grant that we have.

This is a zero match, 500,000.

The only commitment we have is the final product, which is going to give us a on-shelf design plan that if we get construction money, we can go after future grants for.

Okay, perfect.

There's nothing that's required of us to be able to maintain or sustain in order to keep receiving those monies.

You know the history of why I'm asking these questions now moving forward.

I just want to be sure that dollars committed or are staying with the city.

So thank you.

That is correct.

Mayor Bruner.

Yes, Councilman Rodriguez.

Thank you.

Crystal, there is already a pathway there, and it looks good.

Why are we changing it?

Or are we changing that?

Mayor, Councilman Rodriguez.

Uh the pathway right now is being grown, I'm gonna say, under by large branches and roots that are causing heaving.

So this will redesign the pavement on the pathway as well as look at connectivity up constitution and juniper um to get people from the pathway to the hard work recite.

I see.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, are we ready for a motion then on one nine B and C we can may combine those?

So moved.

Second.

Okay, all in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

All right.

Now are we ready for action?

Let's let's okay.

I'm moving that way.

What is it?

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Director Clegg, I think you're you're up.

So this is regarding the uh Valley Regional Transit budgetary request.

There'll be no action taken tonight, but this is the director, uh Elaine Clegg.

Thank you.

Well, thank you.

It's great to be here.

Congratulations again, Mayor.

Uh it's uh like I like I told you earlier, having uh been at retirement and then taking a full-time job.

Uh it can be a lot of work, but also tremendously fun and and uh very much uh passion of mine looks like it's passion of yours.

So welcome aboard.

So um I think they're bringing our presentation up while uh while that's coming up.

Just uh reminder that you know we were here in February.

In February, we talked about performance, we talked about a lot of the uh data that the now mayor, former council member had asked for when he was council member.

Uh I think um we've gotten a long ways toward getting all of that data for you and getting it on the record so that as you make your decisions you can make them uh we hope in the best informed way possible.

Oh sorry, I think we thought that because we sent this a week ago, it was just automatically downloaded.

Uh but it wasn't okay.

Our bad.

I well, we'll uh is it Paul what's done Bill Pa Paul?

Are we are are we able to bring the oh are we able to bring this up?

Looks like uh councilman feels like we've got something up there.

It's in our packet.

My idea is that's the PDF of it.

So we'll see the first time through.

We can go.

There we go.

How's that?

Is that visible for everyone?

Yep, it's good for us.

Okay, okay, there we go.

So I think you all know that uh our services depend on partnerships, and we've had a partnership with NAMPA for a couple of decades.

Um it's always been a challenge for NAMPA to find the funding to do this.

We understand that.

That's kind of how our system is set up, unfortunately.

But we always have been able to work together to figure out a way to provide the citizens in your community the service that that we know that uh they will use if it's there.

Go ahead and next.

Our mission is about connecting more people to more places more often.

My staff takes that extremely seriously.

Uh we came to you a month ago with a proposal to increase ridership because what we've heard over the last three years since I've been here, two and a half years, is we need more ridership in NAPA.

We can't afford more.

Can we get more ridership for the same cost?

So we brought you a proposal a month ago with just that, because my staff is so committed to figuring out how to serve the citizens in your community, and we're so excited that we knew that we could really grow ridership with that proposal.

What we heard from you, and certainly understand is that this is a really tough budget year, and instead of more ridership, what you need now is a budget reduction.

So what I've got for you tonight is just that a proposal uh that takes those savings that we'd found, and instead of putting them into more ridership, putting them into the same um services that you have today, largely and preserving the ridership that you already have.

Next slide, please.

So those proposed service changes are two part.

Um part is changes in the on-demand system, the other part is preserving the largest portion of the fixed route system that that serves your community.

Next, the new on-demand system.

So one thing I want to make clear this will be different vehicles.

We'll contract with uh outside private provider who will bring their own small vehicles.

They'll still be shared rides, it will still be the same service area, but it will be a different look than what it is today.

Because of that, they'll be able to go curb to curb instead of stop to stop, which we think will be a tremendous benefit to your residents.

We are proposing that the Route 40 in NAMPA be eliminated, that those miles be rerouted into Caldwell and then routed directly in toward the middle of the region in Meridian and Boise on an express route, much like the old express route from Caldwell before it was changed.

It lost ridership after a change, but before that change it had quite a bit of ridership, and we think it will regain that.

And the same savings that we're proposing for you will also flow to Caldwell and will be able to pay for these changes on Route 40 with that.

This proposal also proposes to maintain the Route 42 because we're only talking the Route 42 on the fixed route and not the Route 40.

There's savings in how much you would spend on the fixed route.

We still have most of the unique LAMPA riders are the ones who ride the 42, so we keep most of those.

Next.

So first I want to talk about microtransit a little bit.

As I mentioned, it's different vehicles than what we have today.

They're smaller, they're more cost efficient themselves, it can go curb to curb.

It's a complete turnkey service, which also saves us some administrative costs.

They do all the administration of it and have to meet our requirements and help with our reporting.

It's the same service area, it's the same booking process.

What we've learned, I um was telling Mark and Crystal this earlier, uh, late last fall and then early this year.

I've been to four now presentations on is there a better way to do on-demand service.

Remember that on-demand was a pilot at your request for cost savings, and we did save costs doing that, but we've never been really satisfied with the cost per boarding.

Um we knew that there were better ways to do it, and we've been investigating those from the beginning.

And finally, as an industry, the transit industry is settling on a model that includes these smaller vehicles, but also includes augmenting that with transportation network companies, um, which are best suited for some rides.

Next, please.

So, what is a TNC?

Well, it's a ride hailing service like Uber or Lyft.

And how would it be used in this system?

It would be used by sending it on those longest trips that you can't put on a shared vehicle because they're out of the direction and out of distance, and the really short rides.

And so, if we take those rides off the rest of the on-demand system and focus the rides on the on-demand in that two to 10 mile range where it's most efficient and most effective, and we get the most sharing, uh, we can both save money because it doesn't take one of those vehicles out to do that ride and grow ridership, we believe.

Although we're not predicting growing ridership, we're pretty convinced there will be more seats available even with the same service because of this change.

And we're in the back of our minds, um, believe that ridership will grow.

I I'm telling you, my staff is going like this right now because we're not predicting growing ridership, but we know that it's possible because it's a more efficient system.

Next, please.

Oops.

Um, so the outcomes from this are that we leverage the strengths of both the microtransit and the TNC to do what they're best at.

By doing that, it maintains, and as I noted, uh, potentially grows ridership.

But what really happens is it caught it drives the cost of boarding down compared to what we're doing today with our own vehicles and the CDL drivers, uh, almost half 48%.

And because many of the riders who are using the on-demand today are then getting on the 42, they're using the on-demand to get to it, or we're actually driving them to it.

We know that if we can maintain the service on the microtransit with the TNC, we we believe the growing ridership on the 42 will continue.

It grew nearly 20% last year.

With gas prices, what they are, we're seeing an increase already this year.

We're confident that if we can maintain the 42, we're going to grow ridership.

Remember, on a fixed route, when you grow ridership, instead of costing you more per rider, it costs you less per rider because the cost stays the same, and you just get more riders out of it.

It's more efficient.

Next, please.

So a little bit more about the on demand and the differences.

Right now we're finding this a big service area, and many of the trips that we get asked to provide are long trips, and 44% of them are not shared because the database, the algorithm can't find an efficient ride to share it with.

So 25% of the trips are the longest trips, and 40% of the service time, because they're the longest trips, are spent on these single trips that aren't shared.

Right now, of course, we do the large vehicles stop to stop.

The new service would be a curb to curb.

We put the mid-distance rides on the microtransit where we can share and grow more ridership where we're confident, and shift those shorter and longer trips to the TNC.

And that reduces the microtransit trips, the ones that we would put on the shared ride vehicles by almost 25% and makes those hours more efficient that we do spend on the microtransit.

I should note that we have as an organization a fair amount of experience already using TNCs.

We use them extensively on this in the surrounding area in Boise to get people as first mile, last mile to get people to a transit stop.

We also use them on a qualified basis for service workers who can get to work or get home to work from work on regular transit, but the hours don't work otherwise for them to make that second trip, and so we make the TNC available for that.

It's been very successful, and we've got a good working relationship with our provider on that.

Next, please.

So we're making some assumptions here.

The on-demand would continue to accept cash passes and other fare media.

TNC fares are $2, a little bit more.

They are a sing, you know, they're a single trip, not a shared one.

But there will be no premium for longer trips.

Anything within the zone that gets shifted to the TNC will be $2.

All the trips can be booked through the VRTA booking app.

The rider doesn't have to have a separate app, and all of them will be served by our customer service line if need be.

Remember the fixed route part of this in particular, those dollars exchange in your community at a three to one ROI.

We both pay salaries to drivers, operators, mechanics, dispatch.

We buy local parts and supplies, we pay salaries to local mechanics.

All of that money turns over in your community.

We also provide rides to people who access services in your community, that money turns over in your community.

So it's a three to one ROI.

Microtransit will turn over some, the TNC less so, to be honest.

And most of that money will not stay in this region.

So there it also positions NAMPA to be part of growth in providing choices in transportation.

I know we're all concerned about growth and how do we move people around.

We're all concerned about congestion.

As I look around the country, look around the region, the places that have choices in transportation are the ones that can best accommodate growth without so much congestion that everyone just gets bollocks up and can't move anywhere.

And so we're trying to position our organization to respond to growth in that way.

And as long as we can keep everything alive here, we're positioned then to take advantage of that as soon as we can figure that out.

Much more so than if we didn't.

Say, for instance, that we are able to activate the rail corridor.

NAPA is going to be a huge hub of that rail corridor, but if people can't get to it, and without the on-demand, without the fixed route, there it's going to be harder for them to get there.

It won't be as successful as it might be.

So we're trying really hard to lower your costs as much as we can, keep as much alive as we can in a good way that grows ridership on both pieces of the system while we work to figure out as a region how are we going to respond to 21% growth in the last six years.

21% in the last six years.

And so we're hoping that this proposal today offers you the opportunity to be part of that.

Next, please.

So the fixed route really is critical.

It's ridership is increasing significantly.

It's been one of our highest performers in ridership increase.

That decreases the cost per boarding.

The beauty of on-demand systems, if you look again as I looked around the country and listened to these presentations, was not that the on-demand system was the be-all end-all for a region or a place, but that the on-demand system provided the connections to the region, and they did that through the regional connections.

That typically happens on the fixed route.

Without the fixed route, NAMPs won't be able to get Boise.

They won't be able to get to Meridian.

They won't be able to get to Micron.

With it, they will be able to do those things.

I know you'd like every job to be in NAMPA, just like when I was on the City Council in Boise, I wanted every job to be in Boise, but it isn't.

We know that.

We know we're a region, and if we can be a region, we'll we'll be stronger.

And then there's the higher gas prices.

We're really seeing an increase right now as the gas prices go up.

Fixed route transit used regularly can save a ton of money if if you're really struggling, especially in these times.

Next, please.

So the budget detail, go ahead to the next one if you would.

Significantly less than last year's request, 42% less.

Part of this reduction is reduction in capital as we change the kind of vehicles we use.

Most of the reduction is in service costs.

About half of it's fixed route, about half of it is microtransit.

So fixed route is less, microtransit is less, and together we think we can provide 34,000 rides in 2027 on VRT vehicles versus the 31,000 that we had last year.

So 10.3% increase in ridership.

A 13% increase in unique riders.

Cost per boarding almost half, and uh cost per rider significantly less as well.

And a little note about that cost per rider, if you will, and specialized transit, two things.

So specialized transit, we also provide in this community.

You don't pay any of that.

Well, a little bit of your general uh goes to the planning for it, but that's really all uh that you contribute to the specialized transit, and that includes beyond access services, and also includes rides to wellness, rights to wellness, as council member Reynolds pointed out.

Last time I was here is largely funded by the health care system, and um those rides are really valuable for your community.

Um next, let's go ahead to this next one, and we can come back to this if there's questions.

So our um policies as well as FTA policies require if there's a significant change in how we're providing service, that we hold a public hearing and get input on that.

So, regardless of the decision you make, we are gonna have to hold this public hearing.

So we're holding it next week, next Monday.

You guys don't have a council meeting.

I know you've got lots of other things going on, but if you want to hear directly from your constituents about this, it's gonna be right next door at Civic Center.

Uh open house from 3 30 to 5, and a public hearing from 5 to 7.

We expect the public hearing may not last that long, but we're publishing it in case uh people can't get there earlier.

Um we really would love to have you there.

Uh I think as a council member, when I went to these uh when VRT would hold them, they were always valuable in terms of hearing from my constituents about how they used the service, what it meant to them, and uh what changes would impact them and how they would impact them.

So really encourage you to come with us.

And with that, I'd stand for questions.

Go ahead.

Will that meeting next Monday be online?

What's that?

The meeting on Monday.

Will that be online?

Available online, the hearing, your public hearing?

The public hearing is um yeah, next Monday, the 22nd of June at the NAP Pacific Center in what room?

I don't know what room, but the question is whether it was available online.

Oh the public hearing part of it is we couldn't make the open house.

We do have some information available.

Okay, thank you.

But yes, I'm sorry.

I it's okay.

Was echoing for some reason.

We are Mr.

Mayor.

Yes, Councilman.

Um thank you, Elaine, for all of your work.

I I know this has been a crunch time for you.

Um and I still am wondering um have you been able to reach out to the hospitals and even Micron and CWI and possibly Walmart.

Um, these places that you are taking people to give more to the um transit um because I feel like they should be pitching in a little bit more than the city of NAPA should well um thank you for that question.

Yes, uh we have continued to talk to them.

No, we haven't gotten any commitments.

You know, um public services are typically paid for with taxes, which are a collection of money from everyone, and typically the microns and the Walmarts of the world contribute more than your regular house household does to those.

Uh for us to go out and individually fundraise each of them is frankly a challenge.

Uh they have you know who's the right person in NAMPA to talk to, for instance, and how can they make a corporate decision about funding?

So by the time you get up and down the ladder, it can be quite a while.

We've been up and down that ladder in um we've started it in some of the places you're talking about.

We've been up and down it already at Micron.

Uh we think ultimately there will be a service commitment from them.

Um again, don't know how much it will be.

So uh, you know, I'm not I'm not saying that you're wrong on that, but I am saying I guess that uh nobody goes and holds out their hands and asks them for more money for the road in front of my uh Walmart, right?

I'd like to.

Maybe they should.

I don't know.

Thank you.

For further questions.

Yes, Rodriguez.

Thank you, Elaine.

I'm looking at your budget, and I don't see 24 25 or 26.

But in 23, according to the Ida Bailey report, it shows that your revenues were 26,978,060.

And uh that was 23 and 22, and your capital was 28,177,389.

Could you give me the updated numbers just to operating cost and capital budget, please?

So um no, we did not provide that tonight.

We have been providing it previously and and thought it might be redundant.

I'm sorry if it wasn't.

Um yes, uh the budget requests have been growing over time.

Um at no higher rate than others.

I will make the note that um I think in just before the uh pandemic hit, there was an adjustment in cost allocation.

And uh frankly, the city of Boise was paying about 93 percent of the costs, and they weren't getting 93 percent of the services.

And so we made uh an adjustment in that.

That was before my time.

VRT made that adjustment.

The NAPA representatives voted for it.

Um so there was a jump at that point, but since then it's been pretty steady up and down or up based on inflation.

We have the same cost increases you guys have.

So um we've been doing our best.

I will note that what we were gonna ask you for this year was not more than last year.

We've been doing our best to keep those as flat as possible, recognizing everyone's challenges.

Um even with that, we have a lot of deferred maintenance because we frankly haven't asked for the kind of capital contributions we should have been, just like you have a lot of deferred maintenance for those same reasons.

So we're we're trying our best to keep it.

So uh getting back to the my question, the fiscal year of 24 operating budget is 25,588,639, whereas the capital budget is 8,624,500.

Uh that's in 24.

We're now in 26.

I'm asking you if you could give us or show us the 26 numbers.

The 2026 budget numbers.

Sure, we can.

Um our 26th budget.

Um I can't remember I don't have it at the top of my head.

We could provide it.

It's in our it's in our published budget.

We don't have actuals for 2026.

Just 25.

Yeah.

Well, 2025 we have 26 is still underway, so we don't we we know what we budgeted, we don't know what the expenditures are.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, thank you.

I understand that this is trying to have a balance with both the fixed Route 42 as well as the microtransit.

Uh is there any way to just get the microtransit?

I know previously we had received numbers in the last budget hearing of 353,000 just for micro and then 375 for fixed route as two separate dollar figures, knowing that those were ultimately going to be combined, but uh that's more of my appetite is the microtransit.

Uh is that possible to just get microtransit?

Anything's possible.

It will cost jobs, it will cost uh almost 17,000 rides.

Uh it will mean that the people who depend on that to get somewhere else to work won't probably won't be able to.

It may impact whether they're able to work.

I know that that's a small number of people.

I know that that's a uh decision you could make.

Yes, we could do that.

Um, but doing that will impact uh access and travel options and and um opportunities for people in your community.

And would that uh dollar figure be closer to the 353,000 that you had proposed in the it would be below that?

It would be what now?

It would be below that.

I I we were looking for the exact number, and I don't have it with me, but um of the 411,000 service, it's somewhere uh around half of that, a little more than half of that.

You mentioned smaller vehicles.

Uh you and you also mentioned that you're going through the procurement process.

Are those vehicles available now on hand, or are you purchasing them to get ready for October?

They'll be owned, they'll be a private company, they'll own and operate them.

Private contracts, right?

Yeah.

And who would uh be some of those companies?

We'd have to do a procurement.

We there are there are two leading, just like there are two leading TNCs, are it's two leading companies.

We don't know yet.

Is uh Uber and Lyft both already part of that plan that's we would we would do the same thing with the procurement on the TNC.

We'd we'd ask for uh bids.

Um I'm checking around the country.

It's uh not unusual for transit agencies who are doing this to contract with both of them because that way there's more likelihood for a ride being available.

One last mayor, if I could asked, yes, promise promise.

All right.

In terms of the grant that we received two years ago, now heading into the third year, if we terminate the fixed routes, but maintain our micro transit.

Do we still receive that 500 and some odd thousand dollars?

It is dependent on the fixed route.

We did double check that with FTA.

It's not our choice.

Um and you know, and you well know we did that in good faith, um, expecting a that it wouldn't take as long, and B that that um this is the main place in NAMPA that needs that service.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

For Mr.

Mayor, yes, Elaine.

If the um fix route was terminated, how would that affect um service to St.

L, St.

Luke's, CWI?

Um it would put more pressure on the microtransit system and likely mean that there would be rides unavailable with the current service levels because people are using it to to get to both of those places.

I'm looking down the line.

You're all by yourself there, Council Wan.

All right, no other questions.

Okay, Director Clegg, thank you for your time.

Well, thank you.

We look forward to seeing some of you next Monday night, either in person or online.

All right, thank you.

Okay, we're getting we're uh getting close to public hearing time, but let's try to get some of these uh staff communications here.

And the first one from what I'm reading is a fun one.

Is that right, John?

We're and you have the individual here that's uh gonna re that received the award and help me with these acronyms, PNCWA.

What does that stand for?

Mayor City Council John Spencer, Director of Water Resources.

The PNCWA is the Pacific Northwest Clean Water Association.

Okay.

Um they they're ones that uh kind of oversee the or are they they're just an association that deals with wastewater water renewal.

Okay, so go ahead and uh let's honor.

Yes.

Um so yeah, I'm very pleased to be up here to uh share with you that uh Jordan Trevino has won or has been recognized for this award, the uh wastewater lab operator of the year.

Um so um she has worked with the city for six years.

Um she has a class four operator uh lab operator license.

Um she oversees the processing of over 30,000 samples a year on testing to make sure that we meet the EPA requirements of federal and state requirements.

Um she does an outstanding job for us, and I'm very proud that she got recognized um as the leader in the state uh for for the lab operator.

And I saw the but when did when did the award actually happen?

When would how long ago?

It was um about three weeks ago at the end of May.

And that happened where were you to be received the award?

To Moscow.

To Moscow.

Okay, wonderful.

Did you have something to say?

No, I just came here to support you.

Okay, Amy, are you wanting to pit a photo?

Yeah, all right.

Jordan, thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

That's it.

All the hard work.

Yes, hold that up by all means.

All right, give her a hand, right?

Okay, next, one of my favorite people, Cody Schwanner.

You get to come up and talk about parks and recreation staff communications regarding Centennial Golf Course, irrigation project update, land value appraisal for the city property proposed for the potential real estate exchange with the Napa School District.

So you uh subjects tonight.

Thank you, uh Mayor Bruner.

Um, with me uh this evening is our golf uh manager Tony Blazius, and we actually have two items uh to talk about.

He's gonna speak uh first about a centennial irrigation project update.

All right, Mayor and Council, thank you so much for the time.

Um I just want to give you uh sorry, Tony Blazius Golf Manager for the City of Nepal.

I just wanted to give you a brief update of what's going on over at Centennial Golf Course with our uh irrigation replacement.

Um as you probably know, we contracted with the uh Mid-America Golf and Landscape Company to do this 3.8 million uh dollar project to replace our irrigation system.

Um it is a huge project.

Umormous because it involves uh the contractor as well as golf and trying to keep golf open at the same time.

So it's a heavy lift.

Um I just want to let you know it's going very well at this time.

Um it's going to require about six months of of our project of our season.

We hope uh the contract goes through October 12th.

We hope to have everything completed by September 30.

Everybody with uh Mid America is uh confident that we'll meet that.

Um as I said, an enormous lift to keep the golf course open uh during this time.

Um it is challenging the communication, sometimes it happens very quickly.

Um so our main focus as a golf department is to make sure that our golf customer does not miss a beat.

Um we come down to uh communication with uh our golfers, it's face-to-face, social media and such a lot of collateral uh hung up around the club, and a lot of our attendants speaking directly with our uh customers.

Um just to know when we get into the project.

Um our golf team has created another uh an alternate par three.

So when we do get to pulling laterals, which will probably be a little bit towards end of this month in July, um, we will have to close down a hole.

Uh so we'll close down a hole, and that alternate hole will come into play so our customer will not miss a beat playing 18 holes.

So as you can see, some of these pictures, uh, this is going to take uh Mid America installing over 125,000 linear feet of pipe, mainline and lateral.

Um under just under 2,000 individual irrigation heads.

Um these heads will be individually marked with GPS, and what that'll do is that'll let our superintendent uh irrigate the golf course in a in a better way to where we won't get wet spots right next to a dry spot.

What it'll also do is mitigate any water usage that it's gonna be run afoul and not be uh being used in a good in a good spot.

So it'll be a in a much more efficiently irrigated surface, so that the conditions for our golf course will uh improve quite a bit.

See some of the main line that they uh put together.

This was in April, um, first of May.

They they fuse a lot of the main line prep in preparation.

Uh this uh they're digging some irrigation main line right here.

The open holes is where they'll come back to start uh pulling the laterals through the fairways.

This is uh this is a spot now at the lower part of the screen.

Uh you'll see a T for the main line that will go underneath the parking lot and fuse up with uh the holes three uh two through uh seven, and then it'll continue along as it goes behind nine green and go right between nine and eighteen.

Here's that spot uh uh between three and five, uh, an aerial shot of the uh installation for the main line.

More main line shots.

Some of the some of the issues we have been running into, although be it pretty small right now.

We have run into some rock up on the top bench of the golf course.

Um we believe after they get done with the top part uh towards the end of the month, that we will kind of be out of the rock area.

We expect a little bit, but down the bottom portion of the golf course, we shouldn't run into too much rock.

That stuff is pretty big.

They've gone through they brought in another rock hammer to get through this.

So it is uh there's been some rock up on the top side.

This is where we board underneath Centennial Drive, uh successful there, and they'll hook up to that this week.

There, and then this is some mainline going through uh between nine and eighteen.

So, all in all, the project is going great.

Umerica's been very nice to work with.

Uh we do believe they'll get done on time.

Thank you.

Any questions?

I think so.

When council uh Rodman Rod Rodriguez is out there golfing though, can you just turn all the sprinklers on?

No worries.

My balls are going in those holes tomorrow.

I appreciate it.

Thanks.

Also, I just wanted to say uh Mayor Brenner is that this project is about two and a half million under budget.

And that is great.

I don't remember the the first number was 5.7.

5.5.

5.5, and we're down to three something.

Yeah, great job.

Mayor and Councilman Rodriguez, our bids came in very competitively, which was very nice.

So our budget estimate was around the 5.5 with our bid coming in at 3.8.

So great job with that.

Okay, Cody, you're ready for the uh yes, sir.

Potential real estate exchange.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Um, this staff communication is to just bring to City Council uh uh attention um regarding the potential property swap that Nappa School District has approached the city with uh several months ago.

Um, part of their process that they learned um kind of late in the process is that they legally were required to appraise the property that they owned in order to enter into any kind of negotiation or an exchange, the potential of an exchange.

Um neither the school district or parks and rec department have a professional real estate person, and we were guesstimating, I would say that we the value of those properties were somewhat equal, not knowing an exact number.

After the appraisal came back at um a little over six million dollars for the school district property, I come before you tonight to just let you know that that has happened and to maybe get some direction on whether the city of Nampa feels or this council feel that it is important for the city to have our park property that is in potential talks for an exchange to be appraised.

I did get a estimate for an appraisal through right-of-way specialties inc for four thousand five hundred dollars for that appraisal with an estimated 30-day more or less time period for it to take place.

Mayor have after they received this appraisal, what was the school district's opinion on how we move forward?

I think obviously they're very interested in the baseball field.

Uh and with tight budgets, uh just some wondering how interested they are in the field at this point.

Their interest to me, the the communications I've had with their representative, is that they are still interested in some sort of an exchange.

Um, they just wanted this to be known that they have an approximate value.

They believe that that value of a little over six million dollars for their property is higher, would is higher than what the city's property would appraise at, but they have not indicated whether or not that would be a deal breaker for them to move forward.

I think we I just wanted to come to you to find out if in order to make a decision if we were to show up, because this deal, if were to happen, has to be approved by the Napa School District Board and NAMPA City Council, and so we would want um is the information of the city's actual real estate value important for this body to make a decision.

I don't um from what I understand is that's not a legal obligation for the city to have its property appraised like it is for the school district, um, but it is an option that that we would have.

Yes, councilman Cody.

Quick reminder the 40 acres at Robinson, the southeast corner, southeast corner.

Um mayor and councilman bills.

Um, the it's approximately 43 acres that the that we're looking at with the that the school district owns, and it would be the north um east corner of Airport Road in Robinson.

Right.

Previously, in our discussions way back, we looked at 40 35, 40 acres.

Fortunately, I didn't find my notes on roughly what was that dollar.

Um that that piece of property is still for sale on the market from what I last saw on real estate websites, and it was around the three-six acre mark for about two point two.

My concern is a threat six.

We we're spending money to get a market appraisal on uh rodeo park property.

But if it comes in that you know, we're three four million um trade and park plus cash to get to their six six million needed.

Just over six million six million twenty-five thousand, I believe the number sixty-five.

In my mind, they got a generous appraisal, and depending on what code allows them as well as their board for us to spend money and say uh now we know what rodeo parks worth, whether it's up or down at that number.

Um, so I'm I'm becoming closer to a pause and unless we know what the school district wants to do.

If we if we go ahead and get the appraisal uh I I don't know if we got a feel as far as what that's gonna come in at for me, the discussions were it was an equal trade, do the trade.

I understand the requirement of law to do the appraisals, but at this point I don't know that we're gonna hit that.

And two two on the 36 acres starting to look pretty good if we're gonna have to trade away rodeo park plus put in possibly.

Um mayor uh um councilman bills.

Uh they did not necessarily say that that would be a stipulation of an exchange is adding cash to the to the um property if the values were unequally valued.

Um I think that's probably a future discussion.

Um I think this was just an opportunity to know if there was value in knowing the actual appraised dollar amount that the city's property is worth, if that would help this body make that decision going forward.

I don't think it's necessary to continue down the road with uh an exchange discussion, and then maybe those that desire would come forth from the school district at that point, but it hasn't to me so far.

Councilman Reynolds.

Mayor uh Cody, does this include the barn on that property?

Uh uh Mayor and Councilman Reynolds, yes.

Um there's so far in our discussions with the school district that it did include the property that the barn is on.

Um, because I don't know if those of you that watched uh channel six, and I had a uh opportunity recently to tour that should be on a register somewhere.

It's a historic property.

I don't see myself having any desire to give that away to anybody.

It's um dates back to 1910 or 1915 and still got horses' names inside of it.

I don't think I think we need to steward that property carefully.

Um but I I am not in favor of getting an appraisal on this.

I I think it's a waste of our dollars.

And um, if uh they wanted to do a trade without that.

To me, the this appraisal seems inflated that they got.

Um maybe it's not, but uh it seems inflated, and uh I would not be in favor of spending our money on getting appraisal.

But you want to also add to that uh councilman.

I am also not in favor of doing the appraisal if they would like to trade and do a trade-off.

I think they have a lot of sentimental value to the property, uh having that be NAMPA's baseball field.

So we might have they might have bare dirt, but we have improved dirt that they want to have control over.

So I would be interested in and still doing the trade-off, but not if there's going to be additional capital that we have to throw into the the pot to make it happen, or an appraisal to do that either.

So I'm so I think there's a cons more or less a consensus on that.

Is that correct from the consent?

Thank you.

Mayor maybe yeah, thank you, council.

That's exactly the direction I was looking for.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

We're now at 610.

So uh who who had out in audience are here for a public hearing.

Are you are you the applicant?

Okay, so I I if it's okay with you, I'm gonna go ahead and keep moving with some of this communication.

And then uh, well, we'll see.

You tell me you're gonna be my boss for a while, by the way.

Okay, so next uh Lieutenant Childers.

Okay, there he is.

You're gonna talk about a path ordinance for motorized equipment, and I was uh had the opportunity, and I know what councilman Bills also to attend uh a public forum where I was amazed by the turnout and the number of people that uh were interested, and uh and there've been a lot of research done, so I guess you're gonna present what you what your findings are, huh?

Yes, Mayor, uh City Council Brad Childers, Lieutenant for Napa Police Department.

Um I think the point of this discussion is uh two prong education for uh how we evaluate what is a motorcycle and what is a bicycle or e-bike or e-motorcycle.

The other part is what Napa Police Department's doing for it.

So uh hopefully you can see that okay on the screen.

We have two different uh classifications.

If it's got pedals on it, it's an e-bike.

If it doesn't have pedals on it, we consider it an e-motorcycle.

You can go pretty far into the weeds in this as far as how many wattages, how many batteries they have, how many motors for those batteries, and so on.

But this is kind of the direction that we took from the state and ran with it.

Going forward on this, this is our current uh city ordinance for our bicycles, scooters, e-bikes, e-motorcycles, whatever you want to uh classify them.

This is what we already have uh in place.

I'm not gonna read all this to you, but we do have something established in here for it.

It does go through all the definitions for them, what they consider them, and the reason behind it as well for the public and public safety.

Um, also in our city ordinance is areas that doesn't matter what you're on, you can't ride them.

So, if for example, the parking lot out here, you cannot be on an e-bike or e-motorcycle or a scooter.

Um I did do a map of the downtown area where they have to dismount.

So, in areas like this, uh Councilman Reynolds would not be able to do his kick flips.

He would have to proceed to go further outside of this area to practice those.

Good.

Just ticket him though if you did.

Yeah.

Um it's laid out pretty simple.

I think one of the things that we we could do maybe on our side for the social media part is to update that for the public to see where they have to get off those bikes, our scooters, whatever they're riding on that.

Um again, this is just continuance of our city ordinance to also go over some of our pathways, speed limits on those.

Um during our town hall meeting, that was a big topic of it.

Of if uh these were limited to speeds in our area.

Um different than someone driving down the road.

We can say you can only go 20 miles an hour, but if uh this bicycle does 28 miles an hour, people will probably test that.

For some reason, I can't get over to further slides.

There we go.

Uh since March, we had 30 of them, and normally these these come in as either reckless drivers or juveniles on these bikes.

April, we had 24.

You see a large spike there in May of 66 of calls of service, and we already have 25 in June.

I believe the major spike um is we made it a project for the city of Napa for the police department and giving our resources and attention more towards it.

Uh, that is limited, meaning the priority call of service is not probably juvenile on a bike.

It's gonna be someone with a true 911 emergency.

However, most of those now were categorized correctly so we could pull the stats on those and see uh what we're doing.

Um, and I believe that was Councilman Rock Riguez is your was that your patrol car there?

Yes, yeah, I wrecked it.

You wrecked it, right, Joe.

What we're currently doing for the Napa Police Department to uh kind of combat this first and foremost education.

Uh shout out to our school resource officers who drafted up a wonderful letter that went out to all the parents to the Napa School District and Valley View School District for our area.

This gave the parents, I think, to see firsthand of what they can and cannot do with their kids riding these things, uh the potential dangers out there.

Um the education through our social media was another big impact on it.

And then as you mentioned, mayor, that we did have a city hall meeting at the police department.

It was pretty well attended.

We had approximately 60 to 65 people that attended that.

Uh a lot of education went out in that, and then enforcement uh through citations and warnings.

Uh, we're not just citing or warning the kiddos, we're also educating the parents as well.

So some of that if would be a warning the first time, second time would be uh a citation for fellow supervised for your for your child that is out on the roadway with these uh motorcycles.

Our most uh success that we're having on this is we don't think it's safe for police officers to be running code and and pursuing these.

So we had during that tall town hall meeting, we had uh an incident where these bikes were located.

We had one available officer.

Thankfully, he had a drone, launched the drone in the air, and followed the child back to his red residence where we made contact with uh the kiddo and and parents at that location.

Um that is where we had the most success.

We do have times where we can have officers on green belts, so that's just a little far and few between with our staffing right now, but we're continuing to do that where we can.

We did make this a Comstat project, um, which hopefully you'll learn more about Mayor on it and throwing what resources we have due to this on education both on uh enforcement side and education side.

I know that was fast, but if you have any questions for me, if you have any questions for me on behind the mayor, yes.

If I could clarify that that one e-rider or whatever he was, he was tearing up Osborne Park.

And rather than send out two officers to go find him, you took you put the drone up, and that's how you found him.

And so he was vandalizing Osborne Park.

So that's very good on our drones.

I I just wanted to thank you for uh using that kind of concept out there.

Thank you, Councilman.

You're welcome.

Appreciate you the education on that to the school districts.

That's wonderful that they're partnering with you.

And uh if it be if there's an individual young or old that's gets out of hand, I guess it had to be young for it to have parents, but uh then the parents actually can be responsible also if uh if a citation yeah, and and again we are we are given a warning on that first, so that there's stand understand.

Mayor, yes, question for you.

Uh are we going to need additional resources or funds to do greenbelt patrols or anything like that on bicycles?

I know that's how Boise does it, but are we are we moving that direction, or that's not the plan right now?

That's a great question, Mayor, and and Councilman.

We are trying to do that as we uh have some bodies to do that.

Occasionally when we have what we call a super Wednesday, both patrol sides of the week are together.

We were successful in doing that one time so far.

And that's the that was the extent of our resources for that.

Um we didn't catch anybody that day, but I think when they are on that pathway, it's also a major deterrent for it.

Well, and I think for any crime, we've seen not only in this city but other cities, and historically there has been crime on a green belt, just have that police presence might be nice to make everybody young women, young moms.

My wife's one that frequents the green belts.

So I'm sure police.

We did have one other uh occasion where we had our community service officers take the UTV out and went on the green belts with that.

The overmel overwhelming response was really well.

They they were thanked a lot for being out on there.

Volunteers might be the best route to go.

Yeah, we may be able to have distinction and have a horseback.

Sure.

Joe about hit his head on the I think our chief may disagree, but what's what's with that mayor near Scott's got a good idea, Joe.

Okay, Mayor.

Yes, Crystal.

Well, uh or she have a mic, do you have a mic there?

No.

I'm up then.

With your experience on the street side and the signs and all that, is there a practicality to having some type of sign that provides a beam and tracks the speed on some of these e-bikes on some of the main pathways?

And also, do we have the ability one day to put a camera there?

So trying trying to look beyond just our immediate problem, but how do we how do we think future forward on some of this?

Uh for the record, Crystal Craig, Director of Transportation.

Mayor, Councilman Bills.

Um, that's a great question.

These e-bikes are newer.

I would hazard to guess, and so I haven't seen studies done specifically about um speed feedback signs regarding those.

However, I have seen studies done here in the Treasure Valley regarding speed um feedback signs, and they actually proved to be ineffective.

Ada County Highway District got a grant, put in on around 20 different signs throughout the Treasure Valley, and then did speed studies before and after they installed them to see what happened.

And in most of the cases, speed adjacent to and around the signs increased.

Um I don't know if that is because drivers were driving under the speed limits and realized it and sped up, or if they found it as a challenge.

If I had to assume and and make an assumption based on what I've I what I've seen, some of the e-bike um riders that we would want to target, they tend to be more aggressive riders.

So I would anticipate them also challenging the signs similar to how the vehicles do.

Um that being said, it's something we can absolutely look into in the future if that's of interest and if it still becomes a problem that helps if it's not gonna do much, no reason to spend the dollars.

I just to follow up there on the sign that there will be uh potentially a citation.

Did voice Ear Ada County put what what the uh enforcement may be if if found guilty of such a uh mayor, the the the speed back sign or the speed feedback signs were the standard sign with the your speed is and they were black on yellow and or black on white and enforceable.

Okay.

Um so that was about as close as it was.

So a spike strip would probably be the best.

I don't I don't recommend um but again we can look at other alternatives.

You do recommend no no no do not recommend spike strips in front of uh those signs thank you.

I still think it's a good idea.

Anything further, uh Lieutenant.

When you experience and see some of the activity, it's really detrimental to the pedestrian.

So there's no other questions.

Uh all right, appreciate you.

Thanks for taking the time the presentation.

Thank you.

Thanks, Crystal.

Uh Rodney, is yours short.

Well, I'm I'm talking like three to five minutes.

Okay, okay.

Our madam clerk's in a time you okay.

Mayor and city council um just need to report on two meetings.

The first one is the planning and zoning commission meeting that occurred um on June 9th.

And that uh we had two final plats.

So Cherry Grove number six and Middlebury South number one, and those were both recommended for approval, and we're on your consent agenda tonight.

Uh the next one was annexation and zoning and subdivision preliminary plat for ISA Ridge estates.

Uh this is northwest of Franklin Boulevard and Eustach Road for two existing homes and seven additional homes.

Um this was recommended for approval, and this will come before you on August 3rd.

Um that's it for the planning and zoning commission.

But um I'd like to just kind of touch base with you on the comprehensive plan again.

Um last week on the 8th, we held our uh our comprehensive plan workshop, joint workshop with uh planning and zoning and city council.

Uh the steering committee focused group took uh seven major themes we heard from the public outreach and then re researched and created policies for those themes.

Uh the steering committee then refined those policies and agreed to recommend them to city council at the June 8th uh meeting.

We began discussing the comp plan steering committee's recommendations.

Um after being unable to cover most of the material at the workshop, council president Bills asked council and the commission to review documents and provide your comments by this coming Wednesday so that we can complete the update within the contracted schedule.

Um State Code essentially puts the responsibility for the plan development on the planning and zoning commission.

Uh, but city council is the one to vote for adoption of the the plan.

So this is such an important document that staff does not feel comfortable moving forward unless we are we have vetted council's concerns and ideas for the document.

Uh we really need your input.

What we can't do is get to the plan adoption hearing and find out there are concerns with the content of the plan.

Um in discussion with Clay Long, if we do not hear from the majority of council by Wednesday, we're proposing to brief council at your regularly scheduled meetings on two themes each council meeting until we have covered all seven themes and have vetted your comments or concerns.

Uh the first of these would be connected and accessible community and then complete and resilient neighborhoods.

And we could present those at the next city council meeting, or if we get everybody to respond and they feel comfortable with the um the policies that have been presented by the steering committee, we can move forward without having to go through the council updates each each time we meet.

So just kind of looking for a head nod or a direction there.

Council, mayor, if I could I'll give one comment, then I have a follow-up for Rodney after the fact.

I gave a comment at the meeting in lieu of the email.

My comments still remain the same.

Okay, not naming specific agencies within the document and removing any language of affordability because I think it's smoke and mirrors.

Not naming specific agencies within the document and removing any language of affordability because I think it's smoke and mirrors.

So if we just are focusing on housing, providing housing, providing supply, I think that's one thing, but to give a developer the opportunity to say we're meeting the comp plan because we're going to provide affordable housing.

I think that's just not true anymore, and I don't know that that's their fault or our fault.

So just maybe removing phrasing that might do that and affordable is the one that I was looking at when I went back through it.

So no, uh uh council have not taken all the time tonight.

So are you willing to respond as far as what any suggestions and so on in email or however you want to receive it, Rodney.

Email's fine, yeah.

Or phone call.

Do I have a head nod that that's okay?

I can't force you to do that, so that's your choice.

But uh if you're willing to do that, let's plan on that for Wednesday, certain time on Wednesday.

This Wednesday by 5 p.m.

Okay.

Yeah, thank you.

Mr.

Mayor, can I ask one follow-up question for planning zoning?

Uh speaking, and I know I had reached out to you and Daniel regarding this.

Could you just update the council a little bit on uh potentially tightening our development agreements on language?

I know you sent me a very good email expressing if there's specific conditions that we're wanting to see to be very, very uh detailed and explicit on what those conditions are.

I know we're heading into a public hearing tonight that it might be relevant, and maybe just a quick, very quick and fast version of if we need something specific to verbalize it so it's put in the agreement and not a gray area.

Um Mr.

Mayor and Council um in response to that, and in fact, it applies to more than just development agreements.

Um what we do is when there is a motion by city council, that is the official wording that we use when we go back and write a decision letter or write up the documents of approval or denial.

And so even though there's some discussion, we try to gather some of that discussion in the conversation.

But if there are specific things that council want as a condition of approval, or if you want something specifically in a development agreement, you need to articulate that in your motion.

That really helps staff so that we know exactly what you're after.

Um we also bring those development agreements back to you for your approval, but it goes on consent agenda.

So if you're uncomfortable with any wording that's in that development agreement, then that's something you can pull off of that uh consent agenda and and have a discussion about it and give us new directions so that we can revise those development agreements.

Your follow-up are we okay?

Mayor, I might recommend that we just start pulling those off consent agenda moving forward.

It might be able to and I'm going to speak about me specifically.

I've had times where I've never even noticed that it's been in there, and then the development agreement gets signed.

Not because it's my uh error going through the exact language on it.

If it's pulled off the agenda, I think it gives us a height and awareness to look at it and then vote on it.

I just don't want to potentially make that mistake again.

I think uh from the standpoint of setting agenda and and that part, um potentially for uh a time we should just have the exercise that approval the follow-up and approvals of development agreements will be just put as a business item and opportunity for discussion.

If we find ourselves just unilaterally approving again, then it may make sense to go back to uh consent.

Um at the same time, we have the opportunity to read those agreements, and if we want them flagged or we're not sure that everything's covered, but it also sometimes there's a period of time and a lot of issues that go by that uh even though we've made notes, we can miss you know specifically picking up on that particular agenda packet is that particular project that one of us or two or three of us wanted to make sure certain items were included.

Um is there a consensus by council then for uh madam clerk to is that I mean is that what we can do for the next council meeting or what's your what's your response?

Mr.

Mayor, uh that's at your discretion on how the agenda is ordered.

Okay, press the agenda.

Yeah, so my understanding is at least we'll look at it, scrutinize it closely and then decide when the okay.

Thank you so much, Rodney.

Appreciate it.

I think we're way and and I I'm way past uh my fault on on the public hearings.

So if it's okay with the you know, since the mayor's staff is close to me, they can tell me tomorrow that the they're upset with me for putting them off until after the public hearings.

But uh here we go.

And uh I know I I talked to the city attorney a little bit about this first one.

Uh it's a continuation, and I'll read it here in just a minute from April 20th.

Of course, I was not involved at all with that, so I may have you, sir, uh, once I read it, then also explain what kind of expectation is for the applicant and so on.

So all right, I'll put my glasses on so I can see it.

Okay, uh first public hearing is annexation and zoning to RS4 and RS6 single family residential and BC community business zoning districts at zero North Franklin with corresponding road and can nail right away, canal right away potential development agreement in subdivision preliminary plat for high line estates subdivisions for uh S amende holdings LLC original concept was 355 single family detached dwelling units, 33 common lots, and one commercial lot on approximately 93.75 acres and right-away.

And this is I I repeat was continued from April 20th of uh of 26.

So our applicants here come on up, sir, and uh give us your name and address, please.

Thank you, Mayor.

Connor Lindstrom with KM Engineering, 5725 North Discovery Way Boise uh here representing the property owner.

Um, thank you for having me tonight.

Um, I don't know, Rodney, if you have a presentation you can pull up for Mayor, you want Preston to speak to it at all?

What one more time?

Are you wanting President?

No, I'm sorry.

Yeah.

So go ahead, Preston.

And and and in case you have not communicated, so he knows exactly.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

For the thank you.

For the record, Preston Rutter, city attorney, um, and for everybody's awareness.

This is a continued item for a public hearing.

Last time they were here before us, there was um discussion on the council and deliberation that they wanted to have more interaction.

They reopened the public hearing, continued it to tonight on a limited scope, and those items are going to be presented here to the extent the the public is welcome to obviously comment.

Those comments will be limited to what is said here on this limited scope.

So it's not a redo of what what we did before, but more on a narrow limited scope from applicant staff and um also uh the public.

You're able to focus as as he presented or thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

So, yes, with that, I'm gonna skip ahead.

I pointed it at you.

Oh, there we go.

I don't know, Rodney, if you can click through for me.

Oh, is that what's going on?

There we go.

That's thank you.

My apologies.

I'm gonna skip ahead here, but a lot of this was from a presentation um a couple months ago.

Uh but really the main focus here was on open space amenities.

Uh that was that was the main focus.

So meeting with the property owner and the developer.

We we've come to a conclusion that um we did need to add some additional amenities to meet your requests.

So this is what we originally were showing uh with the amenity plan.

We had a tot lot, pavilion and seating area on the south half of the canal, and then on the north half, we had an open space um grassy area with pathway and then pavilion and uh picnic pavilion and seating.

So moving forward, these this is what we went back to the table and discuss is you know, how can we get additional amenities into this development that all age groups could enjoy from young with the tot lot up to um I'm not trying to uh back on seniors, but pickleball courts.

Um so everything in between.

So shuffle board, okay?

Yeah, okay, here we go.

So here we have um kind of three main uh open space amenity areas that we wanted to focus on.

Um the first being letter A.

We added a abacyball court, uh picnic pavilion with seating and barbecue stations.

We feel as though this can be a you know gathering space for all ages.

Uh we have a letter B here on the south side of the canal, and we have some open grassy area with the tot lot.

We we do see the importance of that with the uh a community such as this, where we're gonna have younger families.

We have seating barbecue stations there, and in the southeast corner of the development, we have pickleball court, seating uh pathways and some open grass areas around.

So we did want to move that pickleball court to the southeast corner just to keep it away from as many homes as possible.

Um we have seen with previous developments that there have been some concerns with noise from pickleball courts.

So it's it's not an afterthought.

We think it actually is in a great location there in the southeast corner of the development.

Um this is the open space um exhibit that we uh caressed a bit.

Um you'll see in the upper right of this slide.

There are two open space amenities required.

Um we are providing five now, and we are at 15% um open space for qualified open space, which is about 14.35 acres, just over the 14.06 acres.

And then you can see in the legend there on the bottom, kind of breaks out qualified versus not qualified open space.

So I want to dive into that a little more.

I know there was some discussion at our last hearing about drainage areas and um can these actually be utilized for open space?

Um, and perhaps going forward, you know, if that is something you like to change with your code, um, fire away.

But we have seen in many developments that these uh drainage basins are utilized for recreation.

Um for much of the year they're they're completely dry, specifically these will be designed within this development to infiltrate water within 72 hours.

So that would only be during high storm events for the most part of the year, they're gonna be maintained, uh, open space grass areas that can be utilized for children to play in running in, you know, you name it.

And then I also wanted to provide an additional rendering here that just shows you know how a typical lot is going to be developed.

Uh we have A, which is in that RS6 area, and then B is the RS4 zone area.

So this is just shows a typical lot, what a house would look like on that lot, and there will be yard space, you know, open space within that lot itself, and they can have their own landscaping.

So we just wanted to provide that uh so it's just not a bunch of you know blocks on a plan.

You can kind of see that in more detail there, and then put pedestrian connectivity.

Uh this just further shows um the various sidewalks and pathways throughout the development.

Anything in green is gonna be your four to five foot wide sidewalks, and then uh ten foot wide would be that in blue.

So you'll see along the arterial of um the subdivision, both along um you know, Franklin and Lyndon there, you have 10-foot wide sidewalk, and then it on the east-southeast side of the development and the northwest side of the development, there will be uh sidewalks going north-south to cross that canal.

So you could get from the north side to the south side.

Um, I also wanted to touch on the commercial lot in the southwest corner.

I feel like we didn't really address that much in the last hearing, but there is great potential for that lot to develop with additional you know, amenities, open space.

We just don't know what that commercial lot will develop as, but you know, you could have some restaurants there, additional patios, um, barbecue areas.

So I just want you to think of that as you're considering your decision tonight.

Uh I do not have anything else at this time, but happy to stand for questions.

Here, yes, sir.

What's the the commercial lot?

What's the dimension?

Oh, that's a great question here.

I do have it in my notes.

One second.

Um so commissioner Bills, that is gonna be 6.51 acres.

Um, the actual zoning is eight acres, but the developable lot size is six point five one after you take into account your landscaped areas and right-of-way dedication.

But you know the dimension.

Um I don't I don't know.

Um Rodney if you're able to thumb through our application.

So from the standpoint of the BC zone, um are we within reason to restrict some uses in the BC, or is it automatic anything BC is gonna be available?

Mayor, uh, for the record, Ronnie Ashby Planning and Zoning Director.

Yes, um, you this is an annexation, and you can uh put conditions on that annexation for what uses could be uh possible.

We talked about in a couple other hearings where we you know we were going down through the list, and that's an awkward time, but it seems like these neighborhood centers, six acres is a larger, it's more possibility of being a uh larger development or multiple buildings.

Uh so my concern is is we haven't put together kind of the neighborhood friendly lists instead of us trying to go through it and check it down.

Um, I guess if we go forward on this, somehow I'd like to have the condition that we're going to see what the proposed uses are that are going to be put there.

Um Mr.

Mayor and you're getting directions council.

Um so we were we were thinking the same thing.

So um there's some code changes that you're looking at tonight.

Um but the BN zone is the neighborhood business zone, and it's intended to be uses that are uh complementary to a neighborhood area rather than just the BC zone that allows a lot of you know big box stores or whatever.

Um those neighborhood business uh land uses, there's some overlap into the BC zone.

So potentially what you could do, I mean, since you're you've already taken a look at that B N zone and approved that the land uses at least, then potentially what you could do is just say those land uses that overlap to the BC zone that are in the B N zone are the ones that would be approved.

Okay, what I'm seeing on their drawing is they're proposing B C zoning, right?

Yeah.

So the B C zone has let's say they have retail, just typical retail.

Um well, so does the B N zone, but the B N zone might not allow some of those more intense uses in the BC zone.

Um so what you could do is just have whatever is in the BC zone that's also in the B N zone, those are the land uses that are possible.

You could go that uh direction.

Daniel took the podium here.

Do you uh okay?

You go ahead, Daniel.

Um Mayor, uh Councilman Bills, the uh commercial Daniel Badger, city engineer.

Um the commercial lot is approximately 515 feet foot square 515 K square.

Yep, yeah.

No, I mean, so what we got in our packet, we're not seeing dimensions.

But I'm uh that's why I was guesstimating this is this is more than just the the short strip mall.

Uh this has potential for either a a larger retailer with some smaller shops beside it, or depends on how the development goes forward.

My concern is is from prior discussions that council has had uh limiting some of the uses that under a more larger commercial uh project would just come under the BC and they're proposing BC, and I'm seeing a neighborhood center that's gonna be next to 300 home sites along with the other home sites proposed already around this intersection.

So I'm just trying to we say yes, and yet we don't know one day what goes in, and then we scratch our head and wonder or the neighbors say, and obviously the marketplace, but I think the marketplace should have the opportunity knowing what's approved or not, and depends on how the project's marketed.

So I I would I would absolutely agree and I would agree with Rodney that you know the neighborhood business zoning uses, um, you know, restrict a number of those that you would likely find more objectionable.

Um and we've done that in the past where um we've restricted the uses within that BC area to only those allowable within the BN zoning.

And I don't recall our last hearing uh for certain if we asked for a list to come back when they came back or not.

We may not have on this one, so I think Mayor.

Yes.

So would staff prefer that it on a motion we specifically say this might be approved BC, but with the approved uses of BN.

Would you like that as part of the motion, or do we have to go through and scratch each one that we want to scratch today?

Because I got my list.

Well, what why wouldn't we just change the zoning to BN?

So Mr.

Mayor, um and council, so because they have requested the BC zoning, we're kind of stuck in that application.

Um we have we've said that for a while now that we would like to see developments come in with the BN requesting BN instead of BC.

Um, and I think that this is a good discussion that we can take back to these developers and say, hey, we our council agrees that we need to see the BN zone.

But since we're stuck in that position right now with a BC zone being applied for, we we have to either restrict it or you have to deny it and send them back to the drawing board and come back with the BN zone.

And I'm assuming the the developers okay with us restricting some uses rather than an outright denial.

Councilman Griffin, that is correct.

Yep, we're willing to work with you.

Um at the end of the day, BC zone was you know, we were just following the comp plan.

Um I believe just south in the southeast, or I'm sorry, the northeast corner of Franklin and Linden is BC zone.

It's a similar kind of acreage lock there, so that's what we are following.

But we are more than willing to work with you, and we understand that you need to restrict some uses.

That is just fine with us.

Yeah, just a couple hookah lounges, that's all.

Thank you.

So question mark is Mayor and uh Preston.

Can we put something on there that before it goes all the way through the applicants actually stated what uses are going to be used in the BC versus us going down the long list and saying what we don't want?

Here's what the applicant's actually planning on, or are we better to table again and ask for that to get clarified?

Mr.

Mayor, um I would recommend while you're here, if you want the dialogue, take advantage of that time.

Either way is an option for you.

They're both legal.

Um if you want to take advantage of the setting, you can do so.

Um and if I may, Mayor, Councilman Griffin, you had a question about can you just state the BN zone?

Sure, in the spirit of efficiency, you can just say all uses in BN are there.

If you want to knock a few off, maybe highlight those just to save time.

Thank you.

Okay.

So uh follow-up, I may, Preston.

So as far as an applicant at this point in time, can he just say uh we're not gonna do anything that would not be outside the BN zone, even though it's a BC type of uh request.

Mr.

Mayor, uh applicant can do so.

The best way to probably record that would be in the development agreement that we have as part of this, and that would be stated into the record, and at that time when it comes before you as a new business item, you'll be able to review that and confirm that it is just the end uses.

Okay, any further questions for the applicant?

JDF great thanks for your time.

Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

I apologize.

Clarification.

I believe it showed uh Nate I get I need the clarification if a pathway is being built along the 10 mile or the 15 mile, I guess it is.

Yeah, councilman Bills.

That is correct on this.

You got a high line canal and you also got a drain.

Yep, there's a few, yeah, it's very wide.

So on the south side of the 15 mile creek, there is a proposed pathway along there.

That is correct.

Still for that because parks had a comment about it, and I so I'm trying to make sure this current proposal is meeting with what your year after.

Cody, why don't you go come on up since we're on thanks, sir?

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

Uh Mayor Councilman Bills, I was kind of squinting at the image too to make sure that that pathway was included on there because I do believe that that was requested from the parks division for that regional pathway to be included.

So it's on the drain side south.

It's uh yeah, I believe for the connectivity for future connections, it was the south side of the 10 mile drain.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes, uh, that has been provided on our pedestrian connectivity map here on the south side of the canal that would will be a pathway.

That is correct.

Okay, any other questions or I'm just trying to follow up all the issues that we had.

Yeah, I understand a couple of months ago.

Yeah, time sure that we're we're handling it and don't have a misunderstanding.

Understood.

Thank you, Council.

Thank you.

This will be the staff report from uh from Rodney, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, and City Council, Rodney Ashby planning and zoning director again.

I've said that enough times.

And I also am a pickleball player, so I don't know if I'm senior now.

I guess I am.

Welcome, welcome.

I play two, so we got the light swallowed.

Good you're planning.

Um okay, so you've you've seen the application.

I'm not gonna spend too much time on here, but I do want to highlight the history here.

So January 27th went to the planning and zoning commission, they recommended approval.

Then on April 20th, um City Council discussed it.

They opened the public, you opened the public hearing, you closed the public hearing, then you opened it again in order for them to come back with the uh to address the concerns that you had discussed.

Um so what are those concerns?

I've I'm gonna list them up here on the screen if I can get this to work.

There we go.

So the first one was the need for centralized common area and the development south of the High Line Canal and 15 Mile Creek.

There was some discussion uh regarding converting block six lot sixteen and seventeen to common area.

Uh number two is the amenities provided were primarily the minimum required of tot lots, which do not address the needs of most people.

That was expressed by uh one city council member.

Concerns expressed over the lack of truly usable amenities.

Number three, uh, utilizing drainage basins for qualified open space does not get it at the end and intent intention of creating a space people will use for recreation.

Um and then number four, the placement of some of the qualified open space near the irrigation properties and roadways makes that common space less likely to be utilized for recreation.

I think the comment was a ball could go over the the fence and go into the canal or or into the road or whatever.

Um five, many homes have been approved but not yet built in the area, which will add impact to the roadways and schools.

Uh council requested a staff provide the number of homes approved but not yet built within a one mile radius of the project.

That was from Councilwoman Jangula.

Um, and I'm gonna show you that in just a second.

Uh there was some discussion about development being approved and reducing farmland in this area.

So councilwoman Jengyl asked for the one mile uh situation.

There are 12 subdivisions approved within one mile of this project.

Some of these have existed for many years and have been built out.

Of all the approved subdivisions, there are 970 lots that have yet to be issued a building permit within one mile of the proposed project, but have been approved uh through a plating process.

So that's the uh radius that we did from the parcel, the one mile distance, and then you can see the number 970 down at the bottom there.

Um applicant proposed changes.

I think you've heard that, and I've just listed them here.

Um there's their uh typical lot scenario.

I think the idea here is that we're not when we see these little squares on a on a landscape plan or concept plan.

You you need to remember that some of that will be taken up with landscaping and and a yard, right?

I think that that's their intention here.

Uh there's the amenities that they are providing.

Again, they are exceeding our requirement.

And then the pedestrian connectivity, we've already had a discussion about that one.

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

Questions from council.

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead, excuse me, mayor.

Yes.

One more clarification.

So in making the motion, if we say RS4R6 and B in do we have that latitude, or do we have to stay with BC and restricted to BN.

That's correct.

The the latter is correct.

Is the correct approach?

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

And and we do have a list.

Uh Christy showed me a list of one that you recently did that for that listed some of the concerning um land uses.

We could bring that up if you would like when we get to maybe the motion.

Um, but I I can do it either way.

Mr.

Mayor, I'd advise it that we put that in the record, have it shown for that motion.

If that's the desire of the council to limit it to BN uses.

There's there's even a BN use that I would like to strike too.

So either way, we're gonna have to strike something.

So we could copy basically what we did on the other project.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Okay, thanks, Rodney.

So we're time for public testimony.

Anyone signed up, madam clerk?

Mr.

Mayor, there is not.

Okay, uh, so there's no one signed up.

Is there anyone that's interested?

Okay, let me see how many folks are interested in speaking.

Okay, we have three.

Okay.

So I think uh Cheryl, I think you have been here for a long long time.

If you don't mind, I'll let allow her to go first, and then we'll go.

Yeah, yes, ladies first.

And you're you're speaking in favor or against this uh proposal.

Um against.

Okay.

Yes.

Three minutes, and just tell us as you as you know who who you are and where you live.

Okay.

Good evening, Mayor Bruner and Council.

I'm Cheryl Higley at 12441 South Abbott Downing Way.

And even though this isn't in my neck of the woods, um, and I hate to beat the drum again regarding schools, but in your packet was the the letter from Valley View School District.

And um, I just hate to see these keep being ignored.

Um, the tally of the um proposed or in process number of dwelling units on these um developments that Joey Palmer has listed, it's almost 7,000 dwelling units.

And um, even though I have no school-age children or even grandchildren in the area, education is really important to me.

We homeschooled our kids all the way through.

I gave up my career in order to do that.

And um, so you might think, well, I'm opposed to public schools, I'm not.

To the contrary, I think they're very important.

I am sorry to interrupt.

Um, as a reminder, this was a limited scope for the project.

And we appreciate your remarks here tonight, madam.

But um we're here for the amenities that were the limited scope.

This was a topic that was adequately covered or at the first hearing, and so we do need to keep the comments to what the applicant just the amenities is that what I'm hearing.

Yeah, that limited scope that the applicant was allowed to come back for it.

So is that is that uh are you comprehending what our legal case is saying?

I didn't realize that.

I thought the public hearing was reopened in general.

As yeah, as stated earlier, this was just on a limited scope.

We wanted to make sure that uh all were aware.

Um so keep those comments if you could, madam, to to those amenities, and that will stay within the confines of this hearing.

Thank you.

So are you able to direct uh you're able to redirect schools into amenities?

Um that would take a lot of creativity, so you're welcome to try to please just keep these letters in mind, as mainly what I want to say, because I hate to see them keep getting ignored.

Thank you.

I didn't realize that it was limited.

And you want to okay, come on up.

And I don't think you were here when legal uh explained.

So uh I I understand.

Okay, my name is Jim Blake.

I live at 1959 3 Madison Road, just right next to this project.

And I want to I just looked you guys up that the NAPA your your code, the comprehensive code that you have for 2024 2040 and 2050 requires 15 percent open land, which means most of the time it's a park.

These items that they have here are not 15 percent.

It also says you're in your comprehensive plan.

Anything over five acres has to be 15 percent.

Have you done the calculation to make sure it's 15 percent of the land?

That's all I have to say because I've never seen anything else.

Oh, yeah, we'll have uh after the public testimony.

The applicant will come back, and if you'll go ahead and respond to that, please.

Okay, we have one other.

Thank you for being here.

And congratulations on being mayor.

Uh my name is Shelley Montclair, and I live at 1972 Madison Road.

Uh it's a sad day for me to know that Mrs.

Jangula is not here.

And she was one that was here to really talk about how she wanted more green space.

She said at the last meeting, I would love to see a ball field where kids can play and throw the ball around.

Instead, we got a bocce ball field.

Um I love the pickleball idea.

My son's 13 and plays pickleball, and would probably love to go and join that.

Um I know that this is hard because the I love the barbecue idea.

Again, Natalie, because I don't know how to pronounce her last name, said she wanted no gazebo because the gazebos don't ever get used.

She wanted a ballpark, and she also said maybe a little bit less dense, because an open field would be more used and more utilized.

Um I know that the farmer thinks that the neighborhood is not wanting him to build this.

We know it's coming.

It's been on the comprehensive plan.

However, we're the ones that live there.

And just maybe a a little bit more thought process into that of yeah, more green space and not around that canal.

I've I've watched people die in that canal.

Um maybe not around that.

Maybe uh away from that is the green space, the the actual open usable space, and having the barbecues is a great idea.

I'm not sure about that.

Bocce ball.

I'm it looks to me like they just squeezed a little tiny area instead of really thinking about opening the space up and maybe making it just a tiny bit less dense, knowing that area and what we all have spoke about on April 20th, um, and before that, just because there's a lot to think about.

We live there, and I'm not saying don't build and don't sell your property.

I'm saying let's be reasonable and think about the people that do live there and what everyone could really enjoy.

So thank you.

Thank you for okay.

Anyone else as far as uh wanting to speak regarding this uh proposal?

Okay, if not the applicant may come back up, please and uh answer any questions or any other comments you'd like to make.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Um I won't touch on the school.

Okay, so the uh regarding the open space, um we're not just required to have 15% open space, but 15% of qualified open space.

So what that means is usable open space um as city code defines, and so we are uh well above the required, it's I believe it's 14.06 acres, and we're at like 14.63 acres, um, which is quite a bit of acreage when you really think about it.

Um given the site here, I think Ronnie's one of thanks, Ron.

Yeah, we're just just over 14 acres.

Um I don't know, you know, what would be a correct amount of open space.

Is it 20%, 30%, 50%?

But like I said, we're we're meeting the code.

Um I'm not sure what else we could provide as far as open space goes.

Um in addition to open space, we also went above and beyond with our amenities.

So we felt that adding additional options for amenities would give uh the most wide range of user groups to find recreational opportunities.

So bocce ball court um I enjoy, and I Mr.

Assimendi said his dad plays quite a bit.

Uh Pickle Ball, we know how popular that is, and then um I'm not sure if um Miss Blake has been, or no, I don't remember quite remember her name, but if she's been out in uh the city of Nampa or City of Caldwell, but many pavilions that I see, uh picnic pavilions are being used uh by folks.

I've also used them many times.

So I I like to think that the pavilion will get used, and we have a couple of them uh as little barbecue areas.

Uh I don't have much else to add other than that, and we hope that this development uh will meet the needs of the neighborhood and be a great development that is you know utilized for years to come.

We'd also like to note too that you know we are we're meeting the comp plan here.

Um the the zoning designation and density requirements.

We could actually be quite a bit denser, uh, but we're keeping it within the um RS6 RS4 zoning density requirement.

So I think that's all I have to add.

If you have any questions, so storm drain lots are they part of the list of qualified open space?

They are.

Yes, sir.

How much of that?

That was these we're thinking on the same whim lake tier.

How much of that percentage-wise?

Um, I'm not sure I have that number off the top of my head.

Um, all muscle and bills are griffin.

But uh if you look at the breakdown there on this um table, we have that open space data, so we have uh our total acreage of qualified open space required is is 14.06 acres.

We're providing the 4.35 acres, um 15%.

And then if you go down to the bottom, that we have the legend that shows common lot, uh, qualified open space and not qualified open space.

So the qualified open space are those areas uh for drainage that are too skinny to be utilized.

Um you know, you can see them there, especially on the north side of the development.

Yeah, some of those areas there that are in yellow, they're just not usable areas other than maybe your dog going to the bathroom.

Um there are requirements for drainage areas to be counted as qualified open space, they have to have a specific width or length to them, and I don't know if staff has that number.

Um, but we are meeting those requirements for the qualified open space, but as far as the calculation goes, what's drainage and what's not, I I don't think I have that off the top of my head.

I'd I'd be lying to you with the number.

Oh, it is it would be defined in our uh preliminary plat application.

We have uh preliminary drainage and grading plants that have been provided in that packet.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Okay, thanks.

Great, thank you.

I think it's time then to uh have a motion to close public hearing.

So moved.

Second favor say aye.

Aye closed, okay.

All right, so council discussion.

Uh Mayor Moonri, I have several questions.

If I could get Daniel or for Daniel, I think Daniel, maybe Crystal, but uh I just need a clarification here.

And I'll have a follow-up.

So Daniel, um when you have a residential project coinciding with a business that we don't know what kind of business it would be.

Is there a difference in water flow?

And would it be a different in water flow from our resources that they have to connect to?

Is that a fiscal impact would it hurt or would depend on what we can give?

Um that's a loud question, but mayor, councilman Rodriguez.

Um when we review these um facility, these these preliminary plots, and they have commercial areas.

We we put in those demands um on both the pressure irrigation system and the domestic system when we do those models.

Um and so when we when we modeled this development, that was accounted for, and uh the analysis showed that we have adequate facilities to serve both pressurized irrigation and domestic at that for this development as proposed.

Okay, so so there wouldn't be any fiscal impact on the city of NAMPA that they that we would have to that they would have to connect with us.

Uh how much no, they they would pay their their standard connection fees, and that covers the costs to the city to provide the services, and then they would pay the applicable rates based on you know their usage.

I see.

Okay, thank you.

I have no one.

Any other questions for discussion?

Mayor.

Yes, councilman.

Uh what I'm having a difficult time with, not necessarily this application, but the future applications in general.

I think this uh kind of gets grandfathered in as we've discussed, but I think over the last year we've been weighing, okay.

If we don't know truly the cost of growth and if it's really paying for itself, what do we do as a council?

And I know some of these applicants have expend expensed monies to be able to get to this point, and we've said time and time again, we should allow them to get their hearing, and then we'll discuss what's difficult is applications keep coming, and we haven't had the discussion.

So I just am putting that out there that I think we really need to get a true comprehensive number of what it costs to build in NAMPA and how much is the city of NAPA subsidizing to be able to make sure that we're meeting our public service standards.

I know previously last year, um Rick had put out some numbers, we've had some discussions, and it could have been anywhere in the ballpark of 700 to 1200 per rooftop that the city's ultimately subsidizing if we maintain our standards.

And so we could say, well, it is paying for itself, councilman.

It could be, but then we're risking public safety because ultimately we'll meet the bottom line, we're just reducing from other areas.

So I think this is uh pretty high density, and I have issue with the green space allowance on the storm drains.

I think this is the third application where I've expressed that, and councilman Bills has expressed that today too.

Uh I know they're not flooding often, but they do flood at times.

So is it truly usable if it is hindered at days and times when it ends up happening?

So I think for this application, I just at some point I'm going to have to draw a line in the sand and say, okay, applicants, I'm not going to be voting yes anymore.

Because I think we need to have this conversation and legitimately talk about what is the cost to build in NAMPA.

Where are we going to build in NAMPA?

Are we focusing on North Napa to try and help offset the costs of main NAPA?

I don't think that's wise building.

So I a lot of things that I unloaded there.

I took the opportunity on a project.

Um thank you for coming back with some changes.

We're not Boise, so if somebody complains about a pickleball court in the neighborhood, sorry, they they can find a new neighborhood because they play all day long.

I love pickleball.

I think we should have pickleball everywhere and in every neighborhood.

So other than that, that those are my initial thoughts, Mayor.

Mayor.

Yes.

That's so nice to say Mayor again.

Um I have a couple of concerns here.

Um I I know you had talked about or we had discussed changing the to uh business or BN.

And um, of course, my issue on that is that that allows for uh multiple housing units to be um placed in there up to three stories.

And one of the um issues is the density, of course, as you said uh somebody said it at the beginning because we had asked last time how many lots within a mile radius have are in this area 970 that still aren't built out yet.

And this area I live out here, it's it's really difficult to maneuver in this area already, and then we want to add with this um applicant, it would be another 355 more units, and then if we go with the um the BN uh land use, then we have the potential of multifamily units apartments up to three stories high, which then would add more traffic, more people into this area.

So as we um look at this, I just I I understand wanting to build, I understand the whole building I idea and that it's gonna happen, yes, and uh and all of that, but we also have to be wise, and I don't believe there's there's such a thing as smart planning or smart building.

I think we have to have some wisdom on how we are building.

Yes, we have the comprehensive plan, and yes, um this uh is following that, but at the same time, is it the best thing to do right now for this area?

And I say no, it is not because we have um we're playing catch up right now to try and get things done for what is coming already in this area, what has already been approved, and um I think we need to slow it down, and um and and perhaps even uh you know not allow this many units to be placed on this amount of acreage.

So that's my soapbox.

Any further discussion there, sir.

So um this is frustrating to me because we've told the applicant exactly what we want them to do and developers, and then they go to all this work and trouble and they come in here and we tell them no, we want this adminity, we want this, that you know.

I'm like, have you ever developed anything?

Probably not.

Um councilman Bill certainly has and spent a lot of money doing it, but uh, I don't think it's our place to tell them what we want for amenities, and um if they follow the plan and what's in code, then uh I think that if we don't like that, we should change that code.

And um, as far as uh growth, we haven't reached saturation point.

I've talked about this before, and um smart growth exactly that um by uh increasing the density, we are protecting farm ground, and uh so we don't have sprawl.

So this does that as well.

And uh affordable housing is a catchphrase, but by building more homes, we get to where we get to a saturation point and we get affordable housing for our kids and grandkids and whoever else to be able to afford this.

This is development's not gonna happen overnight.

This is looking down the road and approving down the road.

And um we had done a lot of studies with Doug.

Um he's not here to defend himself, but uh after uh when Rick was still the county clerk uh on growth paying for growth, and then we did see that with sales tax added in, it does pay for growth, and um that tax base that you're creating ultimately is something that we're striving for as far as growth goes.

If 389 ever gets repealed, goes away, whatever, then that growth will be there, and that tax base will be there, and that's important.

And um I I appreciate what the gentleman said that owns the farm about not being able to farm this piece, it gets harder and harder, and they just get squeezed out, and um the uh I can appreciate um Ms.

Higley's um viewpoint on some of the things she said, but at the same time I have a trouble with that too, because one of the reasons why we're growing and we're creating space is people that are moving here, like Miss Higley.

So that's taken into account is a native Idahoan, and um you know we we have uh faced this problem of people coming here or challenge, I would say not a problem, but a challenge, and um we're trying our best to address it as we grow.

Growth is inevitable, it's gonna happen.

Uh let's just be smart about it.

And if we don't like the code, let's change it.

Mayor Buddha.

Yes, thank you, Councilman Rodriguez.

So when there is growth, and the tax that we received from growth, 45 million, 46 million, and it's about two million a year that we receive from growth.

Uh that's not growth pain for itself.

Right now, this the city of Nanpa is funding growth, and that is a uh a mechanism that we need to stop regarding regarding the school children, regarding Value School District, that is a really issue here, folks.

When when you have so many children that can't attend not enough school because there isn't enough room, then that is part of the growth benefit and issue with with our north area.

So the one thing about this project is that density issue with me.

RS7, RS6, and then now we have RS4, plus with a business amenity, and I think that is a good thing with the business amenity, but both when you have the the huge amount of growth expansion on the North Nampa, um this the maintaining that growth and direction that we have is to slow it down, match the density, match the zoning of the other eight of the other acreage, other subdivisions, and that's where we have an ability to stack up with our police and fire and our uh amenities of water and demand for our services.

I think this is a good plan, however, it's timing at this point.

It's timing whether we change this or not.

So you go sir, mayor uh a couple of things for council to keep in mind and consider, please, is uh the marketplace determines timing, and uh council's uh should not consider timing.

We're not the purveyor of the marketplace.

Uh I've experienced and seen uh and personally been involved that if I had to wait in line before I could put in a project because somebody else wasn't building theirs out or hadn't started, I would be still waiting in line.

Uh there's ground that uh has been sitting for some time.

So my point being is uh eagles fly, turkeys walk, occasionally they fly when forced to, and again, I think if if we're gonna have ordinance that say here's our allowances, then we need to make sure what's being before us is what the ordinances say, and if we have the ability to modify, we modify.

But um the plat meets our ordinance.

We asked for clarification on common areas, and we extended the public hearing to give the applicant the ability to do that.

The density issue met our ordinance.

We're weighing in on the BC versus BN or having it be a BN with still some modification on the corner, which is within our perusal.

Um but to say that well, we now don't want plates.

If you're gonna if you're gonna do a de facto moratorium by not approving or something, then staff needs to know, and the marketplace needs to be informed because we're collecting fees and we're taking applications, and it's a misnomer to spend a hundred thousand dollars to get to this point by people thinking if I apply and put a plat application together that meets the ordinance, and then get told no, we don't want those anymore.

Um that's a serious that's a serious thing from my perspective.

I think it's appropriate for us to comment and to look at uh a plat and say, well, we'd like to make sure that we're meeting the open space, or we want to make sure the open space is usable versus flooded storm ponds that are not usable.

Uh and having experienced uh both, but for us to be at this stage, and the reason that we uh came back to this stage was to get clarity on those open spaces in terms of approval, um, and now say we don't like this project, we don't want the project, um, I think is a misdirection.

And if if council is desiring to change our code or our application process, if we're thinking something totally different based on the comments I'm hearing tonight, then I think we have uh an ethical responsibility to notify the development community and the public at large to say NAMPA's going on hold and and or NAMPA's changing its stuff, we're not taking any more applications, don't spend any more money.

But right now we haven't done that.

Um I I feel we have an ethical responsibility to consider this and does it meet our ordinance, and we have the ability to modify the BC within our ordinance within this process and limit.

We've done that as a council.

Um, but I have a hard time with just a hard and fast no at this stage with this applicant based on what we asked them to go back and change and come back before us.

So I'm speaking a little a little firm and tough, but if we're going to change our uh acceptance or that we don't want to accept new plats and we're we're drawing a line, then we gotta be up front about it.

Uh that's that's the ethical thing to do.

And council has to come to grips with actually making a decision of such.

So I I personally, if it's possible, I'd I'd like to say I think the applicants come back and has met our deal that we would go forward in the approval part.

However, I think we need to include uh councilman Griffin, your limitations on the BN, or that the commercial is per the BN list on the city of Nampa, with the except exceptions of what you've probably just listed there.

Is that right?

Mr.

Mayor and Council, this is just uh a previous project that got approved by city council, and you list out the things that uh you didn't want uh allowed in that zone in the BC.

Thanks for bringing that up, Rodney.

Mayor, if I could.

Yes, and I would just like to restate and reiterate uh I'm not going to necessarily hold Mr.

Osamendi's project hostage tonight because of exactly what you're saying.

I think we do owe an ethical duty to those that have put the applications in the money for to get to this point here.

In the same breath, I would say though, we might need to seriously consider having that discussion as a council, whether it be a workshop here or now, when ever, because I'm only one of six.

If we're going to propose potentially levying for funds for our public services and our infrastructure, we should also show the public that we're considering their tax dollars and the best use of their tax dollars by not going as far north as we possibly can.

So that's for a later date.

To stick to this, I I remember that we talked about density as well.

I think uh councilwoman Janeula had mentioned the green space as well as potentially closer to RS6 rather than RS4, but that's not what's before us today.

So I'll just focusing on that side of it.

I'd like to add the hotel motel to that excluded list.

Uh perfect, thank you.

And uh those would all be CUPs.

I don't necessarily want to outright um denying that opportunity if they want to go before another board and get a conditional use permit, we should allow them the opportunity to do it.

We should allow them the opportunity to do it.

We don't necessarily just need the outlaw vape shops.

I'm just not going to be the one approving it.

So add it to the conditional use permit, possibly route.

Um I think there's a lot to unpack.

This hearing just right now is where it's getting unpacked.

We say we're going to have higher density of the stop sprawl, but we keep approving approving project after project after project.

How do we protect farmland when we keep approving sprawl?

So once again, you're hearing most of it tonight.

I'm I'm ready for a motion likely to just end this, but we seriously need to have a discussion about future projects coming forward.

And so clarification, excuse me, mayor.

Um that list Councilwoman Scogg raised apartments is available under the BN.

Yes.

Have we it lists three story?

Uh three up to three stories on on my list of the BN.

Anyway, that I have is that correct?

So um Mayor and Councilwoman Scog.

Because this is in the residential mixed use designation on the comp plan, it is required to have a certain amount of commercial uses.

So because they've already exhausted the residential uses with the lots that they're proposing.

This parcel would have to stay commercial.

We would not be able to do the conditional use permit for any kind of residential.

Okay.

Thank you for that clarification here.

And uh off the subject to a certain extent, but for those that are here or anyone that listening, uh, at least as far as my direction, and I think I uh I can't speak for Clay or Chief of Staff, but I think that our workshop is merited, and that that's so we can uh be totally transparent as far as on these issues and the cost cost to the taxpayer and uh and and for the developers then to be able to know where that where they stand.

So I councilman Bills.

I totally agree from an ethical standpoint.

This needs to be accomplished.

So hopefully, within even the next two weeks, I would hope that uh we can get our heads together and discuss this issue.

Okay, any other discussion.

Otherwise, we're ready for a motion.

Go back one slide.

I'd make a motion to approve the annexation zoning as uh allowed and be in uh business neighborhood subject to similar list and added items of councilman Griffin on in terms of restriction.

I would just state the motion, approve the project as stated on the screen with the limiting of these certain zones, and we can just list them out.

I think saying BN takes away from the applicant filing for BC.

Let me step back.

You want to make the motion I will on this one.

I move to approve the project as stated on the screen with the additional development agreement listing the prohibitive uses as presented on the screen, but I'll read them out as well.

Alcohol sales establishment, drug paraphernalia, store head slash shop, homeless shelter, hookah, hookah lounge and bar, mobile home, manufactured home, and RB sales, motels slash hotels, one of them has hotels listed, so I'm gonna put both of those together, tobacco shop, to uh vape shop and tattoo parlor.

And in addition to there is another use that you were no the on the BN zoning, it allows for a vape shop or a tobacco shop.

I was just saying at a future date we should remove BN vape shop from that one.

These are all the excluded lists from BC that I would recommend.

Second okay, we ready uh for any just any further discussion.

Are we ready for roll call?

So clarification, Preston.

Are we in line with uh what we're doing tonight?

Is in line with what we said in April 16th and to this date, Mr.

Mayor, uh Councilman uh Bills.

That's my understanding.

Um you brought in that public hearing, all those comments and deliberation, the limited scope from tonight on the medities, and tonight's deliberation.

And I'll defer to planning and zoning if they say otherwise, but that's my understanding it matches it.

I think we're good.

Yeah.

We've got a motion in a second.

No.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Hey, thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Mr.

Mayor.

I know we're going to discuss this during the workshop, but I would like to state I'm not necessarily stating we should be anti growth anti development.

I think we should focus on in fill.

Rather than continuing sprawl, but that'll come out later on a later date.

And uh I'm I'm gonna read some uh ten minutes.

Okay, we'll uh we'll come back to in session, please.

We're gonna make uh uh uh slight change in in agenda.

We're gonna move move to an action item which is five seven, and uh that's the authorized chief of police to sign more Motorola Brink proposal to acquire drone as a first responder.

This is a five-year agreement with a total price of five hundred and sixty thousand dollars.

So moved.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

So I want to make sure you were on the right action item.

You were just feel filling yes, man.

Okay.

Very good.

All right.

Um madam clerk, I guess we're is there any further discussion before we uh roll call?

Mr.

Mayor, okay.

Maybe Chris could explain about the dollars and where it's coming from.

Just for clarification.

Of course, yeah, uh, Mayor, Councilman Reynolds.

So for FY26, we do have a hundred and sixteen thousand dollars budgeted, uh, and it depends on the council's will on whether or not we want to pay that uh the full price, I believe it's five hundred and sixty thousand dollars up front or pay the annual costs uh in speaking with Captain Scogelin.

Um he did a warm uh make me aware of a clause in the agreement that states uh there is uh the possibility of the company adding uh an additional charge if CPI uh passes that 3.5 percent.

Um so if that if it is the will of the council, we can pay it all up front.

Uh we're gonna use cost savings from the FY25 budget in order to cover these costs.

Thank you.

Hey, Councilman, it looks like you're ready to say something here, Councilman.

Thank you, Mayor.

I try not to speak to every issue, but it just happens to go that way.

Where I have pause or a little bit of hesitation is just in the discussions that we've had with police, and how do we allocate those extra dollars, what's appropriate for those extra dollars?

Should they go back to staff or should they go back to projects?

Uh I think it's just worth bringing up.

Councilman Bills can probably speak to it as well.

I don't know that he wants to, but I I think it we're balancing a uh difficult thing in the middle of negotiations, and so that's where I'm just trying to think through probably till the very last second the direction that we should go on this.

Council president.

Uh council president, I'm sorry, David.

Mayor Mayor Bruner.

This money has been saved up from the last year's budgets.

It doesn't cost the taxpayers anything.

But just to clarify, I want Lieutenant uh Chad to come up and and give us a little information.

Evening, Mayor, Council, Lieutenant Chad Shepherd of the PD.

Uh first I'd like to address the clause that was uh brought up for the CPI.

So there was a packet that was submitted and then a um a modified packet that was submitted or dropped in front of your stations uh earlier tonight.

So to clarify that the 3.5 was originally three.

Uh Doug Racine asked for motor roll to move to 3.5, which they did.

The additional language in there states that uh if the 3.5 gets enacted, it is up for renegotiations beyond that.

So the language is very friendly towards Napa City.

There's not an obligation to accept their increase.

Um Councilman Rodriguez, did you want me to go into some of the details as to why we purchased the drone or what was the request of it?

No, I I think that's fine.

What we purchased them by just the the issue is is payment of and the financing and the funding of it.

And I understand that even though it costs that much, that you're gonna be able to be able to split those costs up yearly, correct?

Correct.

Yes, there was so the way the contract's broken out is uh and again uh like finance mentioned uh scene suggested that we can either pay for it all at once to be on the council as well or the first year uh based on the contract as a no cost to us, and that's 140,000 for each year after that.

So the five-year contract.

And already you do have three hundred and seven thousand in the bank ready to just be transferable.

That is correct.

That's from the FY25 budget.

Yes, thank you.

I have no further.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes, sir.

Lieutenant uh can you talk about the uh how important this is uh where we're having trouble filling our empty positions and how this helps assist our officers and also um with um understanding if we need to to send everybody send the cavalry, or we need to send one person or nobody.

Uh amongst the uh TDE's goals for the city.

One item is to reduce our response time to priority one calls.

Our partnership with Brink, they have demonstrated a model for us that will take the response time from what is now just below 12 minutes our priority one calls to roughly three minutes or below, depending if drone is the first responder on scene.

That's a significant uh decrease in time for our service of the community.

So if we're just looking at how much time it was take for cops to get to a scene, that's a it's a very important factor.

When you talk about resources, how many resources are we sending?

This opens up a whole gamut of possibilities.

I'll give you an example.

Uh the other night, we had a call come in that was an title is an aggravated assault based on the reporting party's information.

Uh the a suspect in a parking lot use some sort of a weapon to threaten them.

Um we ended up having to send two to three officers to figure this out.

Turns out there was nobody in the parking lot.

Uh deploying a drone in that situation to start gathering live information if somebody actually in the parking lot, we would have seen that there was no suspect vehicle matching any description that was given to us.

We would have seen that uh there was no victim vehicle there, matching a description given to us, which means the officers that were dispatched could have been sent to a priority call that was actually pending or in progress.

To go on the other side of that coin, if you want to talk about end progress calls, uh, for example, um, we can go back to Officer Huss's pursuit that ended in a canine death.

Uh, what happens in that call?

If you remember back in 2024, uh we had a pursuit related to a drug crime.

Uh Officer Husk gave chase to the suspect vehicle, which ended rolling into a field.

Suspect was detained, uh, but they gave information saying that there was a second suspect in the vehicle.

Regional intel also told us that uh there was a second party in this drug deal.

So you had a reason to believe that.

The problem is they crashed in a cornfield, and those of us who live in this area know the cornfields could be very, very problematic, not just for responding officers to clear the cornfield, but for perimeter in general.

So if we're looking at the let's say that's county mile, right?

Um, four corners, how do you get officers to that location to try and contain that?

And then if you do get four officers to four corners to contain that, how do you guarantee no one slip between the cracks?

Utilizing the drone uh puts us up in a position of air superiority for lack of better terms, where you can see down below and direct officers to if there was someone running on the field, someone running out of the field, or um, with the drones we've chosen, there is a thermal capability where we could repeat officers in uh to a scene to better use our resources.

Some of the examples I have for you, I could go on and on about the uh the benefits to this uh this package and why we believe we need it.

Mayor for a follow-up, yes.

Can we track down the electric motorcycles for them?

So here is uh that's that's interesting you say that.

So it's much more cost effective to do this, and it is to throw spikes out and injure people.

So in this circumstance saves our lawsuits also, it might save some lawsuits as well.

So the uh the electronic bikes, you may have a picture in your mind of juveniles who are riding those.

Uh they're across the board, right?

The other day we had a suspect driving in a reckless manner on an electric bike on Idaho Center Boulevard leaving in a traffic, causing concerns for the regular motorist and law enforcement in general.

One of our officers responded to the scene and gave Chase as much as he could of the devices are much more adapt to awaiting us than regular patrol or regular cars.

So what happens is he loses the e-bike.

Um once he looks gets around the corner where the cop can no longer trace him, he ends up dising the e-bike and walks away.

What we found in law enforcement is that if we don't need to chase somebody, they'll continue their activity.

But we could launch a drone in this scenario, get above, get a visual of where they go, and then dispatch an officer to the location.

It's much safer for the public and for the e-bike person eventually.

We'll get our charges and under some circumstances seize the e-bike.

I have one more question, Mr.

Mayor.

Just one.

Just one.

Okay.

So uh this would tie the legal side of things for like illegal fireworks.

It's always been something that annoys me.

But we have all these enclave areas, so we can't dispatch officers, and we don't have the resources, quite frankly.

So if uh if you had a complaint and you could send a drone out and you take a picture of that person sending out mortars in the air, can would that be admissible in a court of law?

I'm gonna go on a limb here and say that's gonna be a very far reach for us.

Um the reason I say that is is the drone technology doesn't have any sort of facial recognition.

Uh deploying these drones are for priority responses.

Fireworks, while they're annoying, um, not a priority response for us.

We use these items to further our trust with the public to engage with the public and to serve them.

If you start dispatching these for fireworks, I'm gonna vote no right now.

No, no, sir.

We didn't make it 250 years not to light off some fireworks.

I think our fire district can go ahead and Mayor Brunner, Mayor Bruner.

I I just have one more question.

Uh and this for Chris.

Chris, I understand when I spoke with Doug Racine, he said that this money could not be used for any other purpose but this, which negates sending it to uh personnel.

Mayor Councilman Roder, do you guys that is correct?

This is uh it's a one-time cost, and that's what we have allocated the money for.

Thank you.

Chris, can you mayor if I could can you confirm that 100%?

Because one of the arguments I got brought up in police negotiations is this is salary savings that ultimately should have gone to hiring of a police officer, but because we did not hire, we had a surplus, and because we had a surplus, it rolled over this year, and we can now use that as one-time savings.

What was the original intent of this these dollars?

We're we have labeled them.

Um sorry, just to clarify, Chris Bow as capital and grants manager and filling in for Doug Racine, CFO.

Um we have labeled them our FY25 budget savings.

Um I believe in doing that, we've kind of we haven't named whether their salary or one-time dollars, but we have chosen to uh give police these the ability to use these funds to for a one-time purchase of the drones.

And for the following two years, it's just going to be uh expenditure that we're committing to whether it be for salaries or not, we're committing these dollars specifically for this.

I'm not saying I'm against I think the drones are a great program.

I think it was very much raised in a hot moment in our discussion uh with our officers.

So something that I've been gun ho for the whole time, it gave me pause.

Chris was in that room.

Councilman Bills was in that room, and Captain Scoglin was in that room.

It was it caught me off guard pretty heavily that uh we might have some officers crying afoul that rather than that going to police, it's going to drones.

Uh so that's just why I bring it up.

Not necessarily that I don't support it unless you start dispatching them on the fourth of July, but that's a whole different issue for later.

Not for those sort of calls.

Mr.

Mayor, yes, I have a question for legal.

Um Preston, so on uh page uh 660 in our packet.

Let me pull that up.

And uh what I'm concerned about was if we don't do a lump sum that uh we would obligate future councils to this $140,000 a year.

And I don't think we can obligate future councils to that.

So can you give us clarification on that?

Mr.

Mayor and Councilman Reynolds, I'd be happy to do so.

I'm just want to pull up what you're looking at.

Um this should have a non-appropriations clause in it, and what that means is it allows us legally to do kind of a year-to-year basis, not binding future councils.

Yeah, and so um if the agreement has that language, I'm happy to drill that down.

Um, these tend to be pretty verbose and long.

I'd have to chase that down, but we should have some non-appropriation language in there to guard against that legal concern finding future councils.

Thank you for that clarification.

Yes.

Uh so the question is how many drones do we have currently either we own or under lease?

Well, as luck would have it.

I have uh some counterparts in the room.

Who could help with that question?

I'd ask uh Sergeant Clint Wilbur to assist me with that answer.

Uh Mayor Councilman Bills.

So currently uh the drones that would um are similar to what we are looking at with the DFR program.

We have one.

We have one drone.

So how many drones total do we have?

Uh we have that one, and then we have two drones that we use for interior.

So interior searches on search warrants, uh situations that we would put an officer, uh we refrain from putting an officer in so we'd put a drone in first for officer safety reasons.

And what's our life of those three units?

Uh we've had the uh the two interior drones for quite a bit of time working with Brink, uh the company that we're going through, they have an excellent program.

It's a refresh.

Uh, any time we crash and destroy the drones, which happens, uh, they send us new ones.

Um the other drone, the one drone that we have that goes up in the air is built by another company called SkyDio.

Um, they've sent us replacements as well when we've crashed that one.

Uh however, you know, it's it's a lot of that is at the leisure of that particular company.

And with us not having a long-term contract type program, like a DFR program with SkyDio, once that one's crashed, it's it's gonna be done.

However, with this system, you crash them, they send you a replacement immediately.

If I could uh councilman Bills, just to add to that, to be specific that drones aren't all-encompassing, they don't do the same thing for every type of drone.

Uh, Sergeant Wilbur mentioned a couple of those are interior drones, which we use during search warrants after we do our activation into a house.

Uh a drone could enter to clear rooms that we can't get to, but they would not be sufficient out in elements that the uh drones we're talking about today could handle as a patrol as a first responder.

Um the one that he mentioned from SkyDio uh is a patrol led drone, which is a part of this package as well that is able to launch, which Lieutenant Childers mentioned on the e-bike pursuit.

Uh but this specific package does not equate to some of the drones we currently have.

So from the standpoint of but you still gotta have an operator, you gotta have a doghouse or something that's where it's being stored.

Correct.

So these these two items would be stored.

Uh one would be at the Harvard uh the Harvard Rec Center, and the other one will be at the Boys and Girls Club.

Um I've contacted both facility uh CEOs for lack of better terms, and they're aware of this uh the conversation.

Uh both are very amenable to it.

Um so these locations that they would be housed at will give us an 88% coverage of the city uh once we to once we start launching them.

And so is the cost of the doghouse and all of that included in what we're looking at?

Yes, sir.

The entire package cost 560,000 for all the items that we're would go with this patrol um DFR.

So it's two drones for 560 or one drone for 560.

It's three, it's actually three.

So you'd have one at the Harvard Rec Center, and you'd have one of the boys and girls clubs.

Those are physical stations.

Uh the third drone in this package is a patrol led drone, which much like uh Sergeant Wilbur mentioned as far as having a SkyDio drone in the back of a patrol vehicle is where the third drone would actually be stored.

I uh I have a question and kind of follow up to uh Councilman Bill's here.

So operate you have trained operators that handle all these all these drones, and even if they're needed simultaneously, 24-7.

So we we currently have, and I would ask Sergeant Wilbert to give me a number here, how many how many uh pilots we actually have.

But in addition to the package, um Brink also trains the current pilots to their standard of how to use these drones and any other certifications they need to fly them.

Uh Clint, do you want to give us an answer on how many numbers of pilots we have?

So currently we have uh nine part 107 certified drone pilots.

Uh it's a certification that we go through, it's a long training course, very involved, and I've got uh at least one other that uh if you have a 2 a.m.

uh situation on a Monday night, uh I mean or Monday morning, then you would have somebody that right there you would have to call somebody in.

Correct.

That's that's the way it's designed.

And that's the that's the advantage of a drone as first responder program is that anybody with access to a computer can launch the drone.

Councilman, sorry, Mayor Brunner.

It's been a minute, we've been here reporting how long Mayor Bruno.

So the the design of this, the drone's a first responder, it wouldn't be a situation where we're calling anybody in because we're looking for calls that happen like that, which means someone has to be on the ground.

Um think that you're gonna find amongst our uh larger budget requests for FY27 is an increase in staffing for a real-time crime center to aid in this function, and many more items that need to happen in the real-time crime center.

So we do have nine currently certified, uh, we're looking to bolster those numbers.

Okay, I believe if there's no further discussion, we have a motion in in a second.

So are we looking down?

Okay, let's go ahead and do roll call, please, madam clerk.

God, yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes, Rodriguez, yes, Reynolds.

Yes, yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Thanks, gentlemen, gentlemen, for uh being here.

I'm sorry about if I would have known I would have uh had you uh a little earlier on the docket.

But uh so where where is your company out of?

Seattle, Washington.

Okay, very good.

Feel free to move to Tampa, Idaho.

That's right.

Thanks, Lieutenant.

Was it the three cowboy hats that gave it away?

Or uh what made you smell freedom?

Thank you all.

All right, here we go.

So now we're back to uh staff on uh public hearings.

And let me uh move to that move to the right page might help.

Okay.

Six two.

Yeah, six two.

I finally got there on page seven of nine.

Okay, this is an action item, and I believe Christy Watkins, and we're not gonna have her repeat a lot of things, but I guess I need to whatever's in bold print here.

I need to speak of.

So this is uh the Nampa City Ordinance Text Amendments for Title 5, Chapter 2, Title 9, Chapter 6, Title 10, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 11, Chapter 12, uh, Chapter 14, Chapter 15, Chapter 16, Chapter 19, Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 25, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31, Chapter 33, Chapter 34 for the City of Napa.

Is that all I need to say?

Very good.

Yes.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

My name is Christy Watkins.

I'm the principal planner for the city of Nampa.

Um, as stated, the action before you this evening is approval of a few code changes throughout our city code.

This really was just grammatical and clarification changes.

So if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those for you.

Hopefully, you've read your staff report and know what you are looking for, or we're good to go.

Mayor move to approve.

Oh, it's a public hearing, I apologize.

Nice try though.

Okay, no, nothing for Christy here.

So is there anyone in the left in the audience that's uh interested in in testifying regarding this issue?

Mark, you're not gonna do it?

Okay.

Tonight only.

I was gonna say yes and totally you don't want to talk about tree services.

Okay, it says staff rebuttal or closing remarks.

Do you want to rebut anything?

Uh uh no, thank you, Mayor.

I'm gonna ask with a good thing.

Okay.

All right.

So now we now we need uh motion to close.

Move to close the public hearing.

So all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

I think I heard all eyes.

You make a motion to approve the Nampa City ordinance text amendments as provided for on the screen and in our packet.

Second, okay, roll call, please.

God, yes, Reynolds.

Yes, Rodriguez, yes, Griffin.

Yes, bills, yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

All right, Doug, you're gonna be next, it looks like here.

Uh the six three is an action item, comprehensive plan text amendment to remove language recommending developments, five dwelling units per acre or more.

Be required to get approval of a planned unit development or a master plan community for the city of Nampa.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mayor.

Council Doug Critchfield, uh principal planner over long-range planning.

This is a section of the uh comprehensive plan uh within the land use section.

Uh there's a statement in there that says that developments that exceed five dwelling units per acre should be a planned unit development or part of a master plan community.

Uh those two tools, a PUD and an MPC, in short, are tools that a developer can use to increase density or request changes that are outside of the norm in in the zoning code, and those are tools for that purpose.

Um this has created some confusion with developers and uh the development community and the public about what the purpose of this section of code is for.

Uh staff has reviewed that and is recommended that this be removed.

Um in that the uh subdivisions that are proposed within the the medium density residential uh land use designation uh from two and a half to five dwelling unit per acre don't have to use this same tool.

So to make it contiguous for the entire medium density residential staff recommends that this be removed.

There are uh if there is a desire for the council to hear developments or to see a plat that is over five dwelling units per acre, um then there needs to be some other tip mechanism or tool in place for that to be a requirement uh going forward.

This uh language in the code doesn't necessarily require that.

So um we just wanted to remove that and if necessary, then get a rec recommendation from council that we could bring back later if you would like to add something that would require developments over five dwelling units per acre to come to the council uh to review the plat.

Um so um we're giving you the analysis and the regulatory framework is in uh Idaho Code 67, 6508 and 6509 to make these changes to the comprehensive plan.

And this is the motion before you this evening.

I'd be glad to take any questions.

Question Mayor.

Yes.

So Doug clarification.

It was several years ago when the city began hearing or having holding workshops and asking development pursue and do master plan communities.

And it seemed like that was moving along pretty well.

Is this removing that issue?

Or is this just some code clarification issue?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor Brunner and Councilmember Bills.

The uh it's just a clarification issue.

Uh master plan communities are still a tool that's available.

Uh we're we're still seeing them come in.

Uh it gives an opportunity for a developer and the the council to review a concept for a fairly large area to see different land uses within that area and how they all work together.

That's the purpose of a master plan community.

A plan unit development is a similar type of tool on a smaller scale generally.

Um the master plan community does have to come in front of the council, but a PUD does not uh necessarily have to come in front of the council, especially if it's not tied to an annexation.

So that we're just clarifying that in the code.

Good.

Thank you.

Okay, any other uh questions for Doug.

Okay, how many are interested in speaking in the public hearing tonight?

Cheryl.

It is now time time time.

Three minutes, and then you get to tell who you are and where you live again.

Good evening, Mayor Bruner and Council again.

I'm Cheryl Higley at 12441 South Abbott Downing Way here in NAMPA.

And respectfully, I would like to see the language in question remain in the comp plan, and here's why.

Um, number one, because of the context.

It's important to note that what comes immediately before the language that's proposed to be removed.

Here's what it says.

Compatibility with existing development is an important consideration when designing subdivisions in this land use designation.

Next is the language.

Developments that exceed five dwelling units per acre should be a planned unit development or part of a master plan community.

Based on this context, it appears that the limitation of five dwelling units per acre was included in the medium density residential portion of the comp plan to help new developments be more compatible in density with existing neighborhoods than if up to eight dwelling units per acre were allowed.

The second reason is because of the reality.

From my observations, my personal observations, the gross density for large development applications that are in medium density residential are either a PUD, an MPC, or are already less than five dwelling units per acre.

Examples are subdivisions like Clear Creek at 3.64, Lakeview at 2.73, Aderra at 4.08, Deer Flat Ranch at 0.72, Swainson's Hawk Arbor at 3.70, to name a few.

Such as Shadow Creek at 1408 Lake Lowell, where recently the council cautiously approved the application to annex and zone the property as RS4, but with the condition that there with there were to be no more than eight dwelling units on the two-acre parcel, which resulted in a gross density of four dwelling units per acre.

The application for Jennifer Reynolds at 2102 Midland is another example where the council limited the gross density to five dwelling units per acre.

If the comp plan is to reflect to developers the expectations for how the council and PZ want the city to develop, then letting the language remain in the comp plan gives developers a better indication of what has historically been approved and is realistically projected to be approved in the future.

Thank you for considering these points as you make your decision.

I would respectfully ask that you allow the language to remain.

Thank you.

Thanks, Cheryl.

Always impressed with your research.

Okay.

Anyone else uh in the audience that's interested in speaking to this issue?

All right.

You want to go ahead and respond, please?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor Council.

Um so when a development comes in front of the city council at any density, the council uh at hand has practiced this in the past.

That's their option if they wish to reduce that density.

Uh visa via some type of condition on the project, they they certainly can do that.

Uh what we're uh arguing is that the the PUD and the master plan community are tools that a developer can use.

It's their option to use those tools, but it's it's not necessarily a requirement.

What a PUD, for example, will give them is the option to increase the density by 20 percent, or a master plan community if it's approved can also increase the density by 20 percent.

So we're we're asking that that be removed as as an option for these this type of density coming in, and that the council evaluated at the density that's claimed for a medium density residential type of development council.

Any uh questions for Doug?

Not I think we're ready to close public hearing with a motion.

Mayor, Doug.

Need a clarification because you're saying sounds good.

What Cheryl has testified sounds correct.

I'm trying to see is there a particular part of the code that we're missing or the issue here, or I guess I'm a little confused on a little confused on uh as to this particular area of the code, the importance of removing if our actions in prior have have kind of gone in.

I I guess I need a little more clarification.

Like Rodney, you're gonna give that to us.

I'm not sure I'm uh I have all the answers here, but I will I will just say that uh this language is in a comprehensive plan that is guidance, right?

So it is not in city code.

There is no standard that says over five acres, you shall do a PUD in city code.

There's nothing.

It's a guidance in the comprehensive plan.

What we're suggesting is that you it doesn't change what you see when when they bring a project forward to you, excuse me.

If they bring a project forward to you in an annexation and a uh a plat, you're gonna see the same thing, whether they've applied for a PUD or not, and you still have the same capability to require restrictions or reducing density or increasing density, whatever.

Um you could do all those same things either direction if there was a PUD or not a PUD.

What a PUD does though is it costs them more to go through the process, and it allows them some capability to adjust their density beyond what our normal limits are.

So potentially with a PUD, you could you could increase your density beyond them the maximum that would be allowed in that designation on the comprehensive plan.

So this just gives them a PU to gives them more options for developing in different ways, and we're just suggesting that this shouldn't be a requirement on anything that is over five acres.

That's a case-by-case basis when they decide that they need a PUD to achieve something different, then they come before you and request it.

But you can still restrict it.

And so the the comments that were made, I uh I respectfully I just disagree with.

I I don't uh I don't think that this is limiting um in any way the PUD requirement is not limiting densities in any way.

It is just giving them an option and it's costing them more.

Thank you.

Yeah, councilman.

Do I you can asset straight up?

Do you have a comment?

Okay, all right.

Okay.

I just see why.

All right.

So are we are we uh ready to uh have a motion to close public hearing?

Your choice.

I'll take a second.

I mean I'm leaving that up to the madam clerk here who that was.

Okay, so we need uh all in favor say aye.

I'll agree.

Any council discussion before the vote?

Nope.

Do we okay?

Do we have a motion?

Mr.

Mayor, I move to approve the comprehensive plan text amendment to remove language recommending development.

Five dwelling units per acre or more be required to get approval of a planned unit development for a master plan community for the city of NAPO.

Second.

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

Roll call, please.

Gog no.

Rodriguez.

No.

Griffin.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Three in favor to oppose.

Motion carries.

All right, we're ready for the uh the mayor's office.

And Amy, this sounds like she looks like you're ready.

You're gonna I thought both of you were gonna be up here.

I thought you were gonna carry a banner.

Okay.

So this is uh chief of staff, Clay Long that'll be uh bringing communication regarding it his responsibilities.

Good evening.

Let me pull this up real quick.

All right, for the record, uh Clay Long, Chief of Staff.

I just wanted to go over briefly uh the last time we had a conversation with council on the function of chief of staff was in January at the council workshop when we talked about the operational structure of the city, and as uh as you know, we've gone through a lot of um change over the last six months, but I just kind of wanted to re-emphasize what uh and how that position is is shaped at this point and answer any questions that that may come in.

Uh so starting back in October of 2025, council approved uh changing city code and adding the chief of staff as an appointed position.

Um in that uh appointment, the the description of that was that the chief of staff shall plan and direct all administrative, financial and operational activities and provide oversight and guidance to projects for the city.

Uh as you'll know in that section of code, it's a similar of one to two sentences within each of those positions, and then from there we take that uh and mayor um who the positions uh who has authority over those positions identifies what that job description specifically looks at.

Uh in December of 2025, we worked through the transition planning and process uh with Mayor Hogobohm and identified uh what his administration planned and how it planned to use the chief of staff function, and then in early January presenting to directors uh and staff, we articulated out the function enrolled reporting structure, um, and how uh the position would would serve later in January.

I presented to council and gave again a high level um overview of that.

The intent was that we were going to look at it in March and see what changes or modifications needed to be made before we formalize the job description, and then uh that turned into June.

And so I did have an opportunity uh last week to sit down with uh at that time mayor point to kind of go over that as well as council president bills and identify here's here's where things were um and how they've been operating uh to solidify it for me personally so that I have a clear understanding and expectation of what's expected of me.

Um there's really kind of two specific areas, uh well, three.

There's strategic advising um to both mayor and council, uh looking at directing the day-to-day, implementing the uh policy or code or administration that that both council or mayor identify, uh provide updates, ensure that uh anything that does need change, we come to council for when appropriate.

Um and then on the operational side and leadership, um, focusing on ensuring that the organization is running well, uh, provide support to make sure that we're meeting our needs to our customers internal and external working on uh and with our workforce development team, directors and supervisors, the hiring uh for personnel, um obviously any of those that are appointed still come from the mayor as a recommendation to council for for their approval for council's approval, um, and then supervision and annual performance valuations for identified staff, uh senior leadership as well as staff.

Uh the other areas that I think are important is just again I mentioned it, but that implementation piece when council adopts policy.

Obviously, that's typically handled through the department that it's relevant to, uh, but ensuring that that happens and gets carried out, and then also if there's any type of um facilitation that needs to take place if if there's other folks that are impacted that are more of a cross department, if you will.

Um the coordination and oversight pieces, and then uh also working um with the mayor at at that request and as directed for relationships, um, external and intergovernmental uh representation.

I know that's a lot quickly, um, but that's really it.

I just wanted to give a high level to this group uh as a follow-up from the last time we talked.

I know this was originally on an agenda earlier after the conversation discussion.

I think it was more appropriate that this be an update from an administrative function of the mayor or mayor appoint um as opposed to coming to council and having council adopt something separately and if that's on the screen screen council questions, any questions mayor?

Yes, just one clarification, and this is one of the questions I had sent to Preston originally when we had um gotten the original draft just on one word agent.

I understand that you would be an agent frankly representing the city in most capacities on major contractual agreements.

Is the chief of staff authorized to sign any agreement of that magnitude that may um how do I word this may have some political blowback that we might want the mayor to have to sign ultimately so we have a stop gap in between major contractual obligations that could be controversial from you and maybe over to more of an elected officials perspective?

Uh mayor and councilman.

So when uh the city or council agrees to sign something in that action item, it always says who council is authorizing to sign that.

Uh so like tonight you notice with the drones it was the chief of police.

Um you'll notice other department titles or positions where it could be the mayor in some situations, other times it's a department director.

So it would be left of the action item that council approves.

So no matter what, ultimately, council has to appropriate and approve those dollars, and at the end of the day, it's who we assign to have the signature.

Thank you.

Mayor Brunner, yes.

Yeah, the one thing I have uh not for you uh play but for legal.

Um isn't there a statute that says that appointed officials shall report to the mayor?

Mr.

Mayor, may I address that?

Um Idaho Code 50602 is the starting point for all this.

That is uh designates the mayor as the chief administrative officer for the city.

So that's the starting point.

How a mayor wants to be assisted in that is up to the mayor's administrative executive function.

Some may do a part-time chief of staff, full-time chief of staff, chief city administrator, even adopting a um city manager form of government, maybe.

Um there's not necessarily a code that requires it.

There's a procedure, this is an appointed position, and so there is guidance about how that is appointed and removed, just like any of the appointed official, uh, but nothing nothing that specific.

Okay, follow up, sir.

Good question.

Okay, uh, also um in order to continue with this, and I think play's done most of the responsibilities he lists anyway.

Um would it be out of order if I was to let's say go to Twin Falls or Corlane and talk to those people and investigate how they how good is working or how it's not working, or am I just because I'm legislative that I shouldn't do that.

Mr.

Mayor, um, I can speak to the legal side.

I think that's maybe more of a uh council mayor believe.

Uh I don't want to speak out of term.

I believe there was some research.

I think it was mainly though Gordon Lane area.

Okay, yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

Please speak.

Yeah.

I just want to just kind of yeah.

Uh councilman Rodriguez, um, whether it's in or out of order, if it's from a legal standpoint, not per se, um, but from a duties, roles, and how you want to address those.

Um, that's probably a good conversation between the you know, mayor's executive branch and as a legislative body, how you want to go about that.

Um legally, it may not hit on any of those issues uh right on the head, but more of an administrative operation question.

I see.

Okay, thank you.

Mayor, yes, sir.

I wanted to make sure that we uh don't cross that line of state statute that talks about uh the uh city manager, strong mayor form of government governance, and um I think it's uh important to um have clear definition for uh the directors of who they're reporting to, and that's worked out between staff and the mayor.

Um I think that the last thing that's really important is that we are legislative branch, the mayor's office is the executive branch, and other than budget and policy maybe just a comment.

So when we met with directors uh in January, what we shared with them is that they would report through the chief of staff.

Uh so that's the reporting structure, that information, and and there's a lot of uh you know, nuances to that too.

Obviously, if if the mayor has requested information or has initiated something, that's a natural fact flow.

Uh, if it's a operational level thing, an administrative thing as as codes indicates, um, that's where they report back through the chief of staff and report to the chief staff mayor.

Um, and I don't know if this is um I I thought that I had heard this, but I'm not sure.

Um, does this um position change each time?

I mean, is there an option to change this with each mayor that comes into office?

The uh mayor councilwoman, the position itself from an appointment perspective, council would have to vote on changing the person.

Okay, as far as the job description, that's an administrative function.

So that's with less within the mayor's uh purview.

Um when we first were headed this and I shared the information on the city administrator as court alane had that's where the court of Lane Council adopted a resolution to identify what these specific responsibilities were for the long term and wasn't something that the mayor could just go in and change uh depending on who the mayor is.

So as it stands now, it's a it's a discretion of the mayor.

Mayor let me uh go go ahead.

You speak now.

You can go ahead.

I'm just gonna say, yeah, and I've said it many times, so it's not nothing new to any of you that I don't believe, but uh you know, my main my first question on this to uh uh council president and to Clay was what was the direction that uh mayor Hogaboom was going.

And my understanding is is this was the direction he as Clay already stated in January, and uh I've I think emphasized probably maybe more more than enough that uh that's the path I desire to follow as far as what he was setting forth.

So mayor, can I follow up too?

And I'm not asking that because I I think you're awesome.

Um I'm just asking that um because of future, and and I I remember telling our former mayor, Rick, okay, I don't agree, but I will go with you because I trust you, and then you know he was gone, and so I don't want to do that again, but I do trust you.

Mayor, yes, just to confirm what is actually the difference between what we're establishing here now and a manager-managed city system, other than the election to formalize it.

What what are the main differences if somebody does raise those questions?

I would say high level that the mayor is still the ultimate decision point.

So it's really the mayor vesting the authority and trust with the chief of staff position, and then that relationship of you know what what are those decision points you want me to bring to you as opposed to make independently versus in a city manager function, it's it is the mayor function of that operations and that executive or CEO of the city.

So that's you know, and and I would say similar to any of our directors or leadership, that relationship of what autonomy they have and then what things filter up.

Um obviously our goal is to have folks run their departments independently uh with guidance and vision, but um, so I would say that's the biggest piece where you still have an ultimate deciding factor as the mayor as opposed to with a city manager that's vested in that person.

And how would they exercise that role if there was a disagreement on process with a chief of staff and a mayor if they ultimately said uh I'm not doing this while I'm going to I don't foresee that happening, but like councilwoman Scog stating, just you might not be here forever, Clay.

I hope you're here forever in a day.

But if you're not if we get appoint somebody else, possibly less experience, and um maybe off the rails, you could say how do we make sure there's a balance there.

So in this structure, the mayor's the boss.

So it the mayor trumps, any other staff member that's employed or appointed, it's still their call.

It's still their call.

Um there are some specific areas that could like I think of the treasurer, for example.

There's some specific things they're responsible for that they would be responsible for bring back to council.

Um but again, that independent decision making or that autonomy level is vested by virtue of the mayor saying you have the authority to do these things.

Thank you questions or comments.

Uh just the comment.

Um the reason to me why that is important is because that means the people have a say.

Yeah, and so that's that's my main focus is that we don't take away that power from our citizens.

It's that we continue to allow them to elect a mayor that will run the city how they would like it.

So I just appreciate that in uh here from this November that that can happen.

Yeah, and again, I I want to publicly say I Clay, you have been amazing since um we lost our mayor, and I cannot say enough about how much I appreciate you and your position.

Thank you.

So I'm I'm amazing all along president council.

I mean, they've been doing double double duty.

And uh so impressed with what they've already accomplished and uh and the wisdom they are we ready, Amy?

Okay, so this is more this is more time.

So I understand.

So speaking of um speaking of Mayor Hogobaum, this was a direction that he had set before he passed, and this was uh these are for downtown.

This was part of our um thanks, Mark.

Um this we we applied for something for it.

We applied for a grant through this is the the States America 250, so these were paid for it with that.

So these will be installed.

I I'm told parks will try to get some of them up before the third Thursday, this Thursday, and then the rest by next week.

Um and then I'm also told the mural, which NDC is is paying for, is also hopefully gonna be being um completed soon.

So more to come on this, but I just wanted you guys to have a first look at these that are going downtown, and it was so how how many in total?

57 is what we have done.

There's probably more, but we just kind of divided them up between these four.

Yeah, we and we need yes, we very painstakingly went through every one downtown and found out which ones are missing parts or have parts, and we don't have money to replace the broken parts, but that's up to you.

Um so we had enough for 57.

So yeah, Amy, do we by chance have any extras that aren't going up before this third Thursday that maybe have this at the uh Idaho Center for the rodeo on a fence or at an entry point?

Oh yeah, if they had the right um distance, this is like specifically custom for what we provide, what we have downtown, but I mean uh maybe a couple.

Okay, if you just think that I think they're nice.

I think they turned out great.

Whoever designed them did a great job.

Oh, and sorry, oh, I have to say it's Vanessa Jimenez.

She designed it.

I can't take any credit.

I would I I think I'd be tough getting for the roading unless Mark's willing to stand out in the front for every road.

Yes, he is.

Martin is in it.

Make sure you work close, Mark.

Okay.

Thank you.

Oh my gosh.

So Vanessa from our office did these.

I just have to give her credit.

She did amazing.

Very nice.

Thanks.

Okay, Tom.

I'm sure you're you you you are willing to wait even longer, right?

No, here we go.

Action item 5-1.

Uh authorized mayor to sign resolution requesting a ballot measure to implement a local option registration fee in Canyon County, Idaho for Idaho code.

If you have my glasses on 40 uh whatever that sign is, 40-827.

Okay.

Second.

Okay, are we on?

We're on we're on action.

Action item one as far as the uh the option as far as implementing the registration increase fee that the other 13 counties or 12 counties are considered also.

Excellent.

Um we have we have a motion and a second.

Any further discussion.

Okay, let's have roll call.

Scog, yes.

Phil's yes, Griffin.

Yes, Rodriguez, yes, Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Thank you.

Thanks, Tom, for waiting for the all right.

Action item five, two is authorized IT department, and Bush Butch has been here for a while too, to pay the annual subscription fee for Tyler Intergov planning and licensing software in the amount of 283, 239.27 cents.

Comment?

Comment?

Butch, if if just possible that you can communicate with Tyler to remove Patrick Sullivan as being the contact.

That's what's showing up on the invoice.

Yes, we can we can certainly do that.

Yes.

I'd I just think it'd be appropriate, just as City of Napa or versus having the past employees' name still showing up.

Absolutely.

Yeah, that was that was the copy of the original contract.

So yeah.

Okay.

If no further discussion, we'll have roll call.

Fog, yes.

Bill's Rodriguez.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carry.

But you're still up there.

So here we go.

Action item 5-3, authorize IT department to pay the annual subscription subscription fee for Tyler Enterprise ERP software and the amount of 232,602 and 66 cents.

Also approved in the F-26 budget.

Second discussion.

Rokal.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

All in favor, motion carry.

But that was easy.

All right, but appreciate it.

Have a good night.

All right, Miss Crystal, who has these triplets, and we keep her here till after 8 30 at night.

Yeah, what's the world coming to?

Okay, here we go.

5-4.

Authorized mayor to sign reimbursement agreement with Northwest Pipeline LLC for the Eustach Road Widening Phillis Canal to Hawaii Storm Avenue project and the amount not to exceed 241,741 dollars.

This is approved by uh legal Douglas Waterman, and this is also approved in the FY26 budget.

Second.

No discussion.

I'm saying so roll call, please.

Scog, yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

All right, John.

Uh 5-5 award bid and authorized mayor to sign contract with abundant water wells inc for construction of the Coyote Springs domestic well project in the amount of $380,682.

Approved in the F-26 budget.

So move.

Second.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

I just need to disclose this as my neighborhood.

I don't get any money for this though.

I just live here.

Sounds like you're getting a new well.

Okay.

You get more water.

Okay, well, I always agree.

Always appreciate full discourse.

I live with a lawyer, so okay.

Roll call.

Cog.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Bills.

Yes.

All in favor.

Motion carries.

Okay, Cody.

Who knows whether what's going to happen here?

Might as well have you take some steps.

So action item 5-6.

Uh parks and recreation requests authorization to post notice of opportunity for an organization to operate the Napa public shooting range.

No move.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor.

So we have a motion.

Okay.

Okay, discuss.

So my question is, and Chief Huff stepped out of the room, I see, but uh we still have 10 on the there was there's been discussion over the last few years about when this lease was up.

Um about um the PD using that particular facility.

And so my question is is the if the PD needs the space.

Talking shooting ranges.

Shooting the shooting range on railroad wherever it is over there.

Okay.

Um we've talked in the past about the the PD possibly using a building for training.

And uh if that's an uh opportunity, we we talked about that before we get with their lease wasn't up now that their lease is up.

Um if that's something the PD needs, I don't think we should lease it to somebody else.

So are you wanting to know?

I walked in in the middle of this, I'm sorry.

So know your opinion.

So I've got uh I've kind of went a different direction since that building was uh you know sitting there and it wasn't available to or to us.

Um we've been looking with the Kenny County Sheriffs.

Uh they have a new uh shooting range they're doing just south of the landfill.

They have 80 acres out there.

Uh we did a tour, I believe it was a week ago Monday out there, and there's some possibilities that uh I'd like to do a little more research on and then bring it back in front in front of the council and the mayor to uh consider some stuff.

There's uh 80 acres for a driving track.

Um there's basically unlimited shooting uh range or lanes out there.

Uh like I said, we just barely started the discussions on that, and I think that would probably be better than having a building in in the city limits just because uh it it the landfill has just hundreds of acres out there that uh there's no plans for in our lifetime being used, so we could expand and possibly put a building out there for training too.

And um next my next question, Mayor for Cody.

Thanks, Chief.

I appreciate that clarification.

Um would would whoever in your um proposal, your RP, um would this be a parks and rec program?

Um mayor and councilman Reynolds, um this would be an uh MOU or a contract um managed by the parks and recreation department, and would our interest is to keeping recreational shooting available, and so that's part of the scope of work that we're asking for this organization to present is to offer open shooting hours for the public and partner with the parks and recreation department for continued opportunity for shooting off uh youth classes, which is what we currently offer out there with through the fishing game.

Okay, so and fishing game is shooting bows in there only, is that correct?

Um Mayor uh Councilman Reynolds, they we have two sides to the building.

One half of the building is archery and the other half is air rifles.

So um, even if I believe they shot low caliber, small caliber like rim fire style um bullets in there originally, but it's been cleaned up due to for EPA um cleanliness to get the lead out of there, and now it is steel shoe um steel projectile air rifles only.

So I don't even know if that facility would work for uh police shooting range.

Okay.

Um and I had had a meeting with fishing game at one point, so a year back.

Um, and they got stuck with a bill on this building to clean up the lead from the the previous operator.

Uh we just make sure we cover ourselves that we don't get stuck with a bill cleaning up a bunch of lead.

I think it was to the tune of 260,000, something like that that they got stuck with, and uh want to make sure that we're covered on that.

Right, and and with that change in uh the steel projectiles through the air rifles, that would not be a future concern.

Thank you.

Is it something that we need or should continue offering under parks or should we be selling the property?

Uh Mayor and uh Councilman Bills, my understanding is the city has in a future intentional use for that piece of property.

I don't know if the building necessarily but the land through the water renewal facility.

We believed initially that but when the time that this lease ran out with Idaho Department of Fishing Game in December of this year, there would be plans for um water renewal to need that property.

I think they will eventually need it, but not quite as early as anticipated.

So this would be asking for some sort of a short-term, either year to year or a five-year rather than a long-term ongoing lease with the intention of it eventually coming back into the city's hands for use on the water renewal department.

Clay or done the whole that whole section of property we're trying to maintain and keep.

So same with the fire right next to it, the training center, um, for down the road, so we don't have spliced off section that someone else owns or has control over it.

So the goal of this was to go out, see who wants to manage it, and then um not get us into a long-term commitment that we couldn't back out of or get out of, but still have the property use and service, and not have parks and rec have to pay to service and run it.

Um the third party would be able to do that.

Okay, my air.

I so I've misplaced.

I I was thinking there's a building on railroad.

I had my head down near South Side and on that part of the railroad.

I had mixed with this.

So there used to be a shooting facility down in that area, and that's what I thought.

Correct.

This this is on the fleet.

This is out next uh where we need.

Okay, Mr.

Mayor, yes, sir.

One last question for Cody.

Would we lease this at market rate or um for the the plan is for the organizations that are interested in operating it to give us a proposal?

Um the goal for parks and recreation is to have a recreational shooting range available to the citizens of NAMPA.

Um we're looking, we're not necessarily lease, um, fishing game paid zero dollars for access of the facility.

So this is just um allowing citizens to have recreational shooting until the time comes that the city needs the property.

So I don't know where the proposals will come in as far as dollars offered.

Perhaps somebody may offer some, but it's not the expected based on the history of the previous um agreement with fishing game department.

Further questions or discussion.

I believe we have a motion and a second, correct?

Okay, roll call, please.

Go ahead.

Yes.

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

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Yeah, I believe we just have unfinished business.

Is that correct?

So the first one is RC 71.

Action item authorized mayor to sign resolution for comprehensive plan map amendment from RMU residential mixed use, CMU, community mixed use, MDR medium density residential, HDR, high density residential, to HDR, MDR, and commercial comprehensive plan text, specific area plan amendment for East Canyon Community.

Addressed as 0 11th Avenue, 0 Dean Lane, Zero Prescott Lane, Idaho Hole Holdings LLC, representing Elm Honings and LLC, Amerital in LLC.

Does that need to be under suspension of rules?

No ordinance.

Okay.

So we're gonna read that for the resident.

Thank oh, thank you.

So it's not an ordinance, all right.

So we need a do we need what do we need on this?

Just a motion till moved.

Second.

Any discussion?

Roll call, please.

God, yes, Bills, yes, Reynolds, Rodriguez.

Yes, Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Yes, final one seven two is an ordinance rather than oh, we have more than one.

Okay.

Oh, we sure do.

I just want to know I want to make sure we meet nine o'clock.

I gotta love it there for a minute.

I can read that.

It's trial under fire.

Let's see.

What's my excuse?

All those pages were stuck together.

Yes, that's all right.

Okay, so you gotta read that, of course.

Do I need to read this first?

Okay, first we read the ordinance for annexation and zoning to RS4 single family residential zoning district addressed as 2815 and 2724, North Middleton Road for Trial Triad.

What's the pronouncing ass in triology?

Trilogy.

Trilogy.

Trilogy, thank you.

I knew that wasn't quite right.

Development representing open door rentals and and endurance holdings.

And this is to under suspension of rules.

Is that correct?

Okay.

And ordinance of the city of Napa, Idaho determining that certain lands commonly known as 2815 and 2724 North Middleton Road.

Parcels number R24446 and R30947, located in the southwest one-fourth of section eight, township three north, range two west, point meridian, totally 19.31 acres more or less.

They contiguous to the limits of the city of Napa, Kenyon County, State of Idaho, and that said land should be annexed into the city of Napa and be zoned RS4 single family residential on 19.31 acres more or less.

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

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

It is contiguous to the city limits, and it is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Directing the city engineer and the planning and zoning director to add said properties to the official zoning maps of the city of Napa, and it designates said properties as RS4 single family residential as set forth here in on the official zoning map and other area maps of the city, providing for conditions of approval, providing for recordation, providing for servability, providing effective date, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict here with, and directing the city clerk to file a certified copy of the ordinance in the map of the area to be annexed with Canon County State of Idaho and the Idaho State Tax Commission for Center to Idaho Code Section 63-215.

Well, you do that well.

Thank you.

Roll call.

Gog, yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Okay.

Now I got my pages unstuck.

RC73, first reading of ordinance for annexation and zoning for 37.74 plus or minus acres into BC community business.

RD, two family residential, RS4, single family residential and RS6, single family residential zoning districts with corresponding right of way with development agreement for Regatta crossing subdivision addressed as zero Eustach Road for endurance holdings LLC.

RS4, single family residential, and RS six, single family residential zoning districts with corresponding right-of-way with development agreement for Regatta Crossing Subdivision addressed as Zero Eustach Road for endurance holdings LLC.

Request to pass under suspension rules.

And Norris of the City of Napa, Idaho, determine that certain lands commonly known as Zero Eustack Road.

Parcels number R 3083, located in a portion of the west half of the northwest one-fourth of section three.

Township three north range two west Boise Meridian, totaling 37.74 acres more or less, like contiguous to the limits of the city of Napa Candy County State of Idaho.

And that said land should be annexed into the City of Napa and be zoned VC community business on 3.182 acres more or less.

RS4 single family residential on 10.12 acres more or less.

RS6, single family residential on 17.6 acres more or less, and RD two family residential on 6.832 acres more or less.

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

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

It is contiguous to the city limits and it is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Directing the city engineer and the planning and zoning director to add said properties to the official zoning maps of the city of Napa.

And to designate said properties as BC community business, RS4, single family residential, RS6, single family residential, and RD two family residential on 37.74 acres as set forth herein on the official zoning map and other area maps of the city, providing for conditions of approval, providing for preparation, subject to the terms of that certain development agreement between the applicant and the city, providing for several ability, providing effective date, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict here with directing the city clerk to file a certified copy of the ordinance of the map of the area to be annexed with Canning County State of Idaho and the Idaho State Tax Commission for certain Idaho Code Section 63-215.

Mr.

Mayor, I move this pass under suspension of rules.

Second.

Roll call, please.

Gog.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

I do think this is the final one.

RC 74 action item.

First reading of ordinance for annexation and zoning to RS7, single family residential zoning district.

Add addressed as 1325 Chicago Street for Tromic Arab.

And to request a pass under suspension of rules.

Like contiguous to the limits of the City of Napa, Canyon County, State of Idaho, and that said lands should be annexed into the City of Napa and be zoned RS7, single family residential on 0.6 acres more or less.

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

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

It is contiguous to the city limits, and it is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Directing the city engineer and the planning and zoning director to add said properties to the official zoning maps of the city of Napa and to designate said properties as R7, single family residential set forth herein on the official zoning map and the other area maps of the city, providing for conditions of approval, providing for recordation, providing for several ability, providing effective date, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict here with, and directing the city clerk to file certified copy of the ordinance in the map of the area to be annexed with Canon County State of Idaho and the Idaho State Tax Commission pursuing to Idaho Code Section 63-215.

Move to approve under the suspension of rules.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Okay, before adjourned.

So what of what you want a photo?

Oh bless you.

Okay, so we'll uh so need a motion, motion for adjournment.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Are we doing executive session or no?

Good job, Chief.

Assistance of this lady here.

It was the life reads.

I was actually gonna check to look it up.

Like this.

Okay.