Council - Special Meeting

Chris, if I may. Yeah. I have a question on communication. Who and when? I think you've heard me say that many times that I would appreciate this analysis to be done very on the front end, before the developer starts spending money, et cetera, that he or she or whoever the applicant is is totally aware of what's going on. Is that the plan?

So it'll be totally on the front end and before the developer, before P&Z Commission gets it, and then possibly the council. Correct. Okay, all the way through that. Okay. All right, any other questions, council? Yes. Yes.

1:45 – 2:12•SGSebastian Griffin

Gotcha. I need clarification to help clarify the constituency. One of the lines in the budget book, though, it says to forecast general government revenues increasing about... All expenses increase about... Okay, 1.9 million...

2:45 – 3:11•SGSebastian Griffin

Yep. Got it. The city forecast general government revenues increasing about 8.6% while expenses increase about 9.7% creating an estimated 1.9 million annual gap by 2030. How do we, what do we associate that shortfall? We can say three 89, but what is causing our expenses to outweigh our revenues?

4:53 – 5:08•SGSebastian Griffin

Mayor if I could for a follow up. Yes. What is causing the actuals to be higher What are the costs associated to? That's what I'm trying. It all makes sense. I'm just trying to associate what is... That's what I'm saying.

6:04 – 9:05•VRVictor Rodriguez

Okay, Chris or Doug. So I'm just thinking out loud here that since we've had about 5,000 annexations over the last year, maybe a couple years, that I would assume that our property tax revenue would increase because of the growth. But it only increases by, what, 4 or 5 million maybe at that most. So I have a hard time grasping that growth is paying for growth, especially when, at the moment, the City of Nampa have decided to ask our developers to front the money to put in infrastructure for them, rather than us saying, we'll take care of it, we'll do it. By the way, you'll get that money back.

Doug, I think you wanted to respond, and we need to get back to the tool and Mark and so on.

Thanks, Doug. I'm going to move it along here. We're going to have a lunch hour here in a few hours. We need to get on with the two, my understanding is, and I think that's maybe going to help answer some questions. I think the main thing, council, this is my own opinion. Here we have Chris and Doug that have been willing to step forward and save the city a lot of money where we would have been paying Clearwater or whoever else probably hundreds of thousands of dollars. So I just want to thank them for that. And the other thing is each and every council meeting with the criteria that they just

I understand it. That's why I said the criteria that has been set aside. Okay, so Mark, are you first or who's going to show the tool? Okay, Chris back.

No, I was just going to ask if this sample is going to be on our P&Z website or where can actually the public and developers find this?

Let's make it as transparent as possible to as many as possible once you have it.

I'm going to try not to interrupt you again, but I just want to say we're moving along. It's over an hour. There's two other subject matters. Council, I know there's, I'm sure there's a lot of questions. I know there's a lot, probably a lot of questions out here. But if those can be sent to us, now I realize, Council, you cannot communicate as a group, and so it may have to be sent to Clay or myself and have a blind copy then sent as far as if you have questions or suggestions. And same with the public. Very quickly, what's the best way for the public if they have questions and suggestions? Ro

Okay. All right, Doug, yes. I'll try not to interrupt you.

As short as I can make it. Anyway, I'm just going to say Doug will shoot me later. He didn't like empathy or sympathy, but he is actually on vacation. So he's doing that. That's why he's not here. And as you can imagine, just getting through with the budget, the hours that Chris and the team has had.

29:05•SGSebastian Griffin

Okay, short. I had seven things to talk about, but I'll only focus on one.

29:12 – 29:47•SGSebastian Griffin

Late Mayor Hagerbom had mentioned 389 often, but also talked about House Bill 673 that was passed in 2021, which is the change in land designation. And he attributed it as a double discount. And he Frequently stated that 389 has an impact. Sure, it's 10%. But the land designation issue was closer to 15% to 22%. Is that factored into this model? Currently, no. I would appreciate it if it were.

Thank you. You want to hear him repeat it? Yeah, I need to repeat that one more time, please.

Okay. here yes i just want to say thank you doug and team all of you this is really helpful i appreciate this tool it's going to be nice to use it's incredible incredible yes i think everyone agrees up here okay are we ready to uh move on uh marker where are we chris rodney i hear hands being raised i see hands being raised i should say I think I see people fighting for the podium here. Who's gonna? Okay.

Ronnie, quick question on that. And we had a neighboring municipality that did do a moratorium. What was their imminent peril? Do we know?

That's right, that's fine. I'm just curious how a municipality came up with an imminent peril and put that into place.

35:31 – 36:32•DBDavid Bills

So Rodney, based on that code and based on all the code that governs planning, zoning, land use, et cetera, it seems the overall of the state of Idaho's code is that some type of growth, some type of action, plan, for what the city, what the counties are to look like is a prerequisite, but it's an assumed issue. What I'm trying to get at is if we say, well, we just don't wanna do this anymore, it doesn't seem the code affords a city to just say, stop, no, we don't do this, go somewhere else. Because even in an emergency deal, it's saying you got six months, you got one year to solve the issue,

37:28 – 37:54•DBDavid Bills

Okay. I think it's helpful from the standpoint that of late, a lot of comments have been made. Why don't you just stop growth? Why don't you just quit approving a project? just put it on hold. And it seems our code, at least in the state of Idaho, assumes a regular ongoing process in the land use and the conversion of land use. And that's what you're bringing out to us today.

42:37 – 43:22•SGSebastian Griffin

Yes, councilman. A funding mechanism that wasn't agreed upon between the city and the county regarding impact fee shares. Both the county's failure to adopt the MidStar impact fee threatens the efficiency. plan capital improvements as a whole, jeopardizing the city of Middleton, adequate facilities, et cetera. Development is generating transportation demand, while a regional financial mechanism necessary to construct adequate roads does not necessarily do that, not funding mechanisms.

That was an imminent peril, and who approved that then from an accountability standpoint?

43:34•SGSebastian Griffin

So it's kind of some leverage, it sounds like.

Okay, I think we're ready for our legal. Preston?

46:16 – 46:41•DBDavid Bills

Mayor. Yes. So a follow-up question, Preston is not obligated to annex. However, is there an implied assumption to a certain degree of, annexation and approvals if the applicant and the application meets the ordinance of the jurisdiction.

Is that answer what you needed? Yeah. Okay.

1:05:52 – 1:06:30•DBDavid Bills

So, Mayor, quick question. So, STARS mitigation fees seems like it's, quote, voluntary. However, I don't know that a project would be approved if the applicant didn't participate in that voluntary. And I'm just hearing the scuttle, haven't applied, haven't done anything in STAR, so I don't know. Trying to get an idea because it keeps being used as the example that STAR's doing it. Why aren't we doing it? Everybody should be doing it. Trying to get just a quick summary wrap up.

1:07:27 – 1:07:46•DBDavid Bills

So then is there any possible repercussions similar to McCall getting into and people coming back after the fact? Dial that's being used in Star, is that possible? possible as well, or?

Yeah, just to inside. So what I'm hearing, just to summarize, you're saying that from your legal standpoint, it's a high risk.

1:08:44•SGSebastian Griffin

I want to touch on that after. CUNA does a school mitigation fee.

1:08:54•SGSebastian Griffin

How are they doing that? And why aren't they getting sued?

1:09:39•SGSebastian Griffin

It is tough, and as the mayor, it is high risk. When it bleeds into operational, is it as high risk when it's focused on capital?

1:10:50 – 1:12:09•SGSebastian Griffin

because I personally would find it very difficult unless the words were others, give us this fee or you're being denied. I'd be amazed to hear that spoken. How is another neighboring city getting away with it as voluntary? to the city. We had a couple in the first three rows that I personally sat in their offices and said, would you help us here or there or somewhere else? And they have. So I look at this, as you previously discussed, oh, if you deny a project and they sue you, scorched earth, it burns up relationships. That analysis is pretty accurate. I think it is a mutual benefit to suppor

I wouldn't answer if you don't have it. I understand the question, but I can't answer that. Yes. I didn't know who went first, so go ahead.

Just kind of an off-the-wall question. Valley View, I don't know if they're continuing to do it, but you know, of course, the growth in Valley View School District, and I know our main topic is not schools, but my understanding is when a development comes in, they're going out and asking the developer for a certain dollar amount for every rooftop. So there's no problem with that that you see? There again, as long as it's voluntary?

I understand it's just a verbal request. You coming in here, would you like to help us here because our schools are overcrowded and would you be willing to go ahead and provide us a cost per rooftop?

And that's a state decision. And just for the public aware, we will be, in fact, the public that are out here will be, I think we're having most of our local legislatures joining us here next week on Tuesday. So we're gonna have a lot of questions, we'll be talking a lot of issues, but if there's anything out there that you think we should be talking to them about from a Nampa city municipality standpoint, let us know. Mayor? Yes.

1:15:15 – 1:15:56•DBDavid Bills

So on the school issue or those type of volunteer deals, in a good market, those volunteers usually come forward. If a market begins to recede or gets excessive and somebody says, gosh, we're just not in position to volunteer any fee. And then they get denied. Now you got a situation of setting, to me, more of a case precedent of was it really volunteer? And my concern is that we get something going in that fashion and it's not well defined.

That is possible. Council, any other questions?

1:16:04 – 1:17:25•SGSebastian Griffin

Since we've been able to gather developers in a room all together with us, you heard a lot of state legislature this, base law that. A lot of this stems because our hands have been tied as council members. Denials or requests or development agreements or anything of the sorts come up. I think most of us I Think all of us want to be good partners with you all Same way goes for Future elections if something's frustrating you I hope you'll stand with us to see some of these legislative changes happen and so we can combat issues like 389 and 673. Because when we end up doing our impact analysis, i