Well welcome everyone if I can get the uh oh okay oh one minute one more minute oh okay now you're getting all right now welcome good morning Wednesday morning I know everyone was so excited about being here this morning so uh here you get to get to experience your dream uh thank you uh I want to just start though before we do the invocation and uh and the pledge making sure I don't forget uh Doug we're okay I just want all of Doug and his team to stand will you just stand and just give them a uh a big hand for uh what what they've accomplished thank thank you so much appreciate you and then thank you all for uh collaborating working communicating with his team and where we're here today to make some uh probably challenging decisions but uh hopefully good decisions for our city uh Peter I've asked Peter to bring the invocation and the pledge so we'll stand and do that next Father God Lord we ask that you be with us uh this morning and throughout the day as we make important decisions for the future of our city Lord thank you for each person that is here uh we acknowledge the budget team and the hard work that they've done Lord be with our city council all of the rest of our city leaders uh the public that's attending or watching and listening please guide us in our thoughts and our conversations and our discussion we pray these things in Jesus' name amen I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God is raw thank you peter okay I think uh as far as my notes that you that share is so kind in uh presenting with me the next is Doug you're up are you ready to roll no roll call oh roll call I'm sorry forget that Doug you're not up yet look at you go roll call as priority I better better remember this council or I'll be in real trouble okay Scott present Jingula here bells Reynolds Rodriguez Griffin all present mayor would like to uh ask for a budget amendment for council to consider and uh instead of uh going directly into uh all the summary items uh is to allow council members to express uh the hot button items so that uh we can focus there and uh and then mesh with finances uh summary work that's that's the intent um is to uh this can go council and mayor and counsel as quickly or as long as council desires um the intent is to speed this as effectively quickly as possible without skipping the the the public input into what we're what we're setting as the the budget base for the f FY27 but the intent is to hit those items up front the big items and then come back and do a very um top line approval of the budgets by fund instead of by department so we would go General Gov Street Airport in that sequence and that's part of my what's in my initial presentation so that's the intent if council overall supports that well again uh I think it'd be helpful for you and uh for council if council members have some hot button items that we get those known and or discussed and then let you uh proceed in there uh rather than going through stuff and then we turn around spend one to two hours changing everything so question uh council president is is is this a motion that you want to make there's a motion I'm wanting to make and and the other question is do you then want to uh pass by uh Doug's uh summary or do you want these uh hot button issues if this passes to happen uh right off the bat here right off the bat uh ahead of part one and

If council members have some hot button items that we get those known and/or discussed, and then let you uh proceed in there uh rather than going through stuff and then we turn around and spend one to two hours changing everything.

So question uh council president is is is this a motion that you want to make?

There's a motion I'm wanting to make.

Okay, and and the other question is do you then want to uh pass by uh Doug's uh summary or do you want these uh hot button issues if this passes to happen uh right off the bat here?

Right off the bat uh ahead of part one, and then uh depending on those discussions that will guide finance on uh how much uh summary and what we need to do there.

We have a second.

I second okay.

Any discussion, Mr.

Mayor, I just have a comment.

So uh I I uh concur with uh councilman bills on part of this.

Uh I just want to remind people that this is the most important thing that we do as city council um is our budget, and uh there's certain things that need to be discussed at length.

And uh so hopefully uh everybody has those in order so we can pull them out and discuss them.

And then uh other than that, I agree with councilman bills about uh some of the items uh being able to go through and just get them taken care of.

Yeah, I I appreciate the comment because what I'm looking at as I believe 80 80 percent of the budget is pretty straightforward.

I think there's 20 percent based on uh different council members uh viewpoints that is where we need to focus, not to throw Doug and team such a curveball, but it really gets those issues brought up to where everything else can flow pretty quick thereafter, I believe.

So we we support the the rapid uh uh review approval because that was part of the outline of my presentation to say we've already shared this with the public, we've shared it with you six or seven times in previous meetings.

It's been shared in private meetings and reviews, so it's been well vetted as a budget, so we can move rapidly.

This isn't new to anybody, and it's been a year where we have kept the budget very much consistent with prior years with very minimal changes, so there's little risk in that.

Okay.

So uh I see we have two attorneys here, but Doug, you're you're in person and in Preston Sillo.

Is there any challenges with changing the agenda as far as the order of at this point in time?

Mayor and council, there's nothing inappropriate inappropriate about changing the sequence of the agenda.

Okay, so if there's no other further discussion, I believe a roll call is in order.

Changula.

Yes.

Reynolds, yes, Rodriguez.

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

So, mayor, if it's possible, I'd appreciate taking the lead and then allow other counselors to follow uh with their hot topics.

Mayor and uh counselor, may I just interject a little bit?

There's a little bit of as you and counselors prepare proposed changes.

We need to track those because we're gonna have to come back and give the approval of the budget numbers with those changes in them.

So as you approve and settle on something, I don't know the mechanism if it requires an action item to make that change, or you just tell it and then we vote for it.

I'm not sure of that legal process, but mechanically, we'll have Diana here tracking the changes you approve as council, adjusting the budgets on the fly.

Then we get to the approval, we will give you the total of the budget for that fund with the adjustment in it.

But I don't know if there's any other legal need to do uh an action item for a change in the budget that we haven't yet approved, so I don't know that mechanism.

I think uh initially it's uh to give you uh the feedback or input uh as to the changes for as the actual adoption.

Um I I see each issue can be kind of the council could say yay or nay on them, and we know that's gonna change, and then the formality of of adopting the budget subject to the changes that have been discussed.

Right uh can happen that way with the motions.

Right.

So I just wanted that that because that's what mechanically we will do.

I would suggest, however, if you get to an issue that is too complex to resolve in this because there are issues that may not be present before us that we uh find a way to approve it and then let finance come back in the next couple weeks and do the uh necessary accounting moves to make it to fulfill the council's wishes.

So we'll have to if we come up with something that's that's complex, it may be broader than just this meeting to adopt, but we'll do our best to accommodate that as we go.

Okay, well we'll move that direction.

Diana, do you have your speed fingers on?

Okay, all right.

So again, the purpose is is because I believe council members have uh certain items that are uh um near and dear because I do, and so to get those out on the table, uh I'll start and then potentially mayor.

We we just move on and move move down the line.

Move and and get those issues known.

We won't go into the details immediately, but then we'd come back and go ahead and talk about them and know where where we're gonna stand on those.

Um, and then we'll work out uh the details to meet so that that's the approach.

Okay, hot topics uh VRT.

For me, uh there's a couple of things there is whether we take the choice of VRT, it was uh roughly in that 489 uh and leave uh funding to VRT.

I'm personally more of a 400 number or none.

And uh so I wanted to put my thoughts out there.

The county animal shelter, there's been discussion this year about uh uh what are we doing with that?

That Kenyon County, Caldwell, and NAMPA were going to split one third, one third, one third.

Uh the last time I talked to uh Captain Scoglin, uh it seemed that was ambiguous as to what was happening with the county, and uh so whether we're gonna have an agreement there or not, I don't think uh NAPA should put in any more than 300 towards uh the animal shelter issue.

Uh so I'm gonna be hard and fast in that in that realm, and how we're gonna work that out with the other entities or whether we uh figure out a new program on that issue.

That's what I see as one item.

Library, uh we had discussion during the uh discussions this spring.

Uh I was uh surprised at how our library staff is not uh tracking residents who live outside of the city who participate with the library and we're not charging.

And I feel like uh at this point, based on that, based on uh having the uh task of looking at payables every week, uh, which I did not.

I relied on uh former leadership uh to go through those.

I'm somewhat aghast at what we spend uh city taxpayer money on, and so from my side, uh I think the budget could be uh held to 2025, and uh I don't think there's a need for increase there.

Um potentially we could even uh decrease the amount of non-city users uh on that issue as well.

So I think uh council doesn't have direct management of the library, but this is where we do have uh responsibility is the budget side, and I'm concerned on that issue.

Uh I've talked briefly with Doug and uh mayor and chief of staff a little bit.

I think uh with the deferred maintenance uh issues that the city is facing that we've been talking about.

I think there's gonna be a need for a joint uh task force to handle those uh deferred maintenance.

Public works is willing.

Public works is tasked with a great deal of other projects and issues.

Therefore, if council is able to set aside funds to begin tackling these long uh deferred maintenance issues, uh I think we need to set up that a new uh uh task force or department.

Uh it wouldn't be a long-term department, it would be something that we would see uh one to five years and uh uh be very focused project-wise and what needs to get fixed.

Uh so I think uh if there's money savings that we hold back out of the budget and we put towards those issues and these deferred maintenance, why then we also look towards how we organize.

I think also we need to reorganize the facilities group.

Let me pause pause if I may uh council president.

So on your task force, is that uh an outside hire or is that internal representatives?

It it's gonna take yet uh some exploratory with legal.

There's some ideas that are uh undecided at this point.

Undecided on how that's gonna get physically organized to to meet the uh requirements.

Um but if we can put together there's some ideas there, I won't go into the details, but uh allow the the typical maintenance public works stuff to go, but uh start zeroing in on some of the deferred.

I think uh we need to have the uh facilities group.

We have such a uh deferred maintenance in our funding when we saw that report and got that report, and I'm appreciative to the uh facilities group for hiring uh uh the the group that came in.

I think uh councilman Reynolds worked on that, and uh it really shows how we do not take care, we we minimally take care of our facilities, our assets, etc.

And for me, being in the business that I've been in, and I've I've managed uh well over a million square feet, and uh I've early on had the task of having buildings maintained and taken care of, and I know what happens when you don't.

And uh when the recession of the early 80s hit, it really impacted maintaining buildings, and you saw the uh the results of that.

I believe to the need is to take care of our assets, and uh so whether the legislature ties our hands as it has or whatever, we have to figure out how to take care of those buildings.

Um so there's the underground side, and then there's the actual building side, and I think we got to split it apart.

I think we need a facilities group who maintains buildings and so forth, but they don't build buildings.

We set up a different means of how we build buildings, and so I'm pitching that to uh council.

I also think uh we have to look at uh hiring freeze out of Jen Gov.

I think uh we need to uh look at uh our hires need to be uh from enterprise fund, and I think we gotta increase the water fund for sure, and possibly the others uh to take care of uh the style.

Life changed.

We don't manage the systems like uh as I'm learning uh as years passed, and consequently it takes the requirement of having personnel who paid uh a wage that uh can oversee uh water renewal and the water side of things, and therefore we need to look hard at how we're funding and getting those enterprise funds moving forward.

I also think uh police uh has a great deal of uh overhead, yet it uh is working diff uh diligently to provide for this city, and the budget request is uh is high.

Um, and I think uh we're gonna have to potentially deal with an override uh this fall or no later than next May.

Um I am a proponent for taking foregone.

I know that uh rubs against possibly a couple of council members, but uh at the same time uh the legislature's dealt us the hand that we currently have, and uh there's two point roughly 2.2 million, I think, remaining in foregone.

And uh that's not a great deal of money in the overall scheme and the overall taxation.

I think we need to take that and keep the base uh up because of the storms that lie ahead.

So those are my comments on the hot button issues without getting into details of all the departments gone through that.

I've met with uh finance, ask questions, etc.

Mayor, thank you for the time.

Thank you, thank you, uh Council President.

So uh I I believe uh Councilwoman Scott, you're gonna be next.

Do you want to title this something different than the hot button or is that good with you?

Well, I just want to um yeah, I uh so I have I do have a couple of thoughts um as well.

I agree with uh the um most of the issues that um that I was called you representative councilman bills um brought up um I also would like us to um pull out of association of Idaho Cities.

Um I attended their conference this year, and um I was surprised at you know there it's a great um it's great for small cities.

NAMP is no longer a small city, and most of what uh available does not apply to our city, and I feel like that money could be put into a more lucrative spot on our budget, and um so I would like to pull out of that.

Um I would also uh recommend that we cut our um our funds for VRT uh completely.

Um I believe that other entities will step up, and um I don't think that us throwing money at that anymore is appropriate.

Um I visited with uh gentlemen that was there when a VRT was put into practice.

It was supposed to be for two years as a trial, and um we have not seen a lot of production from there, and I don't believe that it is the city's um job to make sure people have uh rights to where they're going, especially when we're looking at the deficits that we have that um, especially the deferred maintenance and so forth.

Um I believe that um uh most of what uh re uh councilman bills brought up.

I am in I have on my list as well, so thank you.

Okay, thank you very much, uh Councilwoman.

Councilwoman Jangler.

I'm good with the things that have been pulled off.

I think that there will be time for us to discuss um as we go through them, so I don't have anything to add at this time.

Okay.

All right, count Councilman Reynolds.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um of mine are are like um councilman Bills um library.

There's a couple of line items in there that uh I have questions about.

Um then um facilities and construction is something we need to discuss.

And uh and then the police, we need to talk about that at length.

Um my viewpoint probably differs from some, but uh I feel like uh we have a problem there we need to fix.

Thank you, Councilman Rodriguez.

Thank you, sir.

First of all, um the VRT.

That's concerning this this year is a year of priority for me.

And so I'd like to hear the other councilman regarding the VRT.

Uh also another priority is police.

And we just lost four who applied for an IPPD out of twelve because another agency could pay them more.

That's inappropriate.

That's understanding that's not I understand them for doing that, but I think we need to bulk up our our uh our officers and pay and salaries.

Uh the other thing is um I'm not sure about the library.

I'd like to take a good look at that since I'm a liaison.

There are reports that I have yet to see regarding the the county uh library cardholders and the direction of what the library has gone and has been going for the last three, four years.

I have addressed this issue with uh our uh Clay Long and see whether we can uh go further with it and determine the better direction.

So it's not the employees, ladies and gentlemen.

It's the it's the community is supportive of of that.

The other thing is is facilities group.

Um initially uh when talking to David Bills about this, uh I think it uh project managers need to be uh assessed and need to be brought forward for fiction and well thought of projects.

I like that idea.

However, to fund it is a is another situation here.

Animals the animal shelter is another issue, and uh we've got many controversies going back and forth on on who should take and who how we fund it, but uh uh unfortunately we're we're at uh a point where we need to do something and and uh and get off the stake here.

Um the Idaho Cities Association, I I concur with Councilman Skog.

Another one that I would like to reduce the amount is COMPAS, and that charges what 60,000 or so for the city of NAMPA.

The other thing is another hot topic, but I think it needs to be later for discussion for Doug is insurance and insurance rates.

So there you go, sir.

That's mine.

Okay, you're the finale, Councilman Griffin.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you to all the members of the departments that are here today.

Uh and if there is a loan person from the community, I appreciate you coming and attending as well.

Uh this is as Councilman Reynolds had stated a very important day uh because we're setting the priorities of the city and showing the direction for our constituents of what we believe should and are priorities in the city.

Was that intended 2025 or 2026?

Thank you for the clarification.

On my mind was 2025, uh reality it would be staying at 2026.

Okay.

And then the question is is whether a further reduction from the 2026 uh to match uh the offset of what county folks should be paying.

So thank you.

So of the with that included, I had uh six issues that are Gengov funded, because my intention and my goal is uh deferred maintenance as well, and establishing that whether it be a hot shot crew or a fund to be able to commit ongoing dollars to the work that needs to be done there, VRT, the library, AIC, uh $75,000 legislative research intern, uh economic incentive fund, and a few dollars from the council budget that I think need to get the cobwebs blown off of it and allocated in a place where they'll be utilized.

That's it for me.

And those total in an amount of $843,805 if those are allocated and how I foresee them to be allocated.

Any other council uh people who need any uh further explanation from uh councilman Griffin on those?

Mayor, if I could make one mention, I apologize.

I should have brought this up.

I start it.

It's for discussion for later on, but I believe that after going through the analysis of the budget and comparing uh dollars that we have to appropriate from our gen gov budget to offset this budget, that it might be worth the funds, although expensive, to get a full fiscal impact study of new growth in NAPA.

I know there are a number of different firms, and and Doug even uh gets to cut his lawn next to one of the great members of Clearwater that could do this analysis for us somewhere in the ballpark of 80,000 dollars.

It's not cheap, but I think if we need to be making if we need to be making informed decisions when it comes to growth and approving these projects, and right now we're shooting into the dark.

I could say 900 is what it's costing taxpayers, but we don't really know unless that full fiscal impact is done.

So uh it might be something to discuss and appropriate this year to get done.

Thank you, Councilman.

No further comments or discussion as far as these hot button issues.

Okay, so I believe we're ready for you, Doug, as far as your how you want to present at this point in time.

So let me just go back and verify exactly what council would like to hear, so we're not wasting anyone's time.

It's all valuable uh collectively.

There's a lot of uh time we're we're putting together here this morning.

Uh you've identified the hot button topics.

Um would council like to resolve those now before we get to the departments and address them one at a time what we've listed, or would council like to go to the departments and resolve them within the departments?

Uh mayor.

Yes, Council President.

From my side, it seems like uh if we address the hot topics, uh we would roll or carte blanc pass the remaining budget and not have to go through uh department by department.

Keep in mind, I'm not suggesting we go by department by department, but by fund.

There are about 18 funds.

So and the rat the rationale there is we can list those funds and approve them in totality unless you want motions for each 18 items.

My preference would be a motion for each of the items just because we have all of each fund is different and deserves a little uh the the recognition in the public that we're looking at those from that perspective.

We know what we've done internally, we've done a tremendous amount of reviews with you and internally.

We know we've done that.

I don't know that everybody, anybody online has that to get depth of concept, but still I'll follow the council's guidelines here.

Um my problem with doing it as one lump sum is I'm gonna have Diana doing a lot of math over here and then adding it up.

The potential for a mistake is greater the more manual math I have her do.

And if I have her make adjustments and then add up each fund as possible, we could get to the end and have the wrong total value.

Um she's very good.

Don't don't get me wrong, but we're putting her on the spot, and you're doing manual calculations on the spot.

But we're putting her on the spot and you're doing manual calculations on the spot, there is a potential for error there, and that's where I say I would rather go by fund for the 18.

I think you go through those in less than an hour and be done with all of those in less than an hour.

I am that's just my my preference.

Okay.

Uh James, is there I mean, is there anyone listening online?

Public.

Okay, but well, no, I I realize that.

But do we do we do have a number of folks?

I guess what what my what my concern is is that if anyone uh who has not read through these 580 some pages or the summary uh may need just a little bit of a brief summary from our uh chief financial officer or whoever Chris or whoever wants to present that.

So council, is that uh you feel like that's necessary or not?

Mayor.

Yes.

Doug, how long would it take each budget if we were to give it its appropriate amount of time, would it take each of the 18 budgets?

I I'm leaning more towards councilman bills.

Well, I'm keeping mind I'm not saying we go through each budget, we just approve the totality total of the budget, not that we review each individual budget in depth.

We've already done that.

So we're not going to summarize what the budget is or anything like that.

You're gonna put up a dollar amount and then we'll say this amount to be approved.

Yes.

And that's just mechanical, so I have less room for error and adding things up manually.

I'm not proposing we go into depth because you're hitting the big issue items up front.

We adjust for them, we give you a new number.

This is the budget, we're done.

You can do that by some and substantially shorten the meeting time instead of getting at it seven to eight, you might be out by lunch.

Okay.

Thank you.

So uh go ahead, Council President.

You're just your opinion on I just want to make sure the public is uh totally uh part of this, and whatever knowledge you get.

You have studied this hours and hours and hours.

Right.

And I'm sure that some of these directors have too, but if the public does need a short uh summary anyway, your opinion.

Well, the public will have opportunity at the public hearing to weigh in on the budget itself and after today's session.

Uh and so it it may even be simpler for the public once we get through today.

Okay.

Um I think uh from my side, if we can, if you're okay, then Doug, I'd rather see us tackle these hot topics and uh weigh in on those.

Let's get those done and go from there.

And and then from there we would just go through and uh because as as you just do the motions as counselor, as you approve prove a change.

This is what I'd like to say.

If you have a streets change or a general gov change, we can accumulate that and make the change.

And at the end, if you want to talk about the capital or anything else, we can say, okay, this is what we've got, and try and present that here.

The challenge is once we set the the budget levels today.

This is one of what why I want to be very careful.

We cannot go up from here at this point.

We can go down, but whatever you set today becomes our ceiling for this budgetary approval that I submit to Canyon County in the first part of September.

The only way to change it after that would be through amendment in FY27.

Yeah.

Let me just do one addenda.

Yes, go ahead, Councilman Reynolds.

I don't see why we can't go through it by budget by uh budget number for um for budget and then pull out these items that we've discussed as we go through it to keep it in order.

And uh and then we know that there's an item, and if there's no items in that budget, then we approve that budget.

And you go on, and we decide if if there is something we're gonna pull, we leave that dollar amount as a placeholder or not.

There's good rationale for that because all we're doing is continuing on a budget we started in 26.

We have made very minimal changes by design, chief of staff and myself, uh, and eventually with support of Mayor Brunner, we held things very, very consistent.

No new programs, no new anything because we wanted full mayoral involvement in that.

So we could we can go through this quickly at the with that approach.

Okay, and I'm when I like decisions made quickly.

So if there's a motion one way or the other, let's make the motion and let's see or see how all the council feels on this.

Yes.

Mr.

Mayor, I make a motion to uh go through the budget as I just to talk discussed with Doug.

Um motion on the table.

Is there a second?

Mayor, just a clarification before a second.

Are we able to change our process after this motion?

If we get four budget buckets deep and we're realizing it's taking 40 minutes per budget, can we say we're just I I you certainly could.

I don't think it would take 40 minutes per budget.

I'm hoping it's more like five.

Okay.

Question.

Yes.

Council Rodriguez.

Didn't we already have a motion on how to proceed?

Why are we doing it?

I I don't think we had a motion as far as any action as far as vote on it.

It's the action item though that we need to determine how what action items are.

I've heard two two different I've heard two different proposals.

So I want us to land.

Are you okay, Doug?

Yeah, just for the sake of the record, you made a motion initially to sort of change the order of the agenda to take up hot button issues first.

You're now through that.

So the the change you approved has occurred and now you're back onto the regular agenda.

The new motion is to sort of change the structure again moving forward uh to go, as I understand it, fund by fund uh or budget by budget.

I'm not sure which which term is appropriate there.

Um, and then to address the hot button issues as you go.

The one question that I might ask Douglas any of the hot button issues cross over funds, or are they all isolated in the single fund?

VRT crosses over funds, but we can address that individually with the values adjusted by Diana.

Okay, all right, thanks.

So so what I'm hearing is uh the motion that was made by Council and Reynolds is appropriate, and we're we're waiting on a second.

Correct.

Okay, thanks.

Okay.

And uh Mr.

Mayor, if I can make a comment.

Um I feel like it's uh still simplistic that way uh to go through it, it just keeps us in order.

Um, but I think we can roll through it pretty fast.

Okay.

Any other further discussion?

Mayor, if I can I originally like David Bill's is motion simply because we get rid of the hot button issues, they're able to amend the the budgets accordingly, and then we take it.

I think it's a hybrid of both hot button, and then we can go through each of the 18 buckets with the newly allocated amounts.

I think that would be more appropriate than rather originating back to each department and pulling out as we go.

So are you requesting an amendment to the motion?

I would.

Councilman Reynolds.

Mr.

Mayor, I I disagree with that.

I I think that from finances standpoint, they're sitting there and we're and we're pulling seven or eight different issues all over this budget book, and they're going through trying to pull them out.

Something's gonna get missed.

If we're gonna end up with numbers all over the place, we're not even gonna know what's going on.

So why can't we go through a little bit of a every circumstance where I have operated mayor and council when you rapidly rush something through with manual entries, you will make a mistake and then we will pay for it later.

Um it's just Diana's very good.

We're very good.

We can probably get through without a mistake, but if we do get a mistake, we're stuck with it.

Okay, any further discussion, otherwise, we're gonna call real discussion discussion.

First finance, which motion would you prefer without getting myself in trouble with mayor, um, because I support what you're trying to do here is I would like to move rapidly through this, but by fund instead of by department.

We've done a little bit of both in the past.

I think we can move through it very quickly, but we also need to give Diana time to make the adjustments.

Let's say you go through VRT and you say you VRT, while you're going on to the next item, Diana can make those adjustments in VRT where we need to then we go on to AIC or whatever, she can make those adjustments, and then we get back, she'll have numbers by fund for us to approve.

And you can go through that rapidly.

We don't need to discuss the fund budget.

We just need to approve the total dollar value of the fund budget.

I d I dislike going through doing it all at once because it has to be done manually, and the possibility for error is greater.

Okay, I think I'm Councilman Reynolds would align more with what it is that would be helpful for you.

Thank you.

Okay, Councilman President, did you want to make further comment?

It's I I see it as sixes, and so uh let's just move forward.

Okay, so let's go ahead and do real call, please.

Cog.

Yes.

Yes, Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Angula, yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Okay, this may be my last input, but uh I'm back to the hot button if you just for a minute, and uh because I did not hear it uh recognized.

Uh and that's the uh 400,000 for the civic center for seats.

That's in the in the in the budget.

That was in the capital budget and has been so we have to we get to do that later.

No.

No, we've done the capital budget already.

Oh, that's right.

Okay, so that's already been approved.

That won't be yeah, it won't be talked about today.

Okay, I'm just gonna make then one comment, good, bad, or otherwise.

Uh thank you for the clarification.

Uh we have an auditorium district that our that our voters voted on and passed at that point in time.

Uh the voters were not aware of the uh conveyance of the Ford Idaho Center.

Just my opinion, and I'm not speaking for anyone else on this council or any, but I I just really feel like with the funds that are available currently with the auditorium district, which my understanding is is over $700,000 balance currently, and I realize they have offered 250,000 for those seats.

But uh anyway, I'm just not in favor of the city putting out money for those seats when we have an auditorium district, and in my opinion, their priority should be the civic center until it's totally brought up to where it should be from a deferred maintenance standpoint before any monies are presented or given to the Ford Idaho Center since the city no longer owns the Ford Idaho Center.

So okay, that's my little spill for the day.

Thank you.

So, Mayor, I'd like to rather than revisit it, go on department by department, like to make a motion that in those uh departments where it's listed as personal personnel equipment line item, and it shows up in every almost every department budget.

Uh that we reduce that amount, those line items throughout every department to the 2025 dollar.

Or personnel equipment, line item, personnel equipment that's in every department's budget.

Okay, so you want to take every department and move them back to 2026 for all personnel costs.

You don't want any cola involved.

This is buying shoes, shirts, oh that okay got personal equipment.

Who knows what it is other than I see it on the payables report and candidly got it.

Uh I realize there's a need, but I also see some excess from my perspective.

So the only way to know if it's really excess or what reality is is change the numbers.

And I know that sounds maybe some heavy-handedness and not trusting everybody to spin, but candidly, uh I've seen some pretty weird things on the payables report that I hadn't been exposed to until January being put in this position.

So consequently, uh I'm making a motion across the so rather than bring this up, every department now that we're going through by department, personnel equipment needs to go back to 2025.

Does that include the police department?

Yes.

And if police wants to remake an issue out of it and ask for the dollars, they can specifically go through that issue.

Okay.

But to start off with, yes.

Okay.

So I I support the motion.

I cannot give you that value today that seems to be a good thing.

But I mean, if we're approving a budget, I can't give you the quantitative change to that budget for that impact today.

That's gonna have to come back.

That's fine.

Okay, there's been a motion.

Do we have a second?

Well, to confirm, Mayor, if I could.

If we can't allocate that dollar amount, can we finish the budget process today?

Yes, yes, you can.

We've done this in the past.

Uh, three or four years ago, we had an issue when councilman Darrell or Mayor Darrell was on the council with uh travel.

Uh the council thought it was too high.

We could not, it was too complex.

We adjusted it after the fact we came back like a month later, did a full review and adjusted it down for every department.

The budget total stayed up, but we took the amount out of that line item for the department suspend.

So effectively we pulled it out.

Okay, is council all right and recognizing Captain Scovin?

I see he's standing, so I that's an indication to me that he wants to speak.

Okay, and I'll second the motion, Mayor.

Okay, second, and we'll have discussion and starting with the captain.

Uh mayor and counsel, thank you for uh listening to me for this briefly.

Um so personnel equipment also includes new officer equipment, so I just wanted to make sure you were aware of that.

So if you go back to a 2025 line, it may or may not um cover because of inflation of the costs to report.

Uh well, we build in new equipment for new officers, um, and also uh new equipment for the replacement of officers throughout the year.

So that would be my only comment.

Thank you.

Okay, we're in the discussion period, mayor.

Yes.

Um, I can't uh support this motion the way it is without a full analysis of um what it is, and and I understand from looking at payables in the past, Councilman Bill's uh that there was some questions on some things, but there again, as we go through by department, I think that's where it's really important that we look at those things line items so we have an analysis of it and say why are they spending so much on boots and gloves?

Um, versus you know, each the departments are are very different, so the needs are different.

Uh so I can't support uh this the way the motion is.

Okay, we're still in discussion.

I see chief of staff long would like to present.

Thank you, Mayor.

Council, um, just for context, uh similar to what the captain spoke as well as uh councilman Reynolds.

If we go back to a specific date, any staff that has been added won't have the appropriate attire.

Um, and when we talk about this, it's much larger than a a shirt or a uniform.

I mean, we've got folks that based on the environment that they're in, uh, whether we look at wastewater, whether we look at streets out on the chip seal stuff.

I mean, they're easily going through their um their their aligned uh resources, and I if if there's questions or specifics on those on a policy front that we want to address that puts more boundaries or more constraints from that level, I would encourage we go that direction as opposed to cutting it out of the budget and not being able to to provide our staff with the equipment that's needed for them to do their job effectively.

Okay, thank you.

We we do have a second, any further discussion.

Mayor Bruner.

Yes.

I would uh I can't support the motion as is.

What I'd like to do is get a uh a number of what we're looking at uh out of a 390 million dollar budget.

I don't think clothing and equipment is gonna cost more than who knows.

And so, but I will tell you that the police needs to have equipment, period.

And also uh the other employees.

I yeah, I I I just can't I don't understand the concept yet.

So I'm not gonna support the budget.

Motion's been made.

Is there any interest in amending your motion or are we ready to move?

Just let's vote.

Let's move on.

Let's go.

Roll call, please.

It's okay to vote.

No, yeah.

Gog.

No.

Ingula.

Reynolds.

No.

Rodriguez.

No.

Griffin.

No.

Bills.

Yes.

One in favor, five opposed.

Motion fails.

The mayor.

We'll move.

Yes, uh the councilwoman Jenkins.

I don't know if I'm the only ADHD person in this room, and if you can tell by my binder, I need structure in order for my brain to work.

So can we go just through the executive summary so that we can everybody be on the same page as far as the hard numbers, where we are, the public is in the same.

We're all understanding the same things together and then move forward budget by budget.

If you want to make a motion to that effect, and the council agrees.

That's my motion.

Okay.

Second.

I hear a second discussion.

Okay, roll call.

Cog.

Bills.

No.

Rodriguez.

I don't know.

I'm confused now.

I guess I'll go with you, Natalie.

Yes.

Well, we're here all day.

No.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Ingula, yes.

Four in favor to oppose motion carries.

Okay.

Uh our CFO race scene.

Do you understand what the what what we're now the request is?

Because I don't think that's all right.

I do, and I can go through it very quickly.

Councilman Bills, I will do my very best.

I don't want to be here all day either.

I truly don't.

So I'm trying to get my uh screen to line up with what's on.

It's it's really super slow when catching up when we get it aligned here.

Because we don't need to go through the entirety of my executive.

The first part we've already discussed.

I'd like to get down to the budget summary review uh part two, uh, which starts with budget summary review as shown up on the screen.

Now let me make that a little larger so it's legible for everybody, and I will go through this very quickly.

Um, what page in our budget book are we on?

This is on the summary.

I hand I put it on your desk.

Um each of you have a copy of it on your desk and put it on there this morning.

This is just uh an external review to extract out of the budget.

This is probably about page three.

Budget summary review at the very top of the page.

Is this something you uh what what's your time uh estimate on this?

Doug?

10 minutes.

Okay.

Please please proceed.

So the budget for clarity's sake, the budget for 2020 7 before council changes is 293 million 3,238 dollars.

That's down if you adjust for pulling out the Ford Idaho Center.

That's a decrease of 5.8 million dollars.

Their net labor benefits increase to 3.4 million dollars in FY26, the increase was 6.6 million dollars.

Councilman Bill's proposal for a uh FTE hold, that's practically in place here.

The only FTE increases are seven, and uh four of those are for the police, and three are outside General Gov.

So we we effectively have that in in play.

The net operation decreased by three million dollars, and local to small details, prior year it was 4.5 capital decreased by 12.2 million, and the prior year it decreased by 4.2 sourcing successive years and decrease, and I want to address that.

The capital needs are increasing.

Our capacity to accomplish them is the challenge.

That's what David Bills has referred to.

So the reason we're decreasing them is to try and decrease them so we can accomplish what we budget.

If we can increase our capacity, we can increase the dollar budget and spend the money that is critically needed.

The labor and benefits review, seven new FTEs is mentioned.

This is down substantially.

In FY26, it was 25.

In FY25, it was 30.

So big decreases.

4% Cola, and I'll get to that in just a minute.

The at the very end of this.

Over time is down 0.5 million.

Percy is virtually flat, 0.2 million.

Healthcare is a is an impact, $1 million up.

This is a statewide, nationwide, citywide problem that we're all going to have to deal with.

And our increase is less than other cities by the because of how we're managing it.

Contractual services up 1.7.

The uh other costs, let's see.

Sewer lines up 0.5 million, that's sewer line repairs, electricity is up 0.5 million, irrigation assessment is up 0.4 million, and that's coming from outside the city into us.

Uh and IT software health rose up 0.4 million.

Those are all increases that we're kind of stuck with.

They weren't by department, they are system-wide cost increases.

The revenues for the city were up $2.8 million from new construction annexation and the 3%.

We have, as mentioned, foregone of $2,168,006.

1% of foregone, if used would be $472,000.

That would be a cost per taxable $100,000 or $2.83, or for a $450,000 home after the homeowner's exemption, the taxable value would be $12.74.

Other revenues for the city.

The state shared revenues and sales tax are up $553,000 to $11.9.

State shared liquor sales taxes are down $110,000, primarily due to legislation to pull money away from that to fund ISP.

This is the challenge that will the city will have to work with on the water, the water renewal and irrigation, they're 2.89.

That's essentially CPI.

That's treading water.

That does not meet any of our needs for additional infrastructure support.

The 3.5 for sanitation is by contract.

That contract ends in 2028, so next year we'll have to start negotiating that one.

And that's up $2.5 million.

The total city funding is $293 million.

That's down $17 million.

$11 million of that is from decreases from the Ford Idaho Center.

And other decreases will be from services revenues we pulled down and grants loans and donations and transfers.

So the bottom line is to very quickly, I'd like to call the council attention that the personnel services are for a that's labor benefits, health care $86.6 million.

Um and the operations cost are $70 million, 69.4 with capital at $105, which has already been approved.

Debt service 9.4 is primarily for the DEQ loan for the water renewal, and that leaves us to the $293 million budget.

That is the extent of my review.

I think I did that maybe in five minutes.

So and that's all I this is how I would like to proceed.

We've already addressed these issues.

I would like, if council agrees to continue to uh on to the special projects that they bought hot topics, identify them, solve them, we can track them and then go down to the section section in part two where we show the government general government fund, the special revenue funds, the private venues, and the nonprofit, and just do those one at a time.

And we only dig into them if council asks for us to dig into an issue.

We just move on the we pick out the total cost and we move down.

Um the one item to kick that off would be the action item for the city's um 4% cola request.

That's $2.1 million.

That's a little bit higher than we did last year, but I'd like to show you a little bit of information.

Um there's reasons for this.

These are our terminations for the last several years.

Uh in 2023, 24, 25, and 26, not even complete.

We've been averaging over 120 uh separations per year.

The cause is what's striking.

If you go down to this table, this graph, this pie chart below.

This big sort of rust section is better opportunity.

So nearly 45% of the people leaving the city are leaving for better opportunities outside the city, which is primarily a pay issue.

I know that most of our staff are paid less than other departments.

I think we've got the best staffing in the state overall, but that's the reason for the 4.1%.

And that's probably the only action item uh on this.

This is the only action item on here.

If council wants to approve that, we we can.

I move to approve the 4.1% increase on colour.

4.0.

4.0 or 4.1?

4.0 at 2.1 million dollars total.

As Doug has stated into the microphone.

Second.

Then a motion and second.

Any discussion?

I turn it on.

No discussion roll call, please.

Gog, yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Okay, so we're ready to move on.

It looks like the general fund council discussion.

Well, do you do you want to do the VRT and these things up front and get them done now?

You've identified them.

We'll move uh that that's fine.

Yeah.

So I th I I thought I was under the end though.

We're under the from the motion of Councilman Reynolds.

So we're going department by department.

Department and then discussing those cultural issues was my understanding.

Then we when we talk in general.

Concur with that.

Okay.

Mayor, if we're able, can you you know the topics that we highlighted?

Yeah.

I can bounce back and forth in between budgets.

I have them allocated by page numbers, so might not necessarily.

There was the uh AIC request and the uh VRT request.

And those are the only two specific topics.

I believe, Lizzie, you've got that list there.

I I believe legislative research and economic incentive is also within the case.

Oh, the economics, they are in the as well as council and compass.

Compass was as well as council, as well as some of the council line items as well.

Oh, okay.

Sure.

Okay.

So my understanding by uh council and reynolds motion then that we are as president of council stated that we are going and then dealing with these issues through through every every department.

Is that okay?

I kind of uh thought that it was a hybrid.

Where we approved the VRT, the AIC, all those issues, we deducted them, and then we adjusted the budget totals, and then we did the moment.

I thought we were gonna do the hot topic items up front and then give Diana time to adjust the budgets and then we approve the dollar value.

So councilman Reynolds is that okay?

Are you in agreement with that?

Mr.

Mayor, uh so Doug, you would uh identify what four issues or something that you want to have approved of for the well the the the issues that counsel and all of you counselors have brought up and identify those as hot topic items, give us your choice on them to fund or not to fund.

Diana removes them from the budget.

She tiles it as we go through.

You go on to VRT while you're going on the next item, she makes a tally, and then by the time you get through with all of them, then we can go down each budgetary fund and give you a new total that's not in your books that that reflects your changes and we approve those totals as you request it.

So if that if one of those issues is in general fund, if that's your first budget, then let's go there and pull it out and identify it and and uh talk about it.

We we can mayor, counselor, we will move rapidly whichever whichever path you want to go down.

That's fine.

Question for clarification for Doug.

Based off of your screen, it's clear that you've prepared for the hot topic items to be discussed right now.

I think in the beginning we got confused because we were trying to accommodate you and the staff.

Yeah.

Is your staff prepared to take on the hot topic buttons right now based off of what you just stated?

Please forgive me if I didn't make that clear.

I want to address the hot topic items and then go through by fund.

Mayor, I make a motion that we follow the procedure that Doug and his staff are prepared for, as stated on the screen, where part one, we discuss the hot topic items, allow Diana to then use her fast fingers to be able to go through speed fingers, and go through and second.

Thank you.

Okay.

That's all I need.

And I think we just need speed verbiage also.

So speed verbiage.

Okay, we have a second.

No further discussion.

Roll call, please.

Gog, yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Okay, so we're from this screen, which I can actually see without my glasses, which is great.

So we're gonna move on.

The first uh hot topic uh subject is VRT.

Um just for clarification, the VRT budget, what's in there right now, so you all know exactly.

The VRT has 474,000 dollars in general government, I believe 402,000 rounded in streets.

Um as per Mark's email last night, the on-demand fixed route service is $490,000.

Mark's speak to that.

I think that was the threshold required to keep the grant funding they'd offered us below that.

We don't we may not keep it.

So $496 or $498.

$498.

Thank you.

Mark, Mark, and Mark or Elaine, can you confirm that please?

Yes.

Can we have Mark come up?

Yes.

Um Mayor City Council Mark Stoyer, Senior Director of Development Services.

So I'll just break down the three different options that uh BRT has provided us.

As you might remember, they started with 862.

That was for two fixed routes and one on-demand route uh based on city council feedback, they reduced one of the one of the fixed routes, the the express route 40 to to Boise and came in with one local fixed route and on-demand service, and uh a new and improved on-demand service, and they're coming in at 498, 522 for that service.

If they just go with on demand with no fixed route, the number comes in at 302, 521.

However, we will lose the federal grant funding for our pedestrian 16th Avenue project.

And the reason for that is that there has to be a nexus for that federal grant money, which are simply put, bus stops, and if you take the fixed route out, there will be no bus stop.

So that on-demand service comes in at 302.

If we just bar, quick question on that.

Uh so if this council denies the 498-522, this project is it high priority for the city then to to do that ASAP or where where are we at status-wise priority-wise on this project?

Yes, my understanding is that we are the environmental uh phase at this point.

Uh, I'll turn it over to Crystal to ask what uh on the question on priority.

And the other other question is my uh I think I have uh an understanding that there's already some dollars from the city that's already put into this design project and what those what that dollar amount is.

Mayor, city council for the record, Crystal Craig, Director of Transportation.

So to date on this project, the city has spent $34,169.71 cents in design.

Um we have also uh designed part of this as our raise grant, which was a zero match grant.

So some of the design is in there.

Mark is correct because currently in the environmental stages, we need environmental approval before moving forward with final design and construction.

The grant total was for $701,747.

The VRT portion of that was $561,419.

The city match was $140,325.

If the grant stopped right now, we would still we would not be eligible for any of the reimbursement of that $34 that we've already spent, um, which about 80% is eligible for reimbursement, but we would still have a shelf-ready design that we could pursue other funding for construction.

And that would be your that would be you what your desire is is to move ahead.

We pass the environmental and onward.

I mean, it would other projects would not then be put in front of this if the grant is not approved.

That is correct.

If the grant stopped right now, um we have a scoring matrix, we would have a design priority for this, and we would pursue other funding mechanisms for it.

City then would go ahead and pay for it.

Okay, yes.

Crystal, could you mayor if I could?

Yes.

Can you explain to me why this project is a priority and why it wouldn't be a priority over other capital projects or deferred maintenance projects?

Mayor Councilman Griffin, um, a few years ago the city adopted a scoring matrix to rank all of the unimproved crossings that we have across the city, so we're not just picking and choosing one versus another.

The ranking mechanisms are are based on distance um to schools, parks, the distance of a pedestrian has to travel, speed of the road, um, number of crashes or accidents at those locations.

Um this specific crossing does not um score in our top 10 to 15 ranks.

So while it is still a needed crossing because of the proximity to the bus stops and the park right there, um it would likely not be prioritized in our uh year over year for the next few years.

Okay, so to clarify the question that so that's not a priority.

So it's not a priority this year.

Uh it is not listed in our top 10, is what I'm gonna say.

Okay, yeah, I just to clarify what Mayor Bruner had stated.

I was under the impression that this was a priority and it would continue.

It won't continue because it's not a priority.

It will not continue with city funding this year.

However, um, when we have projects like this that are shelf ready designs, they're very eligible for grants.

So it would be continue to be a priority for grant funding.

For grant funding, thank you.

Yes.

Crystal, can I get a clarity on that total grant fund?

I had 862,000.

This is no 561 was the grant funding from VRT.

862 was for fiscal year 2026 for the two fixed routes and on demand service.

So the grant is 561,000.

That is correct.

Thank you.

And the total cost did I hear was over 700,000 for this project?

Okay.

The total cost for this project was 701,747.

Thanks.

Okay.

Any further questions for these two?

Okay.

Well move we'll move on then as far as uh so are we ready, uh Madam Clerk, for uh for further discussion or a motion for the for VRT.

I'm I'm ready for a motion.

So go ahead.

On demand uh service there at 302.

Um demand service with fixed route without fixed route 42.

Is that essentially a lift or Uber style?

Mark?

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

Uh we first have a question for Mr.

Stirr, and then you're on.

I was just gonna say we have Elaine in the room if you want to.

I know she's in the room.

I didn't want to break protocol staff here if he wants to defer to Elaine, then the the answer to that question, uh Councilmember Bills is uh rather simple.

This is going to be a new on uh this new on-demand service will be new and improved, and it'll be a hybrid between using microtransit, small vans and vehicles along with the Lyft and Uber option if certain rights can't be met, they will then use Lyfter Uber, and the person uh the user will have it an opportunity to go that route also as well.

So it's a hybrid service of both so we could go down to the 302 and have that service.

That is correct.

And so our total outlay is the 302 for this ensuing budget year, yes.

Mayor.

That that may be a transition, a means of transitioning versus doing nothing.

Yes.

If Elaine would like to say further uh provide further information, she is here.

So Elaine, and just say uh your name and title, please.

Sure.

Elaine Clegg, uh CEO of Valley Regional Transit.

Thank you for allowing me uh to be here today.

Uh certainly you could, you know, it's your choice.

It's your budget, you could make the choice to go just to on demand.

Um of the things that would be lost is uh 17,000 rides that are provided on the fixed route.

I sent you a document last night that shows that the majority of the riders on on demand also ride fixed route.

They rely on both to be able to get around.

Um very few people today rely only on the on-demand.

What that tells us is if you did go this route, uh it's likely that the people who are riding the fixed route today would also try to put more rides on the on-demand, and their likely wouldn't be enough service to to fill the demand that we've seen growing over the last three or four years in the app of four rides.

So, yes, it is uh it is something, but it would not fulfill the demand that we're seeing, if that makes sense.

Councilwoman Jangla, did you have a question for Director Clegg or something else?

I don't.

I've I've spoken with Elaine on this.

I've got everything, I've got all my numbers ready to go.

Okay, so you have no other further comments.

I don't have questions.

Okay, so do we have a motion?

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I make a motion uh on demand without fixed route 42, 302,521.

Is there a second hearing no second?

Is there a go ahead?

Yes.

After speaking with Elaine and uh just breaking down the numbers on my own, that 498,522 that gives us the on-demand and the 42.

And that would allow us to keep the grant of the 561,000.

And um since the city's already met the 20 percent match of that 34,000, then there's no other dollars that the cities need gonna need to prepare or provide for that.

So we still get to keep that grant.

We still provide the services, so I would like to make a motion for the 498,522.

Just clarification from Christo, I thought there again, 701,000.

So there would be some subsidizing by the city, correct?

Yes.

Uh Mayor Crystal Craig, Director of Transportation, you are correct.

So the total grant of 701,000, the city match of that was 140,325.

Okay.

14 140, 325.

Yeah, I'm I'm sorry, my math's not that great.

Is that include the 34,000 already spent?

So we have spent 34,169.

And that's included in the 140 or is that beyond?

Uh it's included in.

Okay.

Our total match should be 140.

Total.

Okay.

Thank you for the clarity.

Thanks.

Mayor.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

So I uh Councilman Griffin, I heard his voice first, I believe.

So we'll start there and then we'll go move to Councilman Reynolds.

Well, if he's in the second, there's no you have a second.

Okay.

Second emotion.

And then um second emotion from uh from Natalie.

Okay.

NADLE and then uh I'll come back with my comments.

All right.

Discussion.

Thank you for the protocol.

The difficulty that I'm having, and I've had a couple different conversations with Director Clegg, um, has been consistent that we're chasing grant dollars for as we heard today for a project that is not even a priority in the top 10 for the city right now.

And uh there's a token phrase is the juice worth the squeeze to have us pay 140,000 dollars.

I actually am almost in the the thought process of if we do approve the 498,000, why would we spend 140,000 city dollars on a project that is not in the top 10?

So maybe even scrap once again I just go round and round.

When we had introduced the discussion previously this year on uh curb to curve discussion with Uber that ultimately didn't come to fruition, but we have the opportunity to see something similar to that with this as well as the fixed route.

My common complaint has been the fixed routes.

So that's where I'm having a hard time stomaching uh as the numbers had showed, 300 unique individuals, maybe adding up to 17,000 rides, but 300 unique individuals is difficult.

So the reason I didn't second it is because I wanted to be able to express some of my thoughts initially, but maybe the third option is is the transition period, and maybe that's the route that we should be going is the on-demand without the fixed route at the 302,000.

I should have stayed this when there was a motion uh at hand, but we're still we're still there.

We still have a vote opportunity.

I uh for the sake of discussion with Director Clegg, I think it's worth there it's individuals that use the on-demand do use the fixed route.

Uh there are groups after attending the meeting that I've even been frustrated with the on-demand system, but Director Clegg had stated to me that that is getting scrapped and reformatted and reworked to be able to utilize more pro public-private partnerships.

So if there are some council members that might want to zero out, I think the on-demand might be worth the discussion for this year at the 302, but maybe the fixed route is important.

I just to chase the grant dollars is where I'm having a problem.

Okay.

The dollars, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

Mayor.

Did the council reynolds, did you have something further?

I do.

And then we'll move.

So my concern is uh more over than the grant is that uh we have community partners.

I've spoken about this before that invest heavily into VRT.

St.

Luke's and St.

Alves being the two main players.

Um I was looking at some of the numbers yesterday of what St.

Luke's dumps into our community.

Uh they are over a billion dollar enterprise that uh is feeding into our community.

I think last year they gave around 35 million dollars uh that they poured back into the community.

And um, so I they are a big partner in this, and it takes everybody collectively to make it work.

And uh the private uh enterprises that have been feeding this um are feeling like we need to step up and and fund our part as well.

I know we have in the past, but uh I don't want to lose that fixed route uh that we have either.

That's for NAMPA specifically, and um the I think we need those rides, so that's where I'm at with it over the grant funding.

Councilmore.

Mayor, thank you.

Um I just want to make it clear I'm not chasing federal dollars.

I'm just when I look at it and I think of the investment made, the service provided in the dollar amount.

What's the best bang for the buck?

To me, that makes the most sense.

Um and then when we're talking about getting rid of the on-demand, the 42.

Uh we all live in different areas of the city.

I live right by CWI.

I see more ridership probably than anybody here.

I don't it I know it's not a ton in what we we all would love to see, but I do see a lot more people riding the bus and standing on Gardy at those bus stops there.

So and we do know hard numbers that there are 17,000 rides that are provided by that service.

So um to me, it doesn't make sense to get rid of the on-demand.

Um I I know it's it's a hard one to to juggle, but I still think that the the on-demand and the um funding the 42 is also something we need to do.

Mayor council, one very quick comment for clarity.

The capital portion that that crystal mentioned, that is currently in the FY27 capital budget.

So if you vote against this, that would free up the monies, and if you vote for it, it's already built in for the capital match.

Thanks for that clarification.

So we have a we have a motion and a second, and uh I want to confirm that that's for the on-demand service at fixed route 42.

Is that what your motion is?

Yes, it is.

Okay.

Uh hopefully not in no further discussion.

We'll do roll call.

Okay.

Scog, no.

Bills.

No.

Rodriguez.

No.

Griffin.

No.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Gingula.

Yes.

Okay, open for a new motion.

Make a motion for on demand without the fixed route 42.

So that's for the 302,521, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

We have a motion.

Second.

Any further discussion on this, or have we heard everything?

Okay, roll call, please.

Scog.

No.

No.

Reynolds.

No.

Rodriguez.

No.

Griffin.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Motion fails.

Okay, we're ready for uh triple digits here.

Third motion.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

I make a motion that we completely cut funding for BRT.

Motion heard.

Second.

Second.

Have a second.

No.

Let's just go to roll call if you're okay with that, please.

Jingula.

No.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

No.

Griffin.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Gog.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Four to two.

Four to two.

Okay.

Okay.

So everyone have an understanding.

Oh, that was okay.

We'll move on.

Thank you, uh Elaine.

Brian, thank thank thank you.

Okay.

We are now going on to uh general fund, I believe.

Oh no, we're not.

We're going under our next hold.

Well, we would clarification before we go on these hot button.

You had five listed.

There are more.

There are many more.

Are we adding when you when you want to go through all these?

This is we'll go through everyone the council has it.

And you have a list.

But do you have a listing of all these?

We have a listing of everyone you mentioned this morning.

So I think the best course would be to go through the okay.

So what what I'm gonna ask you, Doug, what what's the next one you would like to uh let's let's go through the easy ones we can get out of AIC.

AIC.

Okay, real quick, Mayor, if I could just for clarification, Doug, the 874,000 that was appropriated previously for VRT.

How do we designate those funds and where to specifically, or does it all just look back?

Question.

Um recommendation is since you have in this case you're impacting both streets and the general government fund.

We take those dollars that are freed up, put them into um we can create a bucket.

Councilman Bills and I talked a little bit about this this morning.

Uh create a bucket for them for use if you if you wish to designate it for infrastructure deferred maintenance uh issues to be addressed by council at a later time.

I would like to retain the budget authority as a lump sum, and then let council decide decide how that gets spent later on.

Could you keep a running total of these amounts for us so we can at least at the end say okay, this is what we have to allocate, whether it be for police, whether it be for infrastructure for maintenance.

Uh just so I'm having a running number.

I'm Diana's speed fingers or fast fingers, whatever mayor has said is working it as well.

I just want to be sure that we have the tolls to be able to appropriate later on.

Right.

Thank you.

Okay, so the Doug Doug has proposed that do we uh AIC are we ready for a motion on that?

What's the exact value on that, Leslie?

50,124.

Mayor moved or removed the 50,124 dollars.

We need a repeat repeat for the clerk, please.

50,124 dollars is allocated for the association of Idaho Cities.

Oh second.

Okay, we have a motion, a second, any discussion, please.

I just second.

Yeah, you seconded.

I'm just saying if we had a di any any discussion, we did lose one council person.

And that is for clarification, that is to remove it.

Yes.

Okay.

And so roll call, please.

Gog, yes.

Yes.

Phil's.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Okay.

Next hot button issue.

I would suggest we go to the econom as Councilman Sebastian called the economic incentive budget that we have in general government.

Uh we have 150,000 even budgeted there.

We have uh to my knowledge, maybe use that once in six, seven years.

It's available as council wants it, but we rarely, if ever, use it.

And so at the end of each year, that value drops to fund balance.

Mayor, if I could make a comment just regarding a couple of these issues, I understand having uh numbers allocated for the day that they are needed.

However, given the present moment of needing funds available for actual projects that need to be completed, we should blow off the cobwebs and allocate dollars elsewhere.

This is one of them, and I'd love to hear from Robin uh on this.

The same with the legislative research and the same with council.

Not that I'm targeting one or the other.

I just want to hear are if they haven't been used in seven years, maybe it's time to appropriate.

Director uh sellers, uh, you're on uh Mayor Counselors.

Uh the economic incentive has been used a couple different times since I've been the director um in the last five years, six years.

Um we've used it intermittently as we are competitive in recruiting.

Um and so we've used it for a couple different companies over the years.

It's been at the mayor's discretion.

Um when Mayor Kling was here, we've moved it.

Uh it was going to get used in my budget, um, underneath the 12900 in economic development, um, but it stayed with the mayor's discretion.

Um, it is used when we're looking at things like, all right, how can we help incentivize just that uh extra push?

Um, we used it with the Stowe Company.

We also used it with um JTS uh critical mission group.

Um and so it has been utilized a couple of different times, um, often to the tunes of like fifty thousand dollars.

Um it helps maybe with some fees or things like that to help push that over.

So that's how it's been used in the past.

What's the most that's ever been used in a fiscal year?

Um about a hundred grand.

I think we did about a hundred grand was in what year?

Twenty three.

Yeah, so I'm gonna ask you because you're getting blindsided somewhat.

What would be an appropriate amount amount given the fact that we're trying to allocate dollars to current needs?

What would be an appropriate amount to leave in that for your use?

And what can we pull out to fund elsewhere?

Yeah, um, the reason uh one of the reasons it wasn't getting utilized is I had no idea it existed.

And so because it's in the mayor's budget, and so that was part of the issue.

So I should be clear on that.

And so then when I realized it was there, I was like, oh, we have a tool from the city.

So oftentimes we don't have a city tool, right?

There's not anything that can help like push us over.

Like if we're competing against Caldwell, I can be like, hey, you know, we can offset permitting fees by 80,000.

In fact, we're working on a project right now that that tool would be really helpful.

So a hundred grand is probably about right.

Is it something that could potentially come back given the amount in our general fund balance of tune of 28 some odd million that you come to us and say, can I get a one-time appropriation for this project?

Absolutely.

Rather than leaving it in the kitty and not touching it.

So would that offend you?

Nope, doesn't offend me.

Then Mayor, I make a motion that we strike the 150,000 dollar incentive fund to allocate elsewhere.

And Robin, I hope you come back when needed for those additional funds because I'll be the first to support you on the economic activity, just leaving it set in a pot.

Yep.

Thank you.

We hear a second.

Second.

Let me ask Robin, did you recall on in 2023 what that incentive was used for?

Who who who it uh yeah?

Uh we used it for JTS for critical mission group to offset fees.

Um and just curious, do you recall who we were competing with or was there a company?

Caldwell Cawell, so we felt like that was the originally in Caldwell and then they expanded in NAMPA.

Okay.

Well, I'm glad that's not hidden anymore from you.

Okay.

Yes.

I I do have a question and maybe probably for Doug.

Um I I don't agree with this direction, by the way.

Sorry, Trump.

Okay.

Sebastian.

It's because I I have been with Robin maybe once every two weeks for the last six months.

I know what she's doing.

This is a fine tool for her to use, and I don't want to interfere with that because right now if she's working on some major projects, that's going to help our community in turn will give us a lot more tax base.

And I don't want to mess with that.

So my question is for Doug.

When Robin, if this passes and Robin wants funds, what would be the process?

I'm glad you asked that.

I was going to make a comment anyway.

In the general government budget, we have a contingency that we've had every year, and it's about $900,000.

We save it for issues that we're not aware of.

We have a lawsuit, we have a major unexpected expense.

I would propose that if you move this value to zero, that when and if Robin comes back for the money, we pull that from the contingency, and all it would need would be council approval, not an amendment.

And that way it's one-time monies, so it just hits that year's budget and it comes back to us the next year.

Okay.

Right.

Okay.

I'm okay with that.

Thank you.

So uh I'm sorry, one more question.

I'm sorry.

So 150,000, if it goes away.

So she could actually, you could actually ask for 500,000 if you see if you so desire, with this count if Doug and discounts are approved.

But that's but that's not the cap is I mean that's that's up to her what she feels like her rec the recommended need is.

Okay, thanks.

Okay, we have we have a motion and a second.

Is that correct?

Okay, let's go ahead and do roll call.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

No.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Gog.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Five in favor, one opposed, motion carries.

Fourth uh hot button issue, Doug.

Okay.

Um the next one, I think we had, I think there was an additional one, Councilman uh Scriffin in general government on the legislative research intern at 75,000 dollars.

75 is it 75,000 or 7500?

75,000.

75,000.

Okay.

Um and that's in 1320?

Page 115.

Okay.

So that one we have reserved.

We we designate it as an intern.

Uh this has been around since actually the first time we used this fund was primarily when Rick was the chief of staff way back when we were looking for choosing between hiring it, uh a letish legislative research uh intern, or we decided to leverage him more, and he put very effective at that.

Um and we kept that there for those use in times when we needed to interact with the state legislature and have a fund to pull from to support that, but it has been used intermittently, but it has been used.

My my thoughts uh is with us uh removing um well I went blank, so I see thank you.

Okay.

Uh that I think it would be well for us to leave a line item where we've got some funds to do uh some outside consultant help type of deal.

So I think Clay can be a good thing.

Chief Chief of Staff, do you have something to add to that, please?

I think Mayor Council, that was gonna be my exact comment.

Thanks.

And in my discussion with uh Doug Racine that the I similarly stated the same thing.

If we're getting rid of AIC, maybe it will get tapped used.

We've also used that line for strategic planning initiatives as approved by mayor and council when they would come up.

So if you needed something strategic, let's say it was the eighty thousand dollars give or take for clear water to do a city analysis.

It could be used for that purpose as well.

So if you left it in, you have the capacity to approve that as a counsel for a spend and not have it become an amendment.

Yeah, thank you.

Can we move to a motion or not?

Yeah, just one comment.

Well, it's in.

We don't it's still in the 75,000.

So we don't have to do approve it, and we can do that with the uh when we do the department.

If you did a motion, it would be to approve it.

If you do no motion, it stays in.

Part of the discussion previously working as an intern at a lobbyist firm.

I think 75,000 is intended as an actual salaried employee.

If the intent is to hire outside support or a lobbying group, I think we would only need half the amount.

However, I'm not dying on this hill.

I just am bringing some perspective.

At the male might have some room to cut to add elsewhere.

I think I think for where we have uncertainty going forward on certain directions.

I I I would leave this alone and give it the ability to help assist us as we go forward.

I would probably suggest changing the name to strategic planning uh cost rather than correct.

I think I think that would be good.

So to make this clear, do we need a motion to uh okay?

We'll move ahead then.

Next next uh hot button issue.

Uh councilman, did you have any uh uh other items?

Oh, COMPASS.

Well COMPASS was by Debbie Scott, but I didn't know if Councilman Griffin had any more.

The the council budget, I just I don't know when or if it's ever been used.

We have conferences, travel, right?

Mileage reimbursements.

I once again just blown off Cobweb's.

I know exactly Mayor Bruner's feeling on that.

Um we have budgeted don't don't need it, don't budget for it, don't spend it.

You're not getting certified or something else to just watch it online or get it later.

That's exactly so um spend the hotel room.

This was uh uh from a prior um mayorship that wanted to have that at capacity, it's up to the council.

If you're not gonna spend it, why budget it?

And that's part of the discussion.

If we're attacking other budgets, I would like to in good faith look at our own budget.

And part of that, when you add up the amounts, it's small, but seventy-five hundred dollars is still taxpayer money that we could be utilizing towards deferred maintenance or police.

Do you want mileage also included?

Absolutely.

So if you're driving for behalf of the city to the state legislature and back on a frequent basis, you're good covering that cost yourself.

We get paid $18,000 a year to do it.

Okay, all right.

Just make sure we're clear.

Mayor, I move that we remove $7500.

That that's removing $7,500.

$7,500 from the council budget.

From the council budget, yes.

Thank you, Leslie.

I'll say it that okay.

We have a motion and a second.

Let's move to roll call.

Scog.

Yeah.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

No.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

I'm in favor, one opposed, motion carries.

Okay, we're ready for our next hot button.

Well, I love that title, hot button.

Okay.

Do I believe that was all of councilman griffin's issues?

I know we had COMPASS as an item on there.

Um, uh Councilman Rodriguez, I believe.

If I could, Mayor.

Yes.

Um I know we have several uh representatives on on COMPASS.

And I actually I don't know the new new dollar amount that we're paying to be a members of COMPASS.

Would you let us let me know first about that?

I think uh Councilman Reynolds is on that still.

I'd like him to continue that, but I don't want to touch that at all.

50,000?

It's the same page as the what we just discussed as far as the legislative research deal.

We have $55,912 budgeted for COMPASS membership costs.

And how many does that include?

I mean, that's two people, right?

I do not we have one in an alternative with just one.

Is that the same thing?

I think we need to hear from transportation.

Okay.

Thank you, Crystal.

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

So we have um three wait, three members that sit on the COMPASS board as well as voting member membership, three memberships in the um RTAC, which is the regional transportation advisory committee committee to put it in perspective.

So this year, $55,912 is what our membership fees are.

Since 2019, we have paid $390,000 and well $39098 in membership fees.

Um we have received since uh as of 2026, 30 million four hundred and thirty-one thousand dollars in federal grants um administered through COMPASS and by FY30 we're slated that number to increase to 45 million four hundred and forty-nine thousand.

I'll remove my request.

For RY.

Thank you.

That's pretty good budget.

Uh Crystal, can you lobby the legislature also?

Just add added a little duty, okay?

Crystal.

I think next uh while we're still in the general government venue, we should visit the um animal control issue and debate that uh topic.

We currently have well last year we had budgeted 400 in 26, we had budgeted current year, 483,000.

The FY27 budget is a budget right now of $350,000 based on the one-third, one third, one third concept that Clay has talked about, where we each between us Caldwell and Canyon County share the cost equally.

I don't know more detail about it than that, but I would open the clarification.

I thought I heard earlier that that uh and the captain's coming up here, so he can he can, but I thought I heard earlier that those that one third, one third, one third was not confirmed.

That was just what has been proposed.

Can you clarify that, please?

Uh yes, Mayor and Council um uh Captain Eric Scopeland, Nampo Police Department.

Um, I'll just give you about a 90-second quick update on status of animals and relationships with the shelter and uh conversations with other agencies.

So um and the shelter has provided me some data at my request.

Uh we've been tracking the for the last three months, and the shelter has been helping with this tracking animals that are coming in from different jurisdictions, call it well, NAMPA, and then outside of those two entities uh in the Kenny County area.

Um the numbers fluctuate from month to month.

I have uh indicated to them that it seems that Caldwell is the highest user of the shelter.

Um that that flipped on me this month.

Um as I say that our numbers go up.

So the uh we had um a couple of cases that that we we took over 50 Shih Tzu dogs to the shelter uh a week or two ago and like 30 chickens uh on a case.

So our numbers spiked uh this month.

If we're tracking over the last three months, um Kenyon County is the highest user in total over the last three months.

Us and Caldwell are about the same, but we're slightly ahead of them at the moment.

It varies from month to month.

That's the challenge with um trying to come up with a mechanism for for charging.

So at a couple of different meetings, I proposed to uh to the Kenny County Commissioners and the mayor of Caldwell was present.

Uh a just a simple flat three-way split.

Uh we all have a vested interest in the shelter, we all want to see it succeed.

We all get the best bang for the buck out of it if we are all partners in it, um, rather than any individual entity trying to go out on their own and do it alone.

So uh there might be some other benefits to that, but cost-wise, I think this is the best bang for the I have you heard directly from the commissioners because uh I mean I'm not gonna say names, but at least there's two commissioners have informed me that they're uh and one new one coming in in January that they're not interested in uh in benefiting the shelter at this point.

So I would say uh uh mayor uh that I haven't I haven't had a firm commitment uh from anybody directly to me that that that was an agreement.

Uh Chick-fil-A doesn't take the chickens, huh?

I don't I don't think we uh to me that saves they they don't euthanize at our shelter, so they're gonna keep those chickens for the life of the chicken.

And then Chick-fil-A can have them.

So mayor and counsel, I will say one of the challenges we've had over the past year as a police department is filling uh an open animal control position.

Uh we haven't found the right employee on a couple different tries to get that position filled, but I think hopefully um we have it open right now, taking applications.

I hopefully we'll do that.

Leanne, our current animal control officer, has been with us about a year and a half.

She's doing an amazing job.

Um I think those chickens were only at the shelter for about 24 hours, and somebody came to pick them up that we probably would coordinate it.

So that was the outcome with chickens.

First thing that's got adopted in a long time.

Okay.

So council.

So might I add one other thing?

So the um that I forgot.

Uh the the shelter uh gave a little bit of data to the commissioners uh in an open meeting.

Uh the request that the shelter had, um their ask essentially whatever each entity provided last year for funding, um, they increased it by about five percent.

We we were, I believe 482 or 483,000, so they asked their request to us was 504 to 505,000 dollars uh for this year.

If we were to split that the total ask went from, I believe 993,000 that was provided in total by all the municipalities in the county.

Um that total ask went up to um 1,040,000.

Uh so about a 50,000, 45,000 increase in their ask.

That that ask is based on a three percent cola for their staff.

Uh they're having difficulty filling a vacant veterinary veterinarian position.

Um, so that's a challenge for them.

So financially they're trying to fund that.

Uh their costs for veterinary supplies have increased.

Um they gave a a broad outlay.

Uh if we were to split that cost evenly three ways, it's just under three hundred and fifty thousand dollars per each entity.

What do we currently have within the budget allocated?

Uh this is not uh an item in my budget, so we only have three hundred and fifty thousand for animal services in the budget.

So it is allocated to the amount that's being recommended.

Okay.

Okay, do we have a motion?

Council.

I'll make a motion to approve, Mayor.

We have a second I'm hearing no second.

Yes.

Yes, sir.

I'll second that.

Okay, we do have a second.

Comment I I believe we should amend that the 350 allocated is subject to the county and the city of Caldwell participating at least 350 each.

And at any point one drops out, we should no longer uh be the one to carry the freight, so to speak.

Okay, I I agree with you, Mr.

Bills.

Uh I just worry about us drop them dropping the ball on us being held.

And then we already do with our animals.

So councilman Rodriguez Regus, do you want to amend your motion?

Yeah, I yes, I'll I'll amend it.

Hopefully, get a second on that.

With the with the understanding it depends on the other two entities whether they participate in it in a in a like fashion.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

I'll second that.

Okay, we have a motion and a second uh roll call, please.

Yes.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

God, yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Mayor?

Yes.

In the spirit of that vote, I just want to say that we just funded an animal shelter when we did not fund elderly people's ability to get to their appointments.

Mayor, I'd like to comment on that.

It's very manipulative to use the phrase that elderly people are not going to get to their appointments.

And I feel that it's strong arming and unfair to say that's what the council's intent was.

There are rights to wellness, there is beyond access, that is federally funded.

There are other funding mechanisms.

I can appreciate the passion for the budget process, but please do not disparage council's intent by saying that we're stopping elderly people from attending their appointments.

It's not true.

It's manipulative, and I don't think that's fair to say and disparage the council that way.

Let me just uh point out in meeting with St.

Luke's and St.

Al's and so on.

Of course, they wanted uh VRT to uh assistance, but they they do, I mean to me they do a demand on demand service for people needing to get the doctor's appointments, and they have no intention, at least from verbal verbal standpoint, of uh of changing changing that policy.

So there if someone is being left out, uh they need to be educated and made aware.

Well then I think mayor, maybe we need to change our mission statement that we're not a city where people can live work playing worship.

Once again, Mayor, I feel that that is manipulative and unfair to say when we are fighting every dollar in this budget for infrastructure, because the proper role of government, in my opinion, and we can chat discuss this, is making sure that water gets to faucets, toilets flush, and police can access houses by utilizing roadways.

If the hospitals want to make sure their patients who pay them show up to their appointment, I'm sure they'll find a way.

Thank you.

Okay, uh thirty thirty seconds.

We're ready to go.

Thirty more seconds.

No one should be lacking the food or shelter or can we try to replace it?

Can we just play it?

You get to vote now.

Okay, I think uh we have a quorum at least, so we're gonna go ahead and get started again, please.

And we're ready, uh Doug, when you're ready for the next, I believe there's just two more hot button issues, isn't my understanding.

We have three.

Oh, three, okay, they're growing.

I just okay uh if we can have everyone's attention, uh, and we're ready to start.

Doug, please.

Okay.

So the next issue uh councilman Bills brought up was the uh not necessarily a it may it may not have a budgetary impact, but has a procedural impact on the concept of a hiring freeze.

Uh I don't know to the extent uh mayor or councilman bills proposes that be.

Right now we have seven FTEs built in for the current budget for those are for police, and three were for CPI or the CIPP.

CIPP.

So um we're pretty flat this year.

I didn't know if you wanted to bring that for discussion more on details of what you're looking for, Kelar.

So council president, hiring freeze.

So here's part of the difficulty, and and uh Chief, you'll have to uh cut me off if if what's it not appropriate or legal uh from the standpoint.

I mean uh here's here's the candor.

We budget for personnel.

We're not able to hire the personnel, and then the money gets used in some other fashion.

Then we get accused of of uh misdealing.

It wasn't the word used, but it it's what it was communicating to me, that we budget to hire certain people, and then we don't hire, and then we use those funds elsewhere, and so others feel like well, it's being played to hire personnel, but ultimately we're gonna use funds another direction.

So all I want to do is know if we're going to uh budget for hiring under these tight times that we've got it specifically understood what we're going for, what we need, etc.

The second part is is had conversation with chief of staff that uh, you know, there's certain positions within our city that uh require certain certification, so whether it's at water renewal, whether it's at police department, uh, different things, and then you have more of a generalized employment.

And uh so what we're finding out is or what I'm learning is that uh because of our policy, because of our large size, we got to try to keep uh parity amongst all.

And there's times when you got to be able to pay somebody higher more because of the particular position that it requires and/or the certifications or lack of people who are available, supply and demand candidly.

And yet it seems like sometimes we get our hands tied.

So I've heard both of I've heard these things, and so I'm I'm just looking at from the standpoint uh if we need to hire somebody, fine.

But the budget for it, unless we know specifically where we're headed, uh it's easier to do a budget amendment when you need somebody and found the right person than it is for us to budget and say, oh, yeah, we got that in, and then we don't use it, we turn around and spend the money somewhere else.

That's it's a valid valid point.

So the the general approach uh is over the last six, seven, eight years is to tighten that down because we when I started here, we had a lot of vacancies and a lot of rehirings, rebudgeting, rehirings, and never really quite filling the vacancy position.

The intent is never to budget for one position and spend it somewhere else.

If, however, there is a vacancy that doesn't go filled and there is budgetary authority, uh the departments can come back to finance and the preferably they would start with chief of staff first and say, is the concept agreeable with the chief of staff and the mayor?

And then after that, if they agree upon it, then they can come back to finance to actually have the money to do that.

Um we can allow them to reallocate a portion of that.

And if it's over $50,000, it definitely comes back to the the council for approval and anything like that.

Um but I agree with you, it's not not the appropriate position to hire and then reallocate those funds, and that's never been the intent in our process, but it has happened when we've not filled a position.

So part of that is what we're what we're talking about here, is because I'll be blunt.

Sometimes the wages we offer are sufficient to retain employees, and then we end up with budgeting too low, we don't fill the position, and then we keep struggling to fill a position that's budgeted too low, and then we end up with unmet needs.

So it's a larger discussion than just here, but I I think we have a fairly good control on not allowing money to be automatically diverted from one purpose to the other.

That being said, our budget authority is focused on the department total, not the department line item.

Mayor.

Yes.

Uh well, I I just real quick.

I can appreciate what you just said, but having experienced the comments, that's not how it's perceived.

Understood.

So it's not that, oh, that's the total budget.

It was that was for four people into this department, and now we didn't get those four people, and so then the money is going elsewhere, uh, it came across defensive, so consequently, uh we we've got to deal with it from a budget, I think, or know how to how to respond.

So let me let me move this way uh since Captain Scovlin is up.

You're speaking for the chief, I uh I assume.

Yes.

Okay, and then uh we'll go go to you, uh Councilman uh Griffin, and then we'll go to chief of staff, and then if there's any other department head that wants to speak for 60 seconds, I'm okay with that.

Okay, go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh and counsel to uh Captain Eric Scoblin.

Uh so to add some context to what Councilman Bills was saying, um some of those comments came from uh President Tyler Gray from the uh NPPA during uh an open meeting on um on the the contract with employees uh and he had referenced essentially that uh there's a there's a each year there's typically a surplus of unspent funds due to open positions that were unfilled throughout the year with uh 230 employees at the police department, there's always a few open positions, so we're always in the in the context of trying to fill those.

So that's why that surplus occurs.

Uh I've had recent conversations uh with finance, um uh Mr.

Racine, and also with uh Preston.

Uh I think he's still online, but um so I I bounced this off of him as well.

So what we have done in the past uh that we're modifying moving forward to try and maximize those dollars that are dedicated to personnel.

Uh in the past, what we have done is try to fill up to the allocated positions that council has provided to us.

We're flipping our thinking on that a little bit, going, well, we fund for a total number of employees uh based on our budget, but if we're open a certain number of positions, I can actually go above that as long as I don't go over the dollar value.

That was my question to legal is if I'm allocated this much money for this many positions, can actually fill more than that.

And his response, and he can clarify for me if he's online was that essentially it's a it's a cost-based budget.

As long as I don't exceed what was budgeted by the council, I I can hire as many employees as I want.

Not exactly that, but uh, but essentially I can hire more employees as long as I'm not exceeding that budget allocation based on a certain number of employees that we're budgeting.

Yeah, Mayor Council, generally speaking, the council's authority on this topic is the the dollars.

And so the particular number of people being hired would be uh a sort of daily operation administrative.

Yeah.

Okay.

So understanding that our attrition rate is a certain number of people over a certain number of months, roughly one person a month separates from the police department.

Um, I could hire three people over in October, then by the time my next academy hits, I'm gonna be three people under.

And so I'm gonna average out my dollars and and try to maximize it that way.

Being conservative, you know, not trying to overestimate that mark um is gonna be our approach.

It's gonna be challenging to get started because we have eight or nine open positions, police officer positions this year, and then any new positions on top of that are gonna be um a challenge to fill right off the start of October.

Uh, but throughout the year, that's how we're going to try to maximize that.

That will give us more, hopefully, more positions filled at throughout the year, and we'll see how that process works out.

It's not our intent to uh to save up dollars for projects that we are looking for.

However, surplus money has helped to fund things that have come up, you know, throughout the year.

Uh sometimes if uh we have a rec car and we need to replace it, we'll use those dollars.

Um there's just different things.

Uh I know the drones that we paid for were surplus dollars uh that partially funded those recently.

So those those are the items that the NPPA talks about.

It's not intentionally save dollars for those projects.

We don't we I don't deliberately go about um planning for those items that way.

But if there's dollars there and if we have projects like that, we have brought those back to council and asked if we could allocate those dollars for those things.

Okay, so I just want to I was because I was concerned with what you were saying there, but you it's brought back to council before those dollars are are spent in a different fashion.

Correct.

Okay.

If they've been designated for personnel, then okay, because I'm hearing that from other municipalities that they're uh doing some things that uh they're telling the public one thing and uh spending their dollars in another way.

So anyway, that's just a concern.

I mean, make sure NAP is does not get involved with that.

Our direction from finance is if we we have dollars budgeted for a certain purpose and we want to repurpose those dollars to something else, then they're we're directed to come back to council.

Do you have anything else before Councilman Griffin?

No, sir.

Okay, sir.

Just articulating the same things that David Bill has, because we both have served on the MPPA discussions previously last weekend, Captain Scoglen was there.

Uh this was a real real hot topic for him throughout the negotiation, and it was again a hot topic last Wednesday because they talk about how do we retain employees.

They appreciate the salary increases, they appreciate the insurance increases, but that doesn't retain employees per se.

It's not a retention effort.

So they had brought up the salary savings being an issue because there might be 600,000 one year, and they had articulated the argument that if there's six hundred thousand dollars in salary savings, that should be dispersed to the active employees that were there throughout the year because they're taking on the workload of who should have been hired but was not able to.

Uh interesting argument.

I'm not stating one way or the other, but it's something that if we do allocate salary dollars, uh, I think they bring up a fair point.

How do we articulate that salary savings uh is being used for anything other than salaries or the benefit of those that need to be salaried?

So just a little more perspective.

I I appreciate this.

I think it's a thoughtful creative way of uh budgeting.

I hope similar to mitigation fees, you got to keep your hands real tight on it to not go out of the bounds.

Uh but it sounds like you're doing that.

So I hope I'm hopeful that we get our hiring increased because it is tough having nine vacancies and requesting for additional.

Chief of staff, are you are we ready for okay?

Well, Clay, come on up, please.

Uh thank you, Mayor Council.

Two points.

Uh number one, on on the hiring and staffing for vacancy stuff.

I it's very intentional, I think, from all of our leadership team that we're utilizing the dollars as they've been appropriated.

Um, every time there's a vacancy, I think each leader and hiring manager re-looks at that position and make sure, A, is this what we need at the time, and is this the best use for that?

Is there modifications or changes?

Um, and then that working with their HR and business partner to identify that.

We recognize from a salary perspective, um, it's it's a tough market.

Uh we don't pay at the high end of anything.

Um we don't pay at the low end of everything.

So we're we're trying to play in the middle, but we need to be in the ballpark.

So there's a lot of issues that come with why we have vacancies.

Um, I think PD specifically, it it's um sometimes the ability to get folks in capacity-wise on training.

I think that's one of the reasons why they continue to work on the training division and and being able to do our own thing instead of being relying on other agencies.

I just wanted to make a comment on the NPPA discussion.

You know, one of the things when we do have salary savings um of finding ways to recognize those staff that are working more, it's it's also difficult to recognize those that are getting overtime for every hour that they're working beyond that expectation.

So, from those that are a salary perspective that are picking up additional work because of vacancies, um, it's a much uh easier conversation, I think, to hear and have.

Um we want to do everything we can to retain the folks we have, but trying to be able to have some consistency across the board to do that, I think is the best ideal for the city.

Very good.

Are there any uh department heads or directors that want to speak to this issue?

Okay, counselor, or do you want to make a motion on this or where are we at we can't get this?

Go ahead.

So I think there's always going to be salary savings across the if you call this city a corporation with this many employees, uh, there's gonna be empty uh holes in each budget.

Um we have what 800 and some employees and people who come and go.

Uh that's unfortunately the way it is.

Uh hopefully we can keep retention up there by having our salaries competitive.

But uh having the budgetary authority to have those positions in there, I think is important to leave it that way.

And uh that way, because there I I believe firmly that every director's intent is to have every position filled.

And so we need to give them that authority to do it and not have to go through a whole process.

I know from having to do a budget, uh it um is very difficult to say, oh, this is this is terrible.

I have to go back through this whole process to get one employee, and um where if they have that allocated already, um I think it's better to leave it that way.

Council President, you want come in?

Uh no, we'll just thank you for the discussion.

We won't pursue a motion on it.

So we'll move on to the next top button issue.

All right.

So the the next one would be the construction management topic uh brought up by President Bills as to should we uh set aside funds for the creation of a team to help foster uh a better development and budgeting and and realization of our capital projects.

So I see the need for the capital projects and uh the from the standpoint of uh the deferred maintenance, the old age uh of some of our infrastructure that we've seen the results of what happens when infrastructure blows apart.

And uh staff has been very forthright on the cost, and uh the cost can be upwards of three times what it is when you can pre-plan it uh because you're doing it under duress, you're doing it under uh extreme overtime, the one the crews working through the night, uh setting up lights, being able to see in the trench, get the work done.

Uh that's tough stuff.

We talk about uh you know, different folks in our city uh having tough, but uh if you're in the trench at night, water's coming in, groundwater is rising, and you're pumping and you're trying to get pipes in.

I've been in the trench, and I full well know it's tough.

And so for my side, that's why this whole infrastructure thing has become a pretty strong issue for me, and I feel like we need to set aside funds as we are doing.

I also believe that uh our current facilities group uh should focus on existing facility, existing buildings, uh et cetera.

Um, and it's in a certain way, whether we do it through the budget process or just through management, uh we're somewhat needing to re-org.

And so there's still going to be building projects that are going to come forward, but there's the underground side as well.

Those are two different uh lines of thinking.

I believe potentially, but I haven't had the opportunity yet to discuss with legal and and ask some questions of whether we can set aside more of a contract group to help us get the infrastructure problems changed out, and uh and not add more to the public works side.

Public works continues to do, but we look at uh a different approach.

Those things still got to be worked out.

Uh but so the point is for my side, uh what we called facilities, uh, should concentrate on what we own and take care of what we own.

Um the report that came out and was given, and council, I believe everybody was furnished uh a copy of that report.

It's it's uh very large shows the deficit in the major millions in taking care of our buildings and what need to be done.

Uh it's another reason why I look at foregun.

Uh it's an it's a tough issue, I understand, but we've got we got buildings that aren't being maintained, we've got uh uh assets that are depreciating rather than uh staying level.

So we've got uh we got to do something, so some way we've got to put a placeholder in this budget, don't know exactly how, or we have a discussion, we come back with a budget amendment once we know the legalities of putting together a team and the structure and what the dollar amount is going to be.

But I felt like it's it's necessary for us to identify it, know about it, and understand that it isn't business as before, because if we keep having the blow-ups in the middle of the night and having to put uh several hundred thousand to repairs, and when's the next one gonna happen, we're really in a firefight mode.

And I don't personally do well, my personality isn't set for firefight.

I like to pre-plan and think we should do projects in a timely and in a budgeted fashion.

So that's that's my comments on that issue, and whether we're able to do anything at the moment, it's it really just depends on what we're able to do legally once we get those answers far as how to set up a team to work on this type stuff, and secondly, is how to then budget that team.

So just mayor counsel, just for clarity.

In the facilities budget, we have added a hundred and sixty thousand dollar placeholder for increased staffing cost to this event.

That's that's the amount we have reserved thus far.

My recommendation is as Councilman Bill suggests, we plan this out and organize what we want.

What's the staff we need?

How do we want them to work?

What's the interaction between facilities?

Is it a separate organization entirely that resides on top to manage the process?

I think once we do that, then we can more appropriately determine the total cost, and I will bring funding options to you, but I think it needs just the concept is correct, but I think we need to just put a little effort into the discussion of exactly what that looks like in order to determine the cost and the funding sources.

I was just gonna point out quite the concept.

I know uh government usually doesn't function that way, but you're in favor of prevention rather than reaction.

Okay, all right.

Well, how about that?

I I've been in both, and and uh one's much easier to deal with than the other.

I know it just takes dollars.

That's uh that's the challenge.

But you're it also takes fortitude.

Yes, yeah.

And direct due diligence for we are cash fund cash balances are increasing because the projects are not being done, so we do need to address it.

Okay.

What I'm hearing here, there's really no motion necessary for this, just mainly discussion.

Is that uh I think so because we go to the council's opinion.

But Councilman Reynolds, did you have thoughts or uh yeah, Mr.

Um my thoughts are we leave the budgetary authority in place and then we come back together on this and talk about what our uh plan is for um with position control and chief of staff and we figure out exactly how we're gonna roll this out.

Um there's there's benefits to uh making sure we have the right people in the right seats, but um contracting it can be very expensive as well.

So uh I think that we need to definitely have a a meeting set aside for this and or a committee or maybe both.

We're gonna hear from director points.

Uh I I don't like just talking about things.

I personally set a timeline.

So uh you you you you speak to this, Tom, if not right, but I would like within the next 30 days in this group just decide which the group uh participants going to be and bring this discussion together, and let's not just keep talking about it, but let's set a date and time.

Okay, mayor counselor.

I I yeah, I want to thank the council for the support on the infrastructure.

I think this is great.

I I I do uh think we need a little time to talk about this and come back to you.

We were th thinking that this discussion about deferred maintenance and how to fund it and how to personnel it would come after the we'd go through this budget because we didn't put any of that in this budget, and we would come back in a workshop.

And so you're speaking the exact same things we were thinking.

I'm I'm good with putting a timeline on it.

Can you facilitate that, please?

Yes, we can.

And then the one thing I that I want to point out, that's why I came up here besides the thank you is that uh depending on how you staff this is how if this funding is gonna be long term or one time, and we don't really know that yet.

That's part of the discussion we need to have about levy overrides and different things and how that might what that might look like.

So we want to come back and talk holistically about all that because if it was just a one-time money, you could contract something out for a short term.

But if it's gonna be ongoing millions of dollars, we need to develop a team in how in house.

And public works does want to be part of it because of our processes that we already have in place that we can just use that that to help you know do council items, contracting.

We have a contracting group in place, and so we've got all the tools there, and this could be uh an arm of of that group.

And it's not my forte, but I would at least and whoever you want from your team, but uh Tom, this man right here and Clay, at least your three heads and whoever else is needed in Dell Councilman Reynolds, and four of you please.

Uh then when you facilitate that, at least have that those these four, including yourself involved and whoever else you feel like needs to be involved.

Sounds good, yes.

Mayor Bruner, Tom points.

Um along with that same line.

I would like to see our procurement director, uh, Rick Kennedy involved in this.

Yeah.

Since it would be involved in the are you okay with that, Rick?

Okay, yes.

No, it needs to I think you decide it needs to be from the city to city standpoint.

Okay, sounds good.

I do you get too many heads in one room to start with, and decisions are in my opinion, do are not made in a you know in an expedient fashion.

So but whoever needs to be a part of the integral part of this, and then grow it where the workshop or wherever you decide.

Okay, but uh but also I think the discussion is gonna include uh reorgan the facility site.

Okay, based on that report and so forth.

Yeah, we'll bring that in there too.

That's gonna involve other people and clay Clay's aware.

Okay, so all right, moving on next topic.

Thank you.

Thank you, this is the last topic I'm aware of.

Um, but it's likely to be a lively one.

That's the library.

Um there has been a proposal to pull the library spending back to 26 levels for clarity.

That's 193,000 would to propose to be pulled out of the FY27 budget from the library.

And of that uh increase a hundred and give or take, 120,000 is due strictly to the colour and health care cost increases.

Um the remainder is operational.

So that's the topic before council is uh the library budget mayor, yes.

Who brought it who brought up the hot point?

I don't recall a number of us multiple.

Okay.

Uh just to confirm Doug, because I was looking at page 311 where the fiscal impact amount was 187, but you said 193.

How's that calculated to be 193?

187.

Apparently, there was a translation difference between that ear, that voice of my ear.

Because that is what I had written down and have as well.

So 187 is all discussing.

Numbers about the breakout are essentially correct though between the labor and the opposite.

Thank you.

Uh Mayor Bruner.

Yes, uh Council.

I'm I think there's a couple of proposals out that the that the director and the board of trustees are conducting right now.

Increase uh for fees, and the second one would be for locating each Canyon County card holder to increase the fees or to lower the fee or lower the amounts.

So I think it might be a good idea just to hold on to this.

Uh not designated at this time, but hold on to it until we see the the actual numbers come through.

I'm okay with that.

Okay.

Jared, I see is here.

By the way, is it your birthday today?

It is my birthday today.

That's a great way to spend your birthday, right?

Very good.

We'll see if it's we'll say happy birthday, depending on what the council's decision is here.

Okay.

All right.

Um so the board of trustees did have a chance to review that.

They did agree to increase non-resident fees from our calculations from that.

We are expected to only bring in about $14,000 from that increase.

Um the expectation is because of the increase it's over five percent that we'll actually see a number of non-resident patrons not renew.

And so even though it's calculated that it would increase by 14,000, it is not expected to even reach that.

So we probably will see a decrease in our budget from non-resident fees just from that increase, and so we're not expecting that it will make much of a difference in adding to our budget.

Any further questions for our director?

So leaving the budget uh, excuse me, mayor.

So leaving the budget uh to 2026 levels, uh why is that an issue?

Are you asking why leaving the non-resident fees to the 2026?

Your budget.

Um not increasing the library budget.

What's the challenge there?

It just means the staff wouldn't get their increase like other departments and things like that.

I think that's the only increase we're seeing to budget.

It's the COLA is coming in and the insurance the operational increase outside labor and benefits is about $59,000.

So if you wanted to hold that, the the likely would be we would have to pass still retain the COLA and benefits increases and cut the remainder from other operational costs, probably below prior year.

Um that's one way to achieve it.

So the number of staff are you able to cut some of the quantity of staff?

So I I will say that in the valley, we are probably the third, if not at times the busiest library in the valley on items being requested, being pulled, getting ready ready for it.

Um if we were to cut staff, that would dramatically impact the timing in which we could provide that service to patrons who are making those requests, they would see a much longer delay.

Um and we just want to have the manpower to continue to maintain the service that we're currently giving.

There would have to be services that were definitely cut and no longer provided to the community.

And so how many full-time employees do you have?

Uh right now we're at uh 42.

42.

And 42 people wouldn't be able to continue the right now.

42 are containing the the level of service that we're maintaining.

But you're asking for additional people.

No, we're not okay.

My misunderstanding from the workshop prior.

I thought you were asking for additional people.

Excuse me, councilman Bells.

Yes.

Um, Mayor, Councilman Bells.

There's three.

You may clarify that you're what your position is with the I am Leslie Howard.

I am the budget manager.

Um right now for the library.

I am also the chairman of the board.

I just want to make sure people chairman on the board of the library, yes, sir.

Um you have 33.27 FTEs.

Which calculates about 42 staff members.

Mayor?

Yeah, yeah, we have a go ahead.

Then we'll have chief of staff, and then I do have a question after that, yes, sir.

Well, and I might be detouring a little bit, but uh just in the calculation, I'm not necessarily opposed to what David Bills had mentioned of holding to the FY26 for this reason in 2003, and that number is important.

In 2003, the budget was 1,083,421 according to the uh library's historical data.

That's a hundred and seventy percent increase from then to now at 2.981.

Why do I bring that up?

Because 2003 was the last time the county card fees were increased.

If the county card fees would have been increased year over year, the city would have had to supplement less for the county users.

And I'll get into a different policy discussion in a second, but the if we were to calculate what the county card fee should be today, it's 106 dollars.

But they've held it at the $53 for an adult and $36 for a senior citizen.

Why do I bring that up?

Because if you do the math over time, the city this year in this budget is supplementing 135,468 just for county resident users utilizing the library.

So I think there does need to be a cut.

I can get on board with 187 because I think it's cleaner, it's holding back the previous year, it's already been budgeted rather than pulling numbers that we've calculated.

But I wanted to be sure to explain where I got my numbers.

If you look at the growth pattern from the budget from property tax revenue from 2003 to today, it's 170%.

The county resident dues have not increased at all in that time and until just a few weeks ago, which is good because I hope they do increase it, because if we cut the money, it's got to come from somewhere, and it should come from the county residents.

That's set right there.

Part of the policy issue that we're having or discussing right now is Caldwell can charge way less than NAMPA for county card fee.

And Caldwell users can come into NAMPA and use our library all the same.

So if I was a county resident, do I just go to Caldwell, get a card and then go to NAMPA?

Maybe, but I still think it's unfair that we have not increased our county dues at the same amount that we've increased our budget, because myself and everybody else that lives in the good city of Napa is paying that increase year over year.

We pay property taxes for the library through our revenues.

The county residents should be paying the same amount, and based off the calculation, 170% is at 106 just for that adult fee, and then we can discuss the elderly.

But that's my rationale for cutting back.

That's what the numbers show.

We don't have to get into any policy arguments of why this or why that those are numbers, and that's what I'm basing it off of.

Not a motion, but the numbers, it's not proportionate to their share.

Mayor.

Clarification would be the terminology, non-city residents would be paying.

So whether they live in the city of Caldwell, uh Melbah, CUNA, that it's not just quote county, it's we have City of Caldwell residents based on the map that was shown during the library workshop where people are at.

So it's just non-city users, and I understand them wanting to use it, but there is a cost, and the rest of the community who lives in the city is subsidizing that cost.

Uh we can't break out the road usages going through cities and all the other things, but there are certain items that we can, and this is one, and so uh that's the reason to to raise the issue.

Okay, Jared, I do have a couple questions here.

Anything else here?

And then claim will come up.

But while we have you up here, uh just that mention of the other municipalities.

How about our enclave areas, which we have numerous in enclave areas?

Is there some way of deciphering uh who's who's in the city and who's actually uh paying county, not paying city taxes?

So anyone who does come in to get a library card, we do look at where they reside.

So you can determine when one of the enclaves encaves, we count them as a non-resident, and they have to pay that.

When we did the calculation for the board of trustees, uh the number that we calculated moving and recommending to the board of trustees was to increase that non-resident P to the same uh NAMPA city resident would be paying through their taxes.

Yeah, there's other other question, and I maybe just didn't uh study it well enough.

Uh but links L Y N X.

My understanding is that's that's like borrowing or transferring books and materials uh from other libraries.

I didn't see where that was in the budget a year ago.

So that was there.

Um I personally, because I'm a new director re name those just so I can make sense of what they were.

They've always been there.

So those contracts are have been there for some time, just different terminology.

And because we have those contracts, that that's part of what allows a patron who's part of the links consortium, part of the other libraries to come and use our library and for our patrons to use their libraries.

Uh, we actually get a greater benefit.

We actually have to spend less money to provide the services to our patrons because if we don't have the item that our city patron is looking for, they're able to get it from another library.

So that actually safe for the it's been going on for years, it's always been there.

See the distinguishment from one year to the other.

Okay.

Mayor.

Yes.

Question.

So if I'm understanding this correctly, so if somebody, a Caldwell resident goes to Caldwell library to check out a book, they don't have it.

We have it.

They can come to our library, check it out with their Caldwell card.

If they come over with their Caldwell card to our library, can they use our computers?

And the same, the same for our patrons, they could go to theirs or to the Boise library, any library and use the same service.

They can use our 3D printer, everything that we have for our residents, other city citizens can use it.

And our our citizens can do the same.

So what's the point of raising our library card prices then?

So for the non-resident fees, they're not paying into any library system.

So to use the library, they have to pay into that so that they're paying for their usage at any of the libraries.

Okay, thank you.

Mayor.

Yes.

And I would like to know that I'm going to be pushing very hard this year.

Uh with I'm sure councilwoman Scogg's husband that that get changed because it's not right that one library can charge a certain amount and another does not.

It should be uniform across the state.

Whatever that county do is, it should be calculated and appropriately applied.

And that's up to their own municipality on what they want to do.

Yeah.

And that's why I just recommend potentially the change because if I live 15 minutes from Caldwell, I'm gonna go and get the library card there and use NAMPA.

But you don't even need a library card to come to the library.

You can come in and use the facility no matter what, whoever you are.

So it might be somewhat of a uh not issue.

I still think it is, and I think for respect to the citizens and the taxpayers that we show that county residents or non-user, non-citizens are paying a proportionate share, and that's why the arguments made it should be increased.

We can't appropriate that.

So maybe lessening the funds incentivizes that change.

Next year and a half, I'm afraid you may get tired of uh my input on some philosophy things, but I I uh I understand your argument for equity, but doggone it, I don't want the state telling uh town Napa how to how to handle or Grangeville or someone else.

Uh let your local municipal municipality or lower make those decisions.

Okay, that's enough.

Mayor Clay, go ahead.

Sorry.

Sorry, Clay, really quickly.

Um line item on here is on page 315, the staff parking to NDC, that 12,000.

Um Robin can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think NDC, I think we voted to allow for the staff to park in the parking lot without NDC charging, so that might need to be removed.

Thank you.

Just an addendum on that, maybe come up, uh Robin.

So what what's your expectation?

And I won't say how my vote was when I was on NDC commission, but uh for the for all the all the uh we're now charging.

What's your what's your projection for uh revenue?

I know you don't have a crystal ball, but what's your project?

Do you have a projection for revenue now that we're charging for parking?

Uh mayor, commissioners, um we're working on that projection right now.

The budget for NDC is it we're we'll have that posted by the end of the week.

So I don't really have I'm not super comfortable given a number right now because we've only been open since really March, and also we have construction in front of us.

I know I know it's still in process.

So it's uh it's a complicated number to be able to give you a real good accurate number.

Okay, and I'm not advocating, but since we haven't been charging for what, maybe uh almost two years now.

Yep, it's a little over two years.

I just wondering whether the uh if there are a needs for the library budget fund if there's any type of percentage from those proceeds from from uh charging could be uh yeah it transferred to to the library.

Yeah, I guess I'll let you guys work on that at a later time, but anyway, that's uh that's just maybe a possibility.

Okay, Clay.

Thanks, thanks, Robin.

Uh thanks, Mayor Council.

Just for clarification on a budget cut.

Um we would work with the director on identifying physicians would have to be eliminated because the COLA, the CEC, the healthcare costs, all that that would be applied to all employees.

And so um the difference wouldn't be holding that back, it would be looking at staffing and making adjustments.

So I just wanted to make sure that was clear for clear for council.

Any questions for Clay?

No.

Okay.

My last question.

Going through your payables and seeing purchases every week for tapes, books, this and that ongoing.

Are you running out of space for all that material that's being purchased every week or are you tossing stuff?

Uh no, uh a good percentage of the collection is actually fluid.

It's out in the community, people using it.

And so as people take things, the shelves light in, and as things come back, they fill back up.

And so there's this delicate balance of it just ebb and flowing.

We're not running out of space, but people are using the collection, it's out in the community, and so that's how we're able to do it.

Things that become worn out, torn, they can no longer be used, those things are weeded out per our policies, and so there is some of that happening for sure.

Um depending on its use, it may be repurchased if it's available, but if not, we just continue to provide those things that the community is looking for.

Um if the budget was cut, as I mentioned before, uh that would there would be certain services that we would just have to cut as well, as well as cutting down the staff because we wouldn't have the staff to continue to maintain to provide those services.

So what drives all the purchases?

Uh not the purchases.

You could still continue to purchase the materials that you have, the other program services, um things things, for example, if someone comes in and they're needing a reference, they have a reference question on how to do their taxes and things like that.

We may not be able to provide those services anymore because we don't have the staff to provide time to do things like that.

Mayor.

Okay, what what I'm asking is what drives the 20 to 30 50 items every week being purchased.

Um you must have a purchasing manager, and there's something going on that says I'm looking.

Purchasing manager looks at what's coming out, what's brand new uh trends that are happening that the community is looking for, and we purchase those things to provide that service to the community so that the community can have the new book that they're looking for or a new resource that they're utilizing.

We just brought in a rate on testing kit, right?

So people could take that for free and check to see if there's radon emitting into their homes.

Uh things like those kind of services that we then would not be purchasing.

Uh or we could cut back the amount of material funding that we have, and we just wouldn't be providing those things to our community.

Mayor, thank you.

Councilman, just trying to to clarify if we were to hold back dollars, does it have to come from personnel?

Is it absolutely definitive that if we hold back dollars, it's come from personnel.

There's no way the library could find a program or an expense or continuing ongoing expenses as councilman bills is saying that they say, okay, we're just going to order less, we're going to increase more, uh, but we're not going to fire anybody.

You could definitely order less, you could definitely cut programs and services.

And again, that's my comment is whether it's staffing, whether it's materials, whether it's programs, it's reducing the amount of services that the community has come to expect.

Mayor.

Yes, councilman.

Do you does the library board have oversight of your spending?

They do.

For like a certain dollar amount or um per Idaho state law, it does say that once um council approves the budget, they have oversight of what it is, what those funds are spent on.

But is there a dollar amount?

Like, can you spend 500 bucks, or do you have to ask them for everything?

Um they approve everything that we spend uh goes before the board, they look it over, they approve it as part of their their meeting.

Based on what I saw in the budget here and what I've seen in the payables reports, it seems like your budget's pretty solid.

Um, but the spending is a little out of control of how that budget's getting spent.

So um, for example, five thousand dollars for a website, those decisions that are being made, some of them don't seem wise to me.

So, but the total amount budgeted seems like it's in line.

So um I question that.

So the the board of trustees did set up a strategic plan, and part of that strategic plan was to update the website, make it more current, make it more ADA compliance compatible with the federal guidelines that are coming in from um the federal government on ADA requirements.

We're just trying to meet those needs and and be compatible and compliant.

Mayor Bruner.

Yes, I'm gonna chairman.

Leslie uh you want Leslie to come up?

Oh, yeah, she has a mic.

I'm sorry.

And basically, what what what what the director is saying is that when the board of trustees sees when we have a meeting, and since I'm delayed on, the director gives the cost that are associated with that particular month or the purchases that they have made.

They're not questioned beforehand or approved.

They're they're they're either passed or not at that moment.

So we're 30 days behind.

That is Mayor and Councilman Rodriguez.

That is that is correct.

That we should be.

So there's no auditor prior to the purchase.

No, there is not.

We see the we see the charges after they're made, similar to the way it is with um the city payables.

Okay.

That that's what I want.

That's a point I'm I'm trying to get at.

Thank you.

So Mayor?

Yes.

Who decides that the library cards are universal?

Is that the state, or is that the um are those your boards?

That's the agreement that we had when we entered in with Linksys, all the libraries agreed to that.

That if we're going to share materials, then library cards need to be able to be used at any library.

So that's the board that has the authority to make that change to say that NAMPA hypothetically that NAMPA cards only work at NAMPA library.

Um I think I think city council could give that direction.

It would mean that NAMPA would need to probably pull out from the Lynxus group.

Um if we were saying that our cards were only going to be used at the NAMPA public library because it would break the agreement that we have with them.

But again, NAMPA city residents benefit from being able to utilize their card at different libraries, and they do.

They go out and they're checking things out from Boise and Eagle and Caldwell and all of our value.

Can you tell us what other benefits the Lynx program provides, other than just being able to check out books that our library may not have?

It reduces our cost and what we have to purchase to provide for our community, because instead of us having to purchase, say the title, you're able to get it from a different library.

If there's a book that you know, 50 people want, and we only have two copies while the rest of the valley has 20 copies.

NAMPA NAMPA citizens can get access to that much quicker, being able to access those materials or those titles instead of having to wait for the two titles we have.

And we're just talking hard copy books.

They can still access like reading digitally or anything like that.

Just same same digitally.

We also share digital resources as we anything that a library has chosen to share that is shareable, they can check out and use NAPA residents can.

Do you know roughly annually how much our NAMPA citizens are using that service?

A ton.

Um in the valley, we're one of the highest used libraries.

Our citizens heavily utilize that resource.

Um I have a video that I can share with council um of the day after summer reading began.

Uh we normally have a a consistent flow of bins that are coming in from the other libraries, and the day after that, it was twice the volume of materials that were coming in that had been requested by our patrons that were brought from other libraries in.

Okay.

Thank you.

And I apologize, I did not meet with you prior to, so I will make sure you're on the top of my list next year.

But um, can you get us those numbers of how many uh people NAMPA citizens are using that would be great.

Thank you.

Uh yes.

One one point that you had made originally and early on is that we're the third highest used library in the valley.

I think that's a very strong leverage point that if we end up leaving the lynxus program stating that until an agreement is uh memorialized between all the libraries to increase or uniform their county non-resident dues that we will not re-enter in.

I think that would be of interest of me because once again, this whole problem stems from an issue that's not necessarily your fault or problem, it's just the reality of how we're going to combat equitability, uh, as the good mayor says, for this specific program and the dollars that are utilized to it.

So I'd also be curious to know how much, how many books we're purchasing for the benefit of every other library in the valley, because we're the third largest.

I I I know you don't have those numbers, and this is me thinking way deep, this would be a huge fiscal impact study that's not worth doing, but I think there's a lot that we're spending for the benefit of others, and we're also receiving the benefit, but we have a good position to say until this gets corrected, we're not uh paying the play anymore.

Potentially, I'm one of six.

Mayor Bruner, just one quick one?

Yes, one quick.

Okay.

All right, like and for Leslie again.

Okay, based on the spending and the no accountability of the spending, does the council have a have uh a say so in authorizing which expenditures are not, or does the board possess all that?

So there has to be some kind of a approval before the spending is is done.

Is this is this a less Leslie question since she's chairman?

Clay's clay's coming up.

Is it a uh mayor council?

So there the the library is one of a city department, and so as far as process for spending, um, whether it be entering into contract for the links, uh any of those things would still follow the same process that we have for every other department.

So the library approves a budget that is already been approved by council.

Um and so council holds the string of that, and because it falls under the city, we still expect the following of those purchase processes as we have laid out.

Okay, that clarifies that thank you.

Leslie, did you have something to add?

I I do have something that I would like to add in, Mayor and Council.

If we are talking about cutting the budget because of um non-city users, we have to remember that when we cut services, we not only cut those services to the county residents that are using our library, we are cutting those services to our own city people.

So when we cut, if we have to cut staff, that may eliminate story time, they play mahjong, the teens come in and use the services.

I mean, there is if you will do your research, you will see that um there are several programs that are utilized by our public quite heavily.

So just please remember that when you do, if you choose to cut this budget, you are cutting the services to our city residents as well.

So here's just another uh short philosophy thing.

Please uh council, do not cut for our children and youth.

I mean, adults can find their way and get on or whatever.

Let's make sure we take, in my opinion, take care of our children and our youth.

Uh any uh I think that'll be it.

We'll see if there's gonna be a motion.

Jared, I hope the next 13 hours of your birthday are happier.

Okay.

All right.

Mayor, okay, yes.

Just really quick clarity on that.

Will you make sure that those numbers that on the links transactions, if you will, and then also the numbers councilman Griffin brought up, just get them to us before the budget hearing on August 17th, so we can look that over.

Thank you.

Okay, thank thanks.

Been a good discussion.

So we're where is this one that's uh appropriate for a motion, or where are we?

Well, I'll I'll make a motion, Mayor.

Um the motion is to approve the budget as is with the caveat of locating a process of authorizing purchases.

How's that?

Do you want to exclude the parking to NDC?

Yes.

Okay.

That's what 12,000.

Is there we have an understanding understanding of the motion?

12,000.

Yes.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, I've heard a second.

I think we've had plenty of discussion.

So let's do roll call, please.

Cog, no.

Bills.

No.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Griffin.

No.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

It's a tie.

Okay.

I I was promised in my year and a half there'd never be any ties.

So somebody somebody lied to me.

I'll give you mine.

Okay.

So uh Clay, I need you up one more time.

Amy in here might go too, of course.

Kim is too, but uh anyway.

Okay, so I still need clarification on it on the cola and whatever.

So if we uh there's not been another motion, yeah, there's a tie, so they're potentially depending on my vote, there may be another, and I know we'll see.

But anyway, so on the cola, these the the the uh staff current staff would not get that cola.

The the colo is based on staffing levels, so we wouldn't one of the one of the discussions or statements that was made was just not giving the cola, but we would have to give the cola to any employee that's still on the books.

I mean it has to be across the board, right?

Yeah, but they would have to meet the parameter of but yes, so so Doug, so if the budget stays the same as 2526, uh how did how how does that work?

How how do you how do you make sure that the all the employees get the cola?

The only other alternative that I can think of in my mind is that staff is gonna have to be let some staff are gonna have to do that go.

If you keep the cola, you either have to cut other expenses or cut staff to make up the difference.

Okay, and the other thing I heard, Ollie's, is that there's a potential, I'm hoping without kids or children, but uh of cutting some expenses.

I'm hoping I'm I'm hoping Jared that your your priority is to keep your staff and do as many services as as possible.

So do you feel like with the butt budget staying the same that you can cut programs that are not not going to affect the majority, and especially kids and children, and still still uh be be able to provide the same number of staff with this cola?

We would probably have to do a mature both some staff and some programs.

Yeah, it had to be a combination.

Okay.

All right.

So I guess yes, go ahead, Clay.

Come on up.

I see yourself.

I guess I guess what I'm thinking is I I would rather just cut cut and not keep it uh keep you know, not keep it the same, but at least do some cutting.

Um one thing that could be possible is leaving it as is and before the budget workshop coming back with proposals of what would be cut and have council make a decision at that point of how much to remove okay, and that would happen when uh we would do it between now and the budget hearing uh before the August 17th or whatever it is.

But but leave it as is so the budget capacity is there, and then council can still remove that budget capacity as we get to that point and make a decision or move it to somewhere else.

Okay that helps me.

So I guess my vote is uh yes, we keep it as is.

Thank you.

Okay.

With that, uh are were there any mayor and council.

Were there any other hot topic items that finance did not address with you at this time?

Could we get that grand total?

We're working our way there.

Thank you.

So indication of the we get clarify Mayor and Council.

Can we get clarification if we're taking the 12,000 out for the parking?

Yes.

That was part of the motion.

Well, the motion, yeah, yes.

Yes, thank you.

Diane.

Let's do this.

So since the motion was kind of stalled in a minute, that doesn't come out yet.

Right?

Because the the motion failed with the intent of coming back to council with changes, correct?

And call it out.

No, it got approved.

And then we pull it out at that time.

It was approved.

Just the less the 12,000.

And an agreement to figure out how to approval authority.

Do you have that?

Okay.

So with that, um we have had a very robust discussion on several very critical budget issues.

With that in mind, uh, there is a kind of a compromise method of moving forward.

My mind's been working through.

Diana has a spreadsheet up where she has the original budget listed in one column, the changes in the next, and the net uh budget change in the third column.

Since we are not necessarily going to change the total budget, but we are realigning categories to take what's saved and put it into a bucket to be used later at council discretion for deferred maintenance, deferred uh infrastructure, or that purpose.

We can approve, we could bring up Diana's spreadsheet, and we can see the entire budget by department by org um with the totals that match to the budget book of 293 million dollars.

If council wish we could approve it from that list at the 293 million dollars without going through each individual fund or department because she has it documented on a sheet that we can provide them back to city clerk and uh council, or we can go through by fund as I initially uh presented the initial that way would take slightly longer, but not materially longer.

It would take maybe two to three minutes per fund to approve council uh my opinion is we we approve the budget to presented subject to the changes that have been made, and we do it in summary fashion.

Okay.

Um that's fine by me.

Any other uh discussion on that?

Second they were made that's a motion then we have a second roll call.

We'll turn it into a motion.

Well I do we just made it that I move.

What's that?

As soon as you said I move, turned into a motion.

I was happy to second that.

So we're not gonna go in point of order if you could just restate the motion from the said that it was oh Diana's gonna would IT would you get Diana the presentation?

She's gonna share her spreadsheet.

She's gonna give the numbers.

Yeah, four gender.

We have a motion.

I know she I she uh our madam clerk wants a clarification on the motion and the figures are coming up.

Can you can you uh re restate your motion, please so the motion would be to approve the budget as it's been submitted by finance subject to the changes that we've made here before we had a second on that, so let's go ahead and have a roll call on this.

We're not gonna go through the different sections and we what the proposal was is we can bring that up on the screen with Diana, you can see them all, we can submit that back to you, and we have the total.

We could approve it either by individual fund or by the total at the end of the screen because she's got it documented.

So we can still go by individual fund?

If you choose, yes, that's council's will.

But that's not the motion.

No, the motion is to present it and approve it in one total with the call out of all the changes we've made and the individual line items be presented, and this document will be submitted apart as a record for the budgetary approval Mayor.

I just think for transit for transparency for the public, I think just going individually really quickly through might be best.

Okay, so there is still a motion and a second, so we do still need a roll call.

But you can vote yay or nay.

Scog, yay, Jangula.

No Reynolds, no Rodriguez, yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Bells, yes, motion carries.

Okay, we know the process.

Good job.

Diana, would you outline highlight the changes that we've tracked so far and where they're at uh by fund and and speak to that, please?

Well, that was sure nice.

Yes.

We we we have we have uh servants this city.

So okay.

Okay, so in Jen Gov, we have removed um six hundred and seventy-one thousand nine hundred and eighty from Department 1003020, General Gov from City Council we remove 7500 from streets.

We removed 402,394, and from library, we removed 12,000 the total of that is one million ninety-three eight hundred and seventy-four.

Okay.

What's the number again?

It's right there on the councilman on the screen.

I can't see that.

Oh 1,000 million ninety three.

I'm sorry, one million ninety-three thousand eight hundred and seventy-four.

Thank you.

So council, I would and with direction from legal and Doug.

Just one quick comment before you make a motion.

Uh make a motion subject to a discussion of foregone.

We want to come back to that after we approve this.

Uh the reason being should council choose to approve any use of foregone.

We can't go up unless council permitted that in the discussion.

So I would make a motion subject to any additional change due to foregone.

Well, so clarification right now in the budget that's been approved.

Subject to these changes here.

Right.

Did it include foregone?

No.

But we'll haven't voted affirmatively to take foregone.

No, we have not voted about the negatively or affirmatively.

Okay.

But if you set it at a dollar value right now, without reference to foregone, I can't go up even if you chose to approve for it.

So that what's the reason that the council wouldn't make the decision on foregone now before we before we if you want to have a decision now and add it in this.

We certainly could.

I mean I'm just the only rationale is that I did not build it into the budget and it is for presented to you, but it's meant to become at the very end of the budget process for a discussion topic.

And is there a discussion on the foregone?

Whether it was a 2.2, is that what I heard?

Yeah.

So is there to use all of it or are there also could be able to do that?

Just one percent portion of it.

Just one percent of that total.

So if it's a total 400, the 472,704.

That is one percent of the foregone.

472,000.

Mayor, thanks.

I just need clarification.

I believe we already just made a motion setting the budget, subject to the lesser amounts being pulled out.

That was the motion.

Right.

The motion had not been made yet, and I was trying to make sure Doug wanted to have input before the motion was made.

We don't that's not how I understood the motion.

We might want to clarify with the clerk.

You made a motion, sir.

Yes, the motion that was just um approved was to approve the budget as submitted by finance, subject to changes made at this meeting.

So I need to withdraw that.

Is there a legal overhearing?

I all we want to do.

Yeah.

So I need to withdraw the motion so we can get two issues clarified in with a motion or else do uh separate motions.

Uh Doug, you need to I I think uh you had a motion.

I think you could either override it with a subsequent motion or you could withdraw it, maybe maybe uh to maybe take a vote on withdrawing the motion.

Um I I think uh need to withdraw the the motion.

So then make a I would say make a motion requesting to withdraw the the motion.

Okay, make a motion to withdraw the previous motion.

Second roll call.

Yes.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes, Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds, yes.

Bills.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Okay, so now are we at the end of the day?

So there's two pausing on a motion now.

Well, okay.

I I'd like to have us have clarity so that we know what we're voting on on the next one or two motions.

One is is that we've changed downward a million ninety-three eight seventy-four.

So I believe we need to keep the appropriation there, but we need to designate it towards our deferred maintenance issue so that we don't have a definite financial fundamental.

That is correct.

But we need to have the budget authority and we need to have the money still appropriated, but it's going to be designated.

So in essence, the total remains unchanged, but the allocation of the use of the funds changed by one million nine hundred one million ninety thousand eight hundred and seventy-four dollars.

So we can appropriate, we can approve the budget as presented.

Yes.

Understanding we have set aside a million ninety-three and then decide the foregone issue before doing a final approval.

Before with the final budget, we still need to vote on the foregone.

Right.

So two issues?

Two issues that could be dealt with in one motion if we don't if we dealt with the foregone right now, added it in, change that total, and then approved it.

Okay.

So let's uh still need a motion on foregone.

Yeah.

So I'd make a motion to take foregone.

Second.

Any discussion?

Yes, Mayor.

Are we similar in previous years when we've taken foregone?

We've discussed where that would be allocated before taking that one percent understand.

Are we needing that for your clarity or can we just pull money and then decide where it is after the fact?

My finances proposal this year is to aggregate this with the million ninety-three thousand dollars for council to determine how to use that in the future.

It could be used for public safety, it could be be used for public infrastructure, it could be used for deferred maintenance, but it would be one of those three categories, but we aggregate it with that million ninety-three thousand dollars, reserve it for a bucket for the council to use as you so choose, but give us that capacity to use it so that when we get down the road, we know that we have if if you you as council see fit to pursue an override, that override won't solve all the problems.

It may be uh a band-aid as an approach.

This is one additional step to help deal with three significant issues that over time will threaten the financial security of the city over time, not now, but over over time.

Um the more we can reserve that money and use it in a transparent appropriate fashion without undue burdening the citizens.

And this is what two dollars and 74 cents per thousand or a hundred thousand dollars of taxable value.

200 or $2.83.

And we can come back later and say, does it belong in any one of the three quarter categories public safety, deferred maintenance or deferred infrastructure?

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

Um I would like to uh take a stab on a motion here.

Uh motion was already made.

So we have a motion.

Okay, we didn't vote on it.

Made a motion.

Okay, so we need to do is modify.

Okay, so discussion on this, and I feel like the foregone should go to public safety.

We should allocate that in the motion.

And then um the million ninety three eight seventy-four.

I think we should leave a budgetary budgetary capacity in there and then decide that on our public hearing night.

There is going to be some kickback on on public hearing night, I guarantee you, and we need to have the ability to uh shift and go with the numbers that we have in front of us.

So I think we should leave that there unallocated, but then say for the foregone that we are going to put that toward public safety, uh, we have a real problem.

I think our motion made I'll let him speak to it directly, but I don't think he is in favor of that.

So you as far as public safety.

I shouldn't I shouldn't assume.

I just by your reaction, I'm yeah, I I think it's important.

Number one from this that the million ninety-three on the screen is stays within our budget authority.

I also believe we should take foregone, and I believe uh we should deal with the allocation of those two issues sole and separate from approving and setting aside.

Okay.

So uh our so do we need it?

Are you dropping your dropping your second?

No, my second's still good.

That's just my thoughts.

Any other further?

So the motion the motion includes foregone.

The motion includes the monies that we set aside, and then council will come back.

Mr.

Mayor.

Sorry, point of point of clarification.

Yes, clear.

Uh currently the the motion that was uh moved and seconded was just to approve foregone.

Yeah, yes.

Okay, my apologies.

We can make another reverse motion.

Okay, then we'll deal with this piece here.

Okay, one last time, further discussion.

Mr.

Mayor, yes, one more comment on the foregone.

I feel like uh um it might not make a difference, but um if there was a purpose stated for the use of foregone, it may or may not have more support okay.

Well may and maybe direct my understanding is is that it's gonna be part uh added on to this one, ninety-three thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, then there's gonna be discussion as far as how that's going to be allocated.

Am I wrong on that?

That would come from a separate motion.

Right now we're just requesting, and then we're gonna have two separate pots of money until we had my assumption.

Yeah, okay.

All right, roll call.

Scog.

No.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Okay, I need clarification again, just to make sure.

We're voting on 1.93.

No, no, no.

Foregone 1%.

Foregone 1%, yeah.

As long as it designated a public safety.

It was not designated the public safety.

No.

Griffin.

No.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Bells.

Yes.

You guys are killing me.

Okay.

Welcome to Nampus and I change my mind on this appointment.

You'd like to withdraw.

I guess I'd have to talk to Lego on that, huh?

I uh let me just say this.

I served on council for eight years.

I believe five out of those eight years, we did not take three percent.

I know it's a different time.

I understand that.

Uh, but I and uh four hundred, and there's nothing four hundred thousand.

I realize doesn't go a long ways, but if it was public safety, you know, I know it can go uh uh to new officers and so on.

It's totally legal.

I know that also I this is totally personal.

I have an ethical challenge when I voted to not take the full three three percent, and citizens were aware of that, and now we bring that back.

I realize the dollar amount per household is very minimal.

Yes, so it's not a dollar amount, it's that I just personally when you when you make a commitment and the state law says we can bring it back and utilize it, but I'm not in agreement with that.

So uh so it'll be a no.

Okay, motion fails, mayor, yes.

Just to clarify, we can make a subsequent motion to specifically take foregone for a designated pot of money, correct?

We only denied the motion of foregone in general, but we can take for a specific amount.

You can always make that motion.

I'm not sure.

I'm not going to but I just wanted to clarify for the question.

I'm just saying my philosophy, right or wrong, personal philosophy on foregone is uh if I hadn't uh voted uh you know with the not taking the three percent in the past, I'd probably have a different uh sense at this point in time, but I don't like uh committing this one thing with citizens and then changing it.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

So uh the uh talk of going after uh a levy override for public safety and infrastructure.

Um I see the need for that, but I can tell you if we don't do our job and step up and be leaders in this council, I cannot go ask the citizens for an override for public safety if we're not doing our job first.

There's a good chance we need both of those things.

We need the levy override and we need the foregone.

Foregone adds to our base.

It was given to us the authority by the state legislature, which was the vote of the people.

That money is ours, it's sitting there.

Um, and it's a whole lot less dollars coming out of your household than it is uh if we uh go after uh a public safety levy override.

So uh, but I would be in favor of that as well.

But I can't support putting it on a ballot um unless I'm doing my job as a leader in this city.

So um I feel like the needs for public safety are huge.

We have uh we have needs all across the city in lots of departments.

We have uh deferred maintenance needs that we can't fix in one budget cycle.

This this goes back 10, 15, 20 years ago.

And um we've been trying to course correct 389 didn't help us.

Uh it was uh kind of the straw that broke the camel's back.

But they can blame it all they want on 389, but there was issues in the city before we ever got to 389, and uh we need to recognize that.

And so um in the interest of getting the our base built in our budget and putting the dollars where we need to have them the worst, in my opinion, I would make a motion that we take the foregone and use it for public safety.

Uh how that money is spent exactly.

I think we can discuss exactly within public safety realm.

I think we can discuss at a further point, but uh I think that money needs to be earmarked for public safety, so I'll make that motion.

I'll second that.

Mayor clarification one percent, that's correct.

Okay, so I just and I'm putting you on the spot, councilman, just a little bit.

I think that's a good uh a good motion.

I'm I was a little concerned when you said that uh if the if it did not pass, if foregone did not pass, then you would not be in favor of an override levy for the police.

That's to me, uh I mean we're then you're just we're just dropping everything.

To me, it's being hypocritical because we're saying, hey, we're gonna go ask the taxpayers for more dollars.

Okay.

And as a business owner, um, you come ask me for more dollars, and I'm like, wait a minute, the leaders didn't do their job that they had authority to do, and so I'm like, I can't my conscience won't let me vote for something when I didn't do my job.

So my job is is that uh and and my thoughts are that we take the foregon that was given to us by the state legislature.

If we went and asked uh the speaker of the house today what we should do because of 389, he would say exactly this.

He would say, go uh go take your foregone.

That's what the authority given to you.

So um that's what I feel like.

Okay, discussion on them.

We do have a motion discussion in a second.

Well, I I I agree with that.

I mean, why would we take why would we create a new taxing mechanism when we haven't exhausted the tools that have already statutorily been given to us?

So I also agree it's hard to go to the public and say we want you to approve this when the public has already approved for us to have the utilization of foregone.

So we should exercise all of our tools before we go.

Wouldn't that have gone to that?

It's not the state legislature.

So it is.

So let's say because the elected, because they they were elected that the that was the public opinion.

Yeah, so I I mean that that has already been statutorily given to us, so for me, I feel like it would be hard for me to want to go and ask for more different ways when we've been elected here to balance a budget and utilize the tools that we have.

And so for me, uh that would also be hard.

Okay, that's uh that that's discussion discussion.

A difference of opinion.

I think the levy override is warranted, and we should all do our due diligence and uh seeing that through.

I look at a taking of a foregone tax as a forced tax on citizens without giving them any kind of say or chance at that.

So to say we're not exhausting all of our options we want to take from taxpayers and then ask for more.

Uh I I take offense to saying that we're not being leaders after this entire process because we just allocated 1,93,874 of other monies to designate to public utilities and public safety.

So I think that took a lot of uh courage and leadership today to be able to get to that point to allocate those dollars to critical needs.

So uh in the foregone debate, I appreciate public safety being a top priority.

I believe police can get over the hill on a levy override.

I don't think our utilities can.

So if we're gonna take foregone, it should be designated to infrastructure, something that the might be more difficult to get an approval on.

Maybe the taxpayers will approve two levy overrides, one for public safety and one for infrastructure.

And that's how I think it should be proposed to the citizens, and they should have say in that decision.

But to I think we have a strong argument for public safety.

I think we have a strong argument for public infrastructure.

I think we should give that argument forward and put our best foot forward to the citizens in November to be able to decide that.

But to allocate specifically for public safety today.

We have a million and ninety-three thousand, potentially that could go to them right now.

Uh to take another one percent.

It's just a difference of opinions on what is leadership and what is ethical.

I don't have an ethical qualm not taking it.

Madam Clerk, real call, please.

Mayor, can I make a better quick, yeah.

Go ahead.

Taking foregone gives us predictability that we wouldn't have otherwise, and before creating a higher tax burden on citizens with uh override, which is going to be ongoing, taking a one-time foregone that's statutorily given to us makes the most sense in my opinion.

But I would like to hear from Chief Huff really quick on our response responses and the things that um our PDR prioritizing, because I it I don't think that we're able to meet all the needs of the city right now.

So I think it's good to know what is being prioritized and what isn't getting met.

I would equally like to hear from Crystal Craig after so we can talk about public infrastructure, then if we're going to bring up directors and bring them in this food fight.

Okay, I I and I'm fine with the chief speaking of this and whatever, but this discussion, if it if it's totally for the public that's totally not aware, I don't know how many folks we have online.

This discussion has been over and over.

I don't think there's anybody on this council that is not believed the two top priorities are public safety and infrastructure, and we've heard that through Amy's uh surveys and polls and whatever we've heard that for years.

So I don't think there needs to be any confirmation that there's there's a need there.

So if we're gonna take the time, I guess that's up to you, council.

But I I don't see taking the time when that knowledge is already there and our public is totally in favor of taking care of uh the this department, our blue, and also taking care of Tom and the infrastructure.

So you still want him to carry on with this?

Yes.

I d I do because I think that council, before we make a decision to say yes or no on it, we need to know what I'm gonna I'm saying yes.

Okay.

No, no, no.

Mayor, we've already gone through with the Well, that's what I that's my point.

Let's just well, I'm trying to move this on.

So do you want you go ahead and make an action?

Uh you you want to do an action as far as uh We already have a motion.

Okay, a motion.

I mean we have a motion and a second already.

Okay, and you that this would have been discussion, Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

I believe that if the councilwoman would like to hear some more, then she's entitled to that as one of six of us.

Uh I don't always necessarily want to sit here and listen to every council member's comments, but I do.

And there's times I want to get up and walk out, but I don't.

You do it.

And no, I don't, but uh it's uh it's only fair.

And uh okay.

I and I know uh Chief Huff likes to be uh brevity is important to him, so go ahead.

So what exactly do you did you want me to answer?

I'm confused.

Oh no.

Tell us all the needs of the city.

They're great.

The needs are great.

Just what kind of calls are being prioritized.

Um so for over the last couple years we have uh and we're always looking at it.

We do have a call response plan.

Uh used to in the city of Napa, let's say you know, ten years ago, if you called for a police officer, you got a police officer, or whether that was for a beyond control juvenile or whatever it may be today.

That's not the case.

Uh we prioritize our calls, uh, we go to in progress calls.

Um we should be at around 81 right now on patrol.

I believe we're about 64, I believe is the number, 65 on patrol.

Um our smaller units, um, our our traffic units are great example.

Uh started in 1977.

We had five people, and I know a lot of traffic complaints come into the city council.

Today we have seven people on that.

You know, uh seven people to do 24-hour day patrol um do the math.

That's 50% of the time.

You know, I don't have somebody out there uh doing traffic control.

Um shoplifters, uh, non-injury accidents, uh things that we the dispatchers have to tell a lot of people no, I guess is what I'm saying.

I could give you a whole book on it uh on things that we don't respond to that we used to.

I mean, if you have a specific, I can tell you we we have to go to the the in progress, the assaults where somebody's getting beat on.

Uh the mayor was down the other day, and the chief of staff, we had a robbery.

Um we we got the guy, thank goodness.

But uh everything uh pauses from that point on.

If you would have called in an auto burglary, you know, 30 minutes before that robbery happened, and the police officer was in route to that call.

Um, you probably wouldn't have got somebody for the next probably you know 20 hours later because we're not gonna come at 11 o'clock at night to take your auto burglary report because that has already has happened.

We had to go out and deal with the robbery, uh small pursuit uh you know happened after that, and so our calls for service uh just they they pinned we can't show up for uh uh fraud at a bank that uh has already occurred and the suspects gone when we're dealing with a robbery, you know, that just occurred.

So business is closed at five o'clock, so that means everything pauses, and then tomorrow morning day shift will get out there.

And so it's always just plain catch-up, is where it's at.

Um as far as you know, losing people and talking about wages, I really appreciate the four percent.

But I can tell you uh councilman Rodriguez said earlier that I believe he said it was 12.

We have we test once a month, we had 17 applications, and I'll tell you we do a much better job than anybody else in in this treasure valley is recruiting people over the weekend with a levy rate that happened in uh meridian.

Uh, four of those uh people pulled out over the weekend.

I can tell you nine nine of the uh rest of them are starting the background process right now.

Uh we currently have 13 openings on patrol.

Um I mean, just to be on public record, not tell anybody this.

We're gonna we are gonna suffer people over the next uh six months with what's going on over in Haiti County.

I had an officer speak to me yesterday, gray guy.

I'm gonna do everything I can to help him uh get his job over there because he's like I just can't afford it.

I'm a single income person.

Uh insurance is better and pay is better over there.

Um I hate to lose him, but at least he's gonna stay in the Treasure Valley in law enforcement.

So that's kind of where we're at.

If we were to allocate the one percent, that 470 72,704 to you, what would you prioritize that?

What what would we get out of that?

Well, I want my cake and I want to eat it too.

I need I need wages and I need people.

Um I mean, if you're gonna ask me, I'm gonna tell you I I need people right now.

I'm gonna have to start combining some of these small units, uh, detective divisions, traffic divisions.

I've got to bolster my patrol people, and so that's where uh it would be people right now, but uh it's that fine line because I also um I've got to stay in the stadium.

Somebody said that earlier, you gotta stay in the stadium with what's going on.

I'm not even in the in the I'm in the back parking lot right now.

I need to be in uh outfield right now with what's going on over in 80 county.

And so um, you know, if we were to look at a levy, those will be some hard conversations.

You know, if it's a two million dollar levy, I'm gonna split it right down the middle.

I gotta give my guys uh wages to stay up with them.

Uh recruiting-wise, I'm not gonna have those people.

The people that I'm having right now uh test for us, and we have a good culture.

Uh we are we're allowed to do our job as uh police department over here, and that's what we're banking on.

That only goes so far when you're talking 25 to 35,000 difference for the same rank over there for these younger folks that are you know coming in.

I won't see those applications, I guess is what I'm saying.

Right now I do.

Um, and now we're we're at the phase where I train them up and we put a lot of money into them, and then they're jumping ship.

And it's about 140,000 walking out the door um every time somebody does that.

Um, and I could show you some stuff offline that's just circulating right now.

I think this is the calm before the storm.

And I know where we're gonna be this time next year.

You're gonna be asking me why is our crime going up.

And it's gonna be because I'm not being able to retain people.

My you know, average age of my department is gonna go way down, they're gonna get their foot in the door, and we're gonna be a training ground for uh other departments, and it's not the sky is falling.

This guy, we've kicked the can.

We've got to do something here, otherwise it's it's just gonna get worse and worse and worse.

And I think we're at that point, uh, like you were talking the straw that broke the camel's back.

Six months, six months is what I'm telling you.

We're we will not have people applying for us for our spring academy.

Um, and as far as the openings, it's not that we aren't it take if the stars line up, it takes 32 weeks from the time you give me authorization to hire a guy, and again, our pool is deep right now, who we're being able to hire, but uh it takes 32 weeks before you even see that person on the road, and we lose a very small percentage.

I think two academy goes two academies ago, uh we put 11 through in the city of Meridian put six through.

We were made able to get all eleven through NAMPA's academy.

Uh, they weren't able to get any uh any of their six.

Um so of course it's just good business.

They're like, well, they're hiring good people over here, and uh we're gonna use our uh money and take them.

And uh I don't know how to fight that.

Speaks to good culture.

Anything else, uh Mayor?

Yes.

So uh I just want to I had a history lesson this week, um February 2005, when uh Corporal Williamson went running down an alley and uh by himself because we were understaffed, got shot multiple times.

But the thing that stuck with me mostly was that he didn't have any backup because we didn't fund police and we didn't have the officers we needed.

His life, even though he didn't die, it was effectively ruined.

Um he lost his family, lost his wife, his son committed suicide.

I mean, the the it's a tragedy.

And um, I certainly don't want that on my shoulders.

We're in the same place, our city has grown in huge numbers.

We don't have the officers we need.

We have officers out there doing things by themselves that shouldn't be, but we need to fund this, and and I think that we need the foregone and probably uh an override, uh levery override, but uh I can't uh let that fall on my shoulders by not funding what I was working that uh time obviously for the police department.

I can tell you it was we were saying the sky is starting to fall, and uh this city didn't have the money, and in two years they were able to hire 41 new police officers to get that up.

Now that was still probably gonna happen if we had 50 people on ship that night.

It's it is what it is, right?

But um, you know, you've done a great job as far as getting us the technology, the drones is gonna be huge, uh the camera systems, all that stuff that we have, we're by far the most technologically advanced police department in the state of Idaho.

But I have to because I'm catching a stolen vehicle at 16th and 7th South.

I still have to have a police officer respond to go, you know, capture that stolen vehicle.

Um so we're doing great in that area.

Um, you know, uh I guess I would point you guys back to three years ago when we did the police allocation model um that you agreed to follow then.

Um that were 39 below what we agreed to at that point, um, and that was just three years ago, and that was just to keep up with growth.

That wasn't to get us ahead.

Um, and that was just you know, like I said, last year you gave us seven police officers.

Obviously, we're grateful for that, but it was twelve last year.

The year before it was twelve with the model and it was six.

The year before that it was twelve, and I got four.

This year it's twelve, and I'm not sure what I'll get.

So I take back my brevity couldn't comment, but I do I I uh I do applaud, and I know you have uh, of course, the cat captains and lieutenant back there, but your whole team.

So this is again, I mean our our blue is wonderful, so I think they're they they're deserving.

Okay, so uh councilman.

I need to be fair.

I'm hoping that your decision do we still need Crystal up here?

No, thank you.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Okay, we still have a motion in a second, right, madam clerk?

Okay, our real call, please.

Can we uh can you would you repeat the motion?

Sure.

The motion is to approve foregone at one percent for public safety.

Clarification.

I know we have mentioned public safety also includes legal.

Is this public safety or police specific police specifically?

Yeah.

Thank you.

Just for the record.

Mayor.

I just want to make a really brief comment.

Um I'm so funny, but nobody gets it.

I'm a determiner on brevity.

I just I just want to I just want to say that um the implication has been made that if you vote against Foregon, you're anti-police.

And um I take offense to that.

I disagree 100% that um voting against a tax on the people, whether it's only two dollars a household, is still um it's not given to us.

We're taking it.

And I know several council members have said that this the legislation has given a test.

Taxes are not given.

We take them.

And that does not mean that we don't support the police.

It's a choice to not take and then to allow the people to decide to give with a levy.

Okay.

Are we ready for roll call now?

Let's do it.

Gog, no.

Yes.

Phil's Yes.

Griffin.

No.

Rodriguez.

Yes, Reynolds.

Yes.

Thank you, counsel for not a tie.

Appreciate that.

Sure, I was too.

With I'm going to keep that to myself.

Yeah.

Mayor and Council, then with that, we have up on the screen two new totals.

You'll see pencil at the bottom, 472704.

Below that is the new total budget, 293 million four hundred and seventy-five thousand nine hundred and forty-two dollars.

And the next column over is the operational budget.

Is that the total the new total?

Okay.

The new total with the $1,093 reallocated.

The new budget total for operational expenses is $1 million, pardon me, 187,937,554.

The capital difference of 105 million is shown in a different column has already been approved.

So the only amount we need to approve now is the 187 million 937 for the operational budget to get to the 293.

Make a motion to approve as explained by the finance director, Doug Rasine.

Clarification.

We're approving it now.

We'll put it into a uh group section that you can allocate later.

We can come back as quickly as council wants to designate this, but uh the total budget won't change just the allocation of which budget uh orgs it goes into.

I'll second that motion.

Yeah, the understanding for me is is that millions going towards the infrastructure deferred infrastructure.

But we haven't cleared we haven't designated that specifically yet.

It's just been discussed.

That's we will if council approves, we will take that money prior to coming back with the August 17th public hearing and designate that as uh deferred.

Are we saying deferred infrastructure, deferred maintenance, or are we making a differential between the two?

Because we have both.

I would say both.

Yeah, it's okay.

It's both.

It's I let's leave it as is.

Deferred capital costs.

We we've got to set up a program and a direction, and that's when those funds will be better clarified.

Thank you.

Roll call.

Gog, yes.

Yes, Rodriguez.

Yes, Griffin.

No.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Doug, just I know you don't have a crystal ball.

What's your estimate of time to complete what needs to be completed?

Well, we we doesn't matter what the crystal time ball says, we have a time limitation with the uh the public hearing requirements.

We have to have this noticed and submitted uh two weeks prior to the public hearing.

Yeah, I I didn't I wasn't clear today, how much longer for this for this uh hearing?

We're done.

What we're done.

We're totally done.

Yeah, that's what I want to make sure to adjourn.

Okay, Kim, you can cancel the lunch.

Not just the mayor.

So keep talking.

Mayor.

Yes, just one clarification.

For monies that were struck from the budget, if at a public hearing there's a big uproar over specific money taken from a budget, that money could be taken from this million ninety-three and reapplied back to that budget.

Because of the way we've approached it to leave the total of budget authority intact, yes.

You could change it in the public hearing.

Thank you.

We we have not done that in the past, but you could.

We'll have a motion here uh just shortly for it for adjournment.

I just want to thank all of you for spending your time.

You can give this man and uh of course Doug and some of the others and and Clay uh uh you know praise for the I think this is probably a record breaker.

At least I didn't never remember in my uh this is my ninth time, I guess, for this, but this is uh a record.

And I guess everyone is on vacation day for tomorrow since we're we're not meeting.

It's like Clay, Clay's going like this.

Anyway, so a motion for adjournment.

Second thank you.

All in favor?

All right, okay.

We're adjourned.

Thank you, council.

That was done.

We see that.