Council - Special Meeting

But how about freaking Thank you so much. Oh, thanks.

Definitely. How are you?

Come on now. I can't help research to show you. Her response is why she even like just made it to another day.

I did I did read that. I read it and I was like, "This doesn't seem right."

That track What you do is Yes. Good morning. We appreciate you being here and the work that we're going to go through today. And so meeting order and going to give the invocation lead us in the pledge stand. Father, thank you for everything that you give us. Thank you for today. Please give us clear minds and thoughts as we discuss the issues for the city of Nampa. Please help us to be civil with one another and remain uh friendly in our discussions and our conversation in Jesus name we pray. Amen. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. We appreciate we appreciate Celeste joining us this morning and we'll allow you to call

here. Janga here. Bills here. Reynolds here. Rodriguez here.

Possibly one joining us. We'll see. Today uh we're on some uh new business items uh discussion and uh all of these items are important to the city of Nampa and so we appreciate uh those of you who are presenting uh that you hear. So Mark Ster, we're going to allow you to kick us off with food truck licensing requirements. This is one that we would like to get resolved and implemented. So,

thank you, President, uh, city council. Good morning. Mark Stoyer, senior director of development services. Uh, here to talk about food vendors, also known as food trucks, uh, or just simply mobile food vendors operating in the city of Nampa. So the purpose of today is to provide an update, provide some background and really reignite discussions that have been taking place over the last 3 years in regards to food trucks. Uh they are currently regulated, how we might improve the current code to meet the city's objectives while at the same time and to the extent possible being fair and equitable to all interested businesses. We're going to cover the current code as it applies to food vendors. Look at the history of amending that code and the related challenges. We'll also cover what the city is currently imposing in the code and the proposed amendments back in 23 and 24. And we'll look at what's being followed in a couple neighboring cities as well and then seek direction from council on next steps. So established in 2021, the current code defines food vendors as taco trucks, lunch wagons, barbecue grills on trailers, etc. as temporary uses. And temporary uses is defined as over 12 hours in a specific location. If this is the case, code requires planning and zoning to issue a temporary use permit, a solicitors and peddlers license from the city clerk's office, and a valid valid permit uh from our local district health. Uh they're only allowed on commercial and industrial properties. Can it be placed in the public rightway? Must have authorization of the property owner out of access to bathroom facilities. No outdoor facilities for dining like tables and separated canopies, fences, plants, etc. No parking overnight from 12:00 to 6:00 a.m. So obviously if you see all the food trucks throughout the city, they are not complying with all these things

before you. But we'll talk a little bit about your course. So, the history of this discussion has been taking place since uh fall of 2022 when staff received direction from city council to review other municipalities code on food trucks and what they were doing. Staff then brought this information from to a council workshop in early 2023 and five council identified focal areas were established. staff took those focal areas uh and developed recommendations which were brought back to council in March of 2023. Following this discussion, uh proposed ordinance amendments through planning and zoning were brought back to a workshop in April of 2023 and amendments were approved in August of 2023 pending approval of another ordinance from the city clerk's office establishing a mobile food vendor license. In April 2024, the city clerk presented an ordinance to add a mobile food vendor license to the code. As part of that public hearing process, several food truck vendors and their supporters did not feel the current code or proposed ordinances were achievable and staff was directed by the city council to continue working with the food truck industry. So, nothing was passed, nothing was reported, and nothing was implemented. with other council priorities coming to light like the Ford Idaho Center. Also knowing that a new mayor and council members would be seated in the near future. This the mayor directed staff to table those discussions on 20 until 2026. And here we are today. So here's kind of the vicious food uh food mobile food vendor regulation cycle. I know that many of you have seen this before. You you start off with the code. The mobile food vendors request less regulation because they can't meet that code. Of course, mayor and city council want to be supportive of small businesses, in this case, food vendors. So, we may decrease that enforcement or looking at adopting that code. But then

you have your brick andmortar restaurants that have to build vertical buildings and horizontal side improvements, pay impact fees and other fees, and meet other regulations. So the food truck next door on a vacant lot um there's an inequity there that's perceived between the two businesses. So of course mayor and city council wish to support taxpaying businesses and have a safe and clean city and that brings us back to looking at adopting the code and then round and round and because of this we have not implemented anything in the last 3 years. So um ingrained here are the things that we are enforcing today according to the code our code compliance group uh required to obtain a TUP a solicitor's license from city clerk's office and a permit from Southwest District Health code compliance over the last month identified and visited 17 operating food trucks in the city as of today only a handful had all the uh required permits and licenses there are many property owners so not the vendors but the underlying property owners were sent letters to comply with this requirement. The other things shown in green here as well, these things are also being uh being enforced at this time. And if they didn't meet any of these um shown in green here, it was added to the letter to the property owner. Again, it's the underlying property owner gets the letter and not the food vendor. Um one exception we did make, there were two food truck vendors who came and asked if they could operate on the side of the street. We don't usually allow them in the public right away, but uh we came up with a way to to make an exception for these two barbecue uh one was barbecue place, one was a donut place. And over there on um on Hawaii just east of 12 over by St. Alonses, we came up with uh with an idea to give them a special event permit that actually stipulated the hours of operation. I think it was once or twice a week. Uh it was reviewed

by our city engineer for any traffic impacts. So, we issued that permit and then also a solicitor's license and allow them to be in the public rideway for a short period of time. And these are really truly mobile food vendors because they come in, they operate for 2 or 3 hours, and then they uh remove themselves and they're not there overnight. Uh, one thing that we are not enforcing in the code is even on private properties is food trucks staying overnight. And right now, the wave stands, we let them stay there overnight in perpetuity. So looking at the ordinance amendments that were done back in 23 and 24, I just wanted to highlight some of the ideas that came before council at that time. One of them was to remove the temporary use permit for planning and zoning zoning entirely. Um added new code sections addressing mobile food vendor courts and mobile food vendors that are not in the court. We implemented an all-in-one mobile food vendor license for the clerk's office. uh the commercial industrial zone properties only that stayed. Uh then the remaining requirements uh for example location, hours of operation, rideway, overnight parking, waste disposal, all those were brought forward with the food vendor license ordinance. But like I mentioned before, that was never implemented. So, I think it's worth talking about what the neighboring cities are doing, especially uh in light of the fact that both Meridian and Caldwell have implemented new codes since uh the city council here in Nampa has met in 2024 on food trucks. So, they've implemented new codes. Let's take a look at what Caldwell's doing. They call food trucks mobile food units. And you need a permit from the city from the clerk's office on a yearly basis. You also have to have your Southwest District Health permit as well. Uh if there are two or more mobile food units that are subject to special provisions and considered a mobile flo

food unit park. Uh city can prohibit any location based on reasonable grounds. Uh hours of operation are 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Uh may operate from a permanent or semi semi-permanent location. So, the city of Caldwell does allow the food trucks to be overnight on a private property for the length of the permit. Um, any uh any outdoor seating or shelter must be removed at the end of the business day. So, they allow picnic tables and fences and potted plants and all that, but it all has to be put away at night. Um there is a a a size limit on the structure of the mobile food unit cannot be placed within or overhang the public rideway ex there is an exception if engineering approves that they can be given a special permit. Um mobile food units are allowed certificates of compliance for multiple sites at one time without so um they call it call them mobile sales units. They must have a license again from the city clerk. It also needs approval from Veridian fire and from the central district health department. Uh here's something that's unique. General liability insurance required listing Vidian as additional insure. Uh allowed on commercial industrial property authorized by the property owner. City can't prohibit any location based on reasonable grounds. Uh hours of operation are limited to that of the primary business. So, whatever the brick and mortar business is on that on that lot, when they if they close at 5:00 p.m., then the food truck also must close at 5:00 p.m. If the food trucks are abing a residential area, the operation is 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. They have to public have public restroom facilities, no portaotties. Additional requirements for food trucks, again, defined as two or more food trucks at a designated site, again, like a mobile food truck uh uh park. property owner must remove fracture receptacles and waste remover for the operator. So in Calwell have uh very similar

requirements. I talked to staff of both of these cities. It's working really well over the last year. They haven't had many complaints. Uh they did note in most cities that it's complaint driven. So they won't go out and proactively enforce the food vendors unless they get a complaint. That ends my presentation and we'll look to you for further discussion and some direction. staff. He's also here to answer any questions. Mark Mark, thank you very much hang with us here. Council members, uh I know I've got a few questions, but I want to give opportunity for comments and uh see if we can uh move on direction.

You go first. Well, my basic uh concerns have been uh one, I think we need to go forward has been suggested that uh a license has to be issued by the clerk's office. The issues that the clerk's office came up with a year plus ago should be implemented. Um, I think we need to have a similar uh guideline listing as Caldwell or Meridian. That's real clear. Uh, the other parts that I'm uh key on is eliminating the overnight, the setup shop. I think it's a a real hit against the brick and mortar that goes through a tremendous amount of effort to get a a certificate of occupancy and operate to then have somebody build a small deck around their uh dilapidated uh food truck and set up shop and that's legal. And the work that we require for restaurants to go through brick and mortar restaurants is hundreds of thousands of dollars more than the the competing deal. So, I understand the the need, but I think uh it's time for us to move forward. was started a year plus ago uh with the clerk's office and that uh we bring the policy together and uh we might hit in between the Caldwell and Meridian uh summary list is my thoughts and u I just don't like seeing uh the setup at several locations in town where I'm driving around on a regular basis and I I think it

is a hit to the brick and mortar. I also think it's unsightly. There's a couple that are tucked back in off of alleys uh in the downtown area. Uh looks like the unit that they're working out of probably was uh manufactured in the '60s. uh and yet anybody else would be receiving uh citations or letters to uh clean up your your property and make it look uh correct. So that that's just my uh straightforward the actual language. I'm not trying to offer language. It's just more overall direction. and those who are set up on somebody's property and paying a little bit of rent and then they leave their unit there and you see their waste uh tanks beside them and I don't know I just think it's it's a real a front. So that's those are my thoughts uh council and hopefully that we can uh move forward and actually have a ordinance back in front of us in a short period of time and adopt it. If we already have that ordinance available to us soon then we'll get it on the agenda as an actual public hearing and adoption. So Mr. President

Mark, thank you for that. Can you remind us what the um the languages in that mobile food vendor license or sorry the the food court one we passed that it's been a couple years I think now. Did we pass it so that we can have a court?

Yes. So the the new mobile food vendor license that would go to the clerk's office. Um, basically what what would happen is they could come and apply for it. It goes as planning and zoning engineering would review that and then return it to the license uh to the city clerk's office to be submitted. Is regards to mobile food courts. There's actual language in the license that talks about those courts that they have to have certain improvements. It has to be an improved uh pad for them to be on. Uh you have to have a picnic table, I think, a restroom facilities there. So there's actual improvements that go into it and a conditional use permit would actually be uh submitted to to the owner of that property to have the court. So it's an improved nice property with amenities and it's not outside.

Are you aware of any that have come before you guys that of any interest for that? Uh I believe back then there was some interest in it. I have not personally received any interest from anyone to develop a property.

Did you have something I do. Um, sorry, just a little clarity here. The con the um food truck courts were a part of that ordinance that uh that was never adopted because we were waiting on the license to put in the regulation part of it. So while we had approved that to move forward once the license didn't go forward through the public hearing that food truck court even though you approved it we never finalized the ordinance because it relied on the license to be completed.

Okay. So what do we need to implement that or to get that through? We need the the license to be approved with all of the regulations, you know, the the setbacks, the everything. Um, and then we can move forward with the ordinance. Okay. And then quick followup. Um, does the license need to be displayed? Is that part of this? Yes.

Perfect. Thank you. That's all I have. So when um back as Rodney was saying back in 2023 the planning and zoning ordinance to put in the mobile food court was approved the language but it was never recorded. It was waiting on on city clerk to issue their ordinance and then it was all going to be done together. So we have all the language for that requirements. Thanks Mark. So I have a followup question. Um, go ahead. I'm staying to the right.

Okay. Sorry about my voice. Um, Mark Curtney, um, if you receive complaints, how do you handle those? Cuz it sounds like a lot of things aren't being enforced.

U, we we actually only received a couple of complaints over the last year. uh code compliance. Kent loveless and code compliance will then send his staff out there to inspect the site and deal with uh with complaints on a case-byase basis at this time. Um uh like I mentioned before over the last couple of months, we are enforcing the entirety of the code the way it's written now except for the fact that they can stay overnight. We are not president. So, um I don't know exactly what Meridian's language says, but it must work because their city doesn't look like ours as far as food trucks sitting everywhere. I hate that driving around town. I I like food trucks, but I don't like the way it's become just sitting everywhere. I'm concerned about the facilities, lack of facilities and sanitation. And um so I think we need to address that and enforce that. Um, with that being said, I'm also concerned about our staffing for code enforcement and if we enact an ordinance and then code has to go out and try to make all this stuff right. So, so however we roll it out, we need to be sensitive about staffing on code and not fold those in all one time if we can, but definitely we need to get something in place and get it done. Food trucks are great, but um I um build things for a living and uh I know the process of trying to get permits and everything else that goes into putting a restaurant together and like Councilman Bill said, the the thous hundreds of thousands of dollars that go into doing that, it's just not equitable to what a food truck. So the brick and mortar people are

getting the brunt of this and I can understand why they're upset. Follow council president. Yes, Sebastian. Thank you.

No worries. I I have been an outlier on this issue, so I'm not going to stoke the fire too much on this. I just I believe that we've had a lot of brick and mortars become brick and mortars because of the opportunity to be food trucks first, get their name out there, and then move along. I think there are unsightliness issues that this will address, and I think that's good and important. I also believe uh we should have more freedom in our code than than Meridian. I know they stop at 11:00, so we're better by being at midnight. Uh, Calwell's at 2 o'clock, so I want to see maybe more opportunity for people to make more money for their family. Uh, facilities obviously. Um, I just I hope that this doesn't create such a burden that we uh stop the entry of some good food trucks, some good businesses. We've had others come and talk to us and state to us. if they didn't have their opportunity to be a food truck, they wouldn't be here in Nampa now. So, um it's a tough balance for me. I think a lot of this looks good. I really appreciate that it's complaint driven rather than us going out and and looking for a problem. Um we're we're just responding to an issue. So, I just don't want to reach too far that we get backlogged in the permitting process backlogged and Southwest helps uh permitting process uh to allow more businesses to to thrive and ultimately and hopefully turn into more brick and mortars and lease space when it comes available in downtown and throughout the city. So a question uh then that uh for staff

here is there the possibility of taking a piece of land whether in the downtown area or uh towards north side uh and actually set up where three to five food trucks could come in pull in. Uh waste lines would already be tied to the sewer. They got a power set up basically like a miniature mobile park and has some amenities uh etc. But they they're there for a little longer duration and but not permanent or it's a type of deal for Saturdays, you know, weekend events downtown that uh four or five vendors could say, "Hey, I want to be there." pull along the curb. They're not setting up stuff on the curb in parking areas, but actual, you know, Can you see how a piece of property or private sector wanted to set something up? Is that available to us after we implement what we're discussing there?

I think that option is definitely available to us and those are discussions that we can have moving forward for sure. Okay. Yeah. Yes, Mark. If these were on Enclave properties within the city limits, do the same rules apply?

Yes. The way it's written, that is true. But I do believe they did take out the the downtown zoning areas um in the new ordinance. Rodney, is that correct? That uh there were no food trucks allowed in the downtown area except for special events. We got to get that higher.

Um, um, I I I believe our original code had said that we removed the option for downtown um, you know, having food trucks in the downtown except for those special events. Right now, we we can do a special event right now. So, farmers market or whatever, they can pull a special event permit and and do that right now. Lloyd Square or whatever, they they already do that. Um and and we allow that uh with approval from engineering into in the right of way. They can get a rightway permit for a temporary um you know, put their their business there temporarily in the right way. Um what the the food truck court since we don't have that in code yet we um we do need to put that in code the ordinance needs to be read um and that would allow for that situation you described the multiple food trucks all in one place but they have their own electrical connection for everyone that's that's an actual electrical connection that's not daisy chaining a an extension cord report from the business. It could be on its own property, but it as Mark said, there's a lot of details there like the the bathroom facilities, um a little hard area, like a a grass and everything would have to be a part of that. Um and that was approved, but just adopted in New Orleans. Yeah.

So, it'd be what I'm thinking is like a miniature RV park. Yeah, that's how we look at it. joint restrooms facilities on the site that you use. Yeah, it's a good way to look at it. Excuse me.

So, yeah, just for clarity, um hearing from the city council is to go ahead and take a look at the ordinances and the amendments placed a couple of years ago that were never implemented. Uh we refine those. to work with the city clerk to uh to refine those uh those documents, bring them up to date, add a few things that we've heard from the food pantry community and bring it back to city council for for new discussion. Um if everything is approved, the food court option would be in there and we'll be happy to continue to talk with developers, talk to NDC and see what we can do about uh implementing one of those.

That would be great. uh council uh not necessarily a formal vote unless uh we need that formal vote. No. So uh what I'm hearing is we want to bring everything back and get it fired up and get things in motion so that we can adopt uh an ordinance and uh get get the implementation that was started 12 plus months ago. And I I do believe too, I'm sorry, you can correct me if I'm wrong. The public hearing that was uh conducted at that time, that wasn't something we had to do, but we chose to do. Um so another public hearing author back before us,

council president, council, uh chart, city clerk, that's correct. So, public hearing from what um we had been given direction from our previous uh legal department and I'll defer to Preston on how he'd like to handle this. Uh we were not required to do a public hearing. We did that because of title 10, which is planning zoning. They needed to have that public hearing, but my understanding uh the license, which is going to reside in title 5, which is under the city clerk, does not require public hearing. Um, I think it was just something they wanted to hear from the public as well. But, um, moving forward, it's really however you like to do that.

Well, my suggestion is is that we dust everything off and we get it in front of council for approval. And if there's something that in that process of get the dust off the documents uh that says we need to have it as public hearing, then we go that direction. But otherwise we get it on uh business item discussion like city is adopted. I think there's u the desire of council to get implementation. Yes sir.

I apologize. I'm late. I'm wearing alarm box set. I'm early. I am here. Let the record show. I'm here and late. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. to impact Daniel. Council President, council members, Daniel Badger, city engineer, um was asked to come and talk about um development related traffic considerations, uh traffic studies, and how we go about those when we require them and what we're looking at when we um look at that. And uh if you have any questions at any time, just stop me and I'll happy to answer them. Um so traffic impact studies um we adopted our current policy in 2023 when we updated our um standard construction specifications and our engineering policies. Uh there were not any significant changes to the traffic impact study policy document um at that time. any more minor tweaks for clarification um and just ease of uh administration and um uh ease of understanding for the for those that are preparing those and public looking at that. Um so the purpose of our traffic impact studies are really to identify the um impacts from the development um on the the roadway networks and the transportation networks. Uh we're looking at what the incremental addition of the the traffic coming from those uh developments are on the the roadway networks and what needs to be done by the development to mitigate those specific um impacts. Uh they traffic impact studies are not

there to identify um the mitigations necessary to uh take care of existing traffic deficiency though they do that. Um their purpose though is to identify the impacts by the development not the the existing deficiencies though as part of that uh process they do identify those um but based on um the state statutes and the nexus that's required to require the development to mitigate something. Um we're looking really at incremental portion that they are adding to the uh infrastructure. So the the triggers that require a traffic impact study are a any development that creates more than 100 vehicle trips in a peak hour or more than a thousand vehicle trips in a given day. And so when we're looking at that and establishing those um thresholds for the developments, we're using the IT manuals uh that identify the land uses and what the trip generation numbers are from that. Uh those manuals are um made up of studies from many different um locations throughout the United States and everywhere um to identify the average trip generation for a given type of development. So single family residential, we're looking at they they look all over the place, study those and determine here's how many trips per average are created with that. Um and so that's the what we're looking at. We're not looking at um specific projects here in Nampa necessarily, but as we review

those and look at that, those averages do really good at establishing what those trip generations are. Um so once we have those triggers uh the traffic impact studies are required to be done um by a licensed professional engineering uh using the industry standards um and the warrants that they look at to see when things are triggered um are the manual for uniform traffic control devices. There are the warrants for signals for roundabouts levels of service and all of that is found in there. Um when we receive those um those are reviewed by myself, the city engineer. We have a consultant that um does a technical review on those. Uh Joe Barton from Paragon Construct or Paragon Engineering um does all of those uh reviews for us um on the consultant side. And then our traffic division manager, Matt Ricks, also looks at those. If we have questions specifically on stuff and mitigations as we're looking at, we often talk to Crystal uh Craig, our transportation director, and between the three of us, we uh figure out, you know, what what makes sense here if there's questions and those types of things. um when we're looking at the timing for preliminary or for when we require those traffic impact studies, the two triggers that we have in the policy are that either at a preliminary plat or at a building permit. So if we have a subdivision that comes in with a preliminary plaque that had meets the threshold of either a 100 vehicle trips in a peak hour or a thousand vehicle trips per day, they're required to submit that traffic impact study that's reviewed and comes before you as part of the preliminary plat um or annexation and zoning if that's associated. Preliminary plat if they're already in the city only go to planning and zoning. Um and then the final plats

would come to you guys as a business item on the consent agenda. So that's kind of the the timing and everything. Um we've had a few larger annexations come in more recently for master plan communities. We had the uh district 16 um and then the I don't remember what the one north of that was called. The other bottles one east Canyon. Yeah, the one north of um up between Ustick and 2026 and all of that that bottles brought forward. Um on that one that does not trigger neither of those trigger either preliminary plat or a building permit being applied for. And so as we uh had discussions with them, uh what we asked them to do was put together a scoping document for what they would be studying on that. um realizing that the amount of time that those projects are going to take to develop, doing a traffic impact study today on the entire development uh would be very it wouldn't be meaningful to what the traffic situation would be when they actually go to put in those preliminary plat. So the full traffic impact studies will come with those preliminary plat um when when they get submitted so that we are looking at the current traffic conditions um when those come in rather than speculating 20 25 years down the road from now when when that's going to look at being built out. Um so that's that's kind of what we're looking at. uh when we look at the traffic impact studies there is a threshold of size that we require. So depending on how many uh how large the development is how many vehicle trips we are talking about uh determines how how

far away from their development they are looking and doing the analysis. So anything with fewer than 200 vehicle trips in a peak hour is a small study. They're looking at basically those first intersections, major intersections away from the development. Um, and they're looking at what it looks like the year they open. Uh, assuming that really that's all happening in one phase. And and that's what we're looking at. Uh, on the medium size, so that would be between 200 and 500 vehicle trips in a peak hour. Uh, we're looking at those first intersections each way and then everything within a half mile um of the development. And then we're looking at the opening year and then five years after the opening year so that we're capturing more of what um those impacts will be as the uh the vehicles travel farther away from that because the in the small study you as people disperse from the site their impacts on those farther away intersections the the percentages and the numbers that get to those intersections get really small and and the impacts and the likelihood of them triggering any kind of improvements at those intersections reduces down to very very minuscule. um as you go to the larger developments and then the area of influence. Um so the area of influence that's obviously our largest size um those we we go to compass and we um have them run a model scenario for that and that identifies which intersections they are going to be impacting uh based on the percentages and then that's what we use for the scoping documents. So that's those are the largest ones you'll see and they can spread quite a ways away from the development where they're having to look at those intersections and say okay we're we're looking at these intersections and what what's happening

there and we be looking at mitigations for those. Um so that's really the the essence of what we do for the traffic impact studies and why we require them. Uh we want the developments to be paying for the impacts that they cause. Um from a um standpoint of what they ultimately uh fund um it really is just that incremental addition of traffic that they are doing. Uh they're not uh responsible to mitigate the existing deficiencies that we already have. Um though when those projects are approved, they do pay impact fees um that help uh with capacity issues throughout the city, though the existing deficiency portions are coming from city funds, but then we partner those with the impact fees to help stretch those dollars uh to get more um improvements done for the traveling public in the city. Any questions on the traffic impact studies? Daniel, yes. Couple of couple of questions and then uh want to throw a curveball at you if I can. Okay. So,

um TIS fees, uh so when projects go in intermittently as well as they build around our our age-old issue of um building around an existing property. So, we have a start stop on on the widening of the road. we need to acquire the rightway, do all that. Are we able to take any of that type of TIS money to help close those gaps?

So, what we on on those types of things if the um we collect impact fees that are for road widening capacities on the arterial roadways as well as all the rest of what our capital improvement plan is for that. Um, right now, Middleton Road is on our capital impact. um fee uh list. And so as we get to that project, impact fees will help purchase rideway, do the roadway widening there. Um and so the impact fees can help with that because that is adding capacity to the system. It's just got to be on the capital improvement uh plan list. Um and so we prioritize that. Uh we're currently working on an update to the transportation master plan and that really identifies where our our needs are and uh informs what that capital improvement plan list should be uh to make sure that we're um adding the capacity that's needed um to address those existing deficiencies as well as the growth related side of things. So impact fees certainly can um help purchase right-of-way if we had a project come in that was on one of those impact fee eligible corridor corridors um and uh we needed to have some right-of-way acquired to help facilitate something there. Uh impact fees could be used for that. uh we haven't run into that situation where um we've done that in the past, but that's certainly something that could be done as long as it's on that capital improvement plan.

Okay. So, a followup to that subject then is do we as a city need to be budgeting? So, this is for yourself but possibly also for Crystal. uh do we need to create a means mechanism under our public works uh to fund what I would call close the gap to go back into existing areas that were developed the last 10 20 years and get the right away and close the gaps and how do we be proactive uh in doing that? Um, so I would say that we would certainly support something like that. Um, I I think at this point I would want to wait until we had the the update to the transportation master plan so that we can identify where our priority corridors are going to be. And then um, if I remember correctly, Crystal, you've got some right-of-way preservation dollars that you you have in the street side of things that um, could be used in that fashion. And it's really just on a year-by-year basis identifying those priorities and where we're going to spend those monies. Well, I'm just thinking that we've moved. I mean, here we are in 26 talking about 27, 28, you know, we're 20 years past when I can think of uh some of our own projects and other uh developer projects where these gaps are uh created and it seems like a long time's gone by and we kind of live with them, but yet they're they're a nuisance to a certain degree from my perspective. having this, you know, stop

start program or enclave areas, which is going to become a topic yet uh before council is what to start thinking about on these enclaves because they're an impediment to from my side the streets and continuity of sidewalks. So, I'm just trying to get an idea along with the TIS. So, what's our time frame then on getting the traffic master plan study completed?

Morning uh council president and council. Crystal Craig, director of transportation. We are currently finalizing the scoping and negotiations for the trend or for the master plan. I'm planning to come probably the second council in May with the scope um for council to roof. That'll be a scope. What's the time frame for doing the actual work? It'll take about two years to complete the the total update. Okay. Tough to be patient. Council President. Yes, sir. If I could. Councilman Rodriguez.

Thank you. Um Daniel, based on the extreme increase of congestion and traffic, it would be my preference that any development that comes in ought to have a traffic impact study. That's just my opinion, but so um however, uh do these traffic impact studies, do they benefit financially the developer project or the city of Nampa? And if so, do we have to match those funds for road development?

So, Council President, Councilman Rodriguez, um, no, they they don't, um, there's no specific benefit to the developer or the city for these other than identifying their mitigated traffic. um regarding often times we do hear the public question why a project has not um done a traffic impact study, why we have set the thresholds where we have. Um I will say that the thresholds have been set um based on there the if we get down to below those types of numbers. Uh the likelihood that it will identify any project mitigation being required is is extremely small. Um almost approaching on non-existent. Um and so to require the developers to to enter into that expense with high confidence that it will not provide any useful information or mitigation requirements. Um that that's the balance we play there. Um and so that's why the the threshold is set where it is. um just because the the likelihood of identifying a mitigation being required is so low um that it it doesn't make sense to require that at that point.

Okay. I think the the long run would be this in traffic impact studies show that the increase of traffic and congestion then the they would have to as a result have to widen the road or make a turn lane anything like that would be a benefit for us. And so we're already doing that, right?

Yes. And and below that threshold, we do often require that they look at and say, "Okay, what turn lanes would be required just at your entrances and that, but that's not necessarily a full traffic study, but we are having developments still look at those types of things." Um as well as you know if um it is the council's you know if they have the desire for turn lanes there um even without a traffic impact study um at entrances left turn lanes those types of things those are conditions you can place on those um even without those thresholds um yeah right

that's ultimately at the council's discretion if they feel that those are um important even if they're not identified that's something at an annexation side of things that you would you would be able to place as a condition. Um if it's quasi judicial you you would need that nexus for it. Followup for president. Yes. This was is for Captain Calderon. I have a question for you sir.

Hope you weren't sleeping over there. No not at all. Uh I'm regarding the traffic impact studies. Um again this is my opinion only my direction that would the city of would would the Napa police department consider when there is a traffic impact study going on or being conducted? Would the city of Napa Police Department say that they would do their own impact study based on traffic and your numbers of accidents and congestion and all that? Would it be separate from that? Would you be would do we need that?

Yeah, I I can actually take that one. Okay. Um the as part of the traffic impact studies and those warrant analysis, they they look at the traffic um the accident history and that is part of the warrant analysis that they do um in those traffic impact studies. So that that is already looked at. It's already and then we review that uh when we when we review the document.

I see. Okay. Well, that's that's what I was wondering about because I think the numbers are low is because there aren't enough officers to go and do traffic enforcement in these areas. So, I don't know those those numbers are really correct. And that's what I was thinking about, Captain Calderon. And if that's if that's true, then maybe they should increase or be more involved in those driveback studies. I mean, that's just my idea. What do you think? Um so the the accident history um we need data for that and the police department reports all accident data to the state and we utilize that that data um from the state for the accident histories there. Okay.

Um and so they are using the data that police has provided um to to review those. What about traffic tickets? Um, you know, traffic t tickets are not something that is reviewed in a traffic impact study. That doesn't necessarily um play into any warrants or or anything uh that we would look at there. Well, based on the compact information that they that they're using comat, I mean, and uh so is that taken in consideration because I don't think the police department really interfaces with the traffic impact studies

other other than the accident history? No, there there's not speeding data and that type of stuff is not um a component of the traffic impact studies. Do you do you think it should be um for a capacity analysis? No, there there's not a that's not something that would be relevant to the capacity studies that really the um traffic impact studies are are meant to address. Okay. I'm just trying to figure out a better solution here. So, yeah, I I get so what what we have to do. So, thank you. That's all I have. President, yes,

Rodney, it's my understanding that we can entertain the idea of mandatory annexations before Crystal and her team are done with their study in the next two years. Is that correct? We could. State law, oh, excuse me, Rodney Ashby, planning and zoning director. Uh, the state law does require that we go through a planning process for that. So, we have to put a plan forward. uh we have to go through this process, identify what properties we're looking at. Um and so it's going to take a little bit of time, but not anywhere near two years. So it's not tied to Crystal's and her team specifically. We still have to go through a process, just not that process.

Correct. It's theoretically close gaps that Councilman Bills was talking about before those two years. We could accept uh that the only caveat there is that when development happens on its own and they're requesting annexation of us. Um we put conditions on them to make the improvements that we need. And in this situation, if we're just going in and annexing them, I I think we would still have to purchase that right of way to to make that happen. Yes. if if we're ahead of if we're ahead of the development.

If we are doing a class B annexation, I think is what they call them or whatever they call them now. Um where we're where we're going and annexing property without necessarily the consent of the property owner. We would not have the ability to require them to dedicate right of way at no cost to the city. Uh we would still ultimately have to go purchase that ride ofway from them to to do that. But it would still be better in the sense of growth so that it was fluid growth if a big subdivision comes in and then we don't have those little pockets where sidewalks come and stop and we could purchase

the city would have to come up with the funds to purchase those rideways. um similar to what we were talking Councilman Bills was talking about earlier that we would need to have funds to purchase that right of way to facilitate that. Um but yes, as long as we are willing to come up with those funds to do that, we could we could make that happen. And we don't necessarily have to have a new code in place for us to have that ability or we do still. No. No. State statute already allows for those type of annexations. It just requires the political will to do it. Um, it's been a number of years. Unpopular. Let's just keep rolling.

It's been a number of years since we've done one of those and it was um I don't think Rodney was even here back then. I may be the only one still around that um yeah, it it was a challenging process and and made people really happy. I I certainly um from a uh planning and you know infrastructure standpoint think that uh eliminating enclaves is a great thing. Um it just comes with challenges. Sure. And from a city standpoint I mean it just all across the board it makes the most sense. So it would drum up that political will. So um

well we I'm sorry. I'm going to just jump in real quick. We have been 20 years now with Enclave properties. Uh some 25 uh etc. And so 25 years ago, 20 years ago, it wasn't too popular to do that. Now it it it's really from a public works point of view, from a operation of the city, it it requires for us in my mind we we we need to move on those issues the next one to two years

as and as we discuss that there there has been some new state legislation this year that has some impacts to that. um not necessarily our ability to do that, but um some impacts in the public works utilities side of things and what we are allowed to um what fees we're allowed to assess on a utility side of things on properties that have been annexed without property owner consent. So, there's some um nuances there that will be new this year after with that legislation going in. Okay. So, it'd be helpful uh when we can is to get a summary on on that and have it back before us hopefully within 60 90 days.

Yep. We can do that. So, I'll talk to John Spencer for sure. I've talked to Rodney about it for a while now. So, I would love to get moving on that if he wants he wants to get moving on it, too. Yeah. Yep. Follow up really quick. One one thing that you said, everything happening within a half mile. So would that mean that that if there was a big subdivision happening on this north side of this road and then on the south side another one, would those two work together in numbers to create one?

So So what typically happens there is whichever one comes in first does their traffic study. The second one that comes in, even if it's not built, they take that traffic study that was already done and they include those numbers for that traffic generation in their um study. So that they are accounting for that traffic that is going to be coming but isn't there yet. Um so so they are looking it it is a comprehensive look each time. So if there are projects that are not completely built out or haven't started building but are approved, those are um within the traffic studies that are done. So, if you say you have a project on the north side of the road that has 500 homes um is doing a medium-sized um or largesized uh study, they do their study. They identify this is our traffic generation. This is the impacts to the that those mitigations are identified. You have somebody else come in with another development that does a TIS. They take those numbers, put those in their background numbers, add theirs to it, and identify, okay, here's the mitigations that they were required to do. We assume those are completed. We've added our traffic. What new mitigations are required? And that oftent times if those kind of things happen and those mitigations um kind of stack up together, those developers will work together to implement them kind of at the same time depending on their building and that. But yes, they do account for each each traffic study accounts for the existing traffic that's on the road today. Any approved projects that will be generating traffic that's included in there um and then looked at globally from there. So final final

quick question uh if we took the north side area impact uh the big area that was right now I'm not thinking of the word far as master plan east east r or east canyon the the large one there that bottles brought in well no I'm thinking the whole area oh the the specific area plan I'm thinking from birch to 2026 so that would be the the 2026 specific area plan.

So what does it take and or is it possible instead of the incremental on the traffic side is to look at it from the standpoint that whole area builds out with an average of x number of units. What does every intersection need to look like? What's our tie to 2026 highway 16? What? because what I what I'm concerned is we're seeing incrementally where it's at, but uh the public I'm I'm getting the impression the public is coming to the hearings and they're wanting to look at it from what's the totality

and how are we going to solve it from a totality point of view

and on that that's what the transportation master plan really is is that's its focus is okay, what's our ultimate? What do we need? What's this going to look like? They're looking at that global um stuff. The the traffic impact studies um for this, you know, are looking at specific projects and what they trigger. Um in the specific area plan, as I recall, there was some components of uh roadway network and that that was looked at. Um but the the specific area plan and the transportation master plan are really the ones that would look at okay globally what's this area going to look at look like in the future. Uh the traffic impact studies that's that's again the traffic impact studies are meant to identify the project specific mitigations that are required. um those more global city studies look at okay long-term what are we looking at for this entire area um and what are our needs going to be based on our land uses and that um those are the studies that would be identifying that type of information.

Okay. So, where are we at in the process of the overall? So, again, with Crystal's looking at bringing a scope here next month to you on the traffic impact or the transportation master plan um and and that again takes a takes a bit of time. All of our master plans, they they typically take a year to two years to to get done. Um okay. The reason I'm seeing is is because the applications coming forward and the one that's been postponed a couple of times I think is they're they're asking for 1,400 units on 80 acres.

Um and whether we approve that size is unknown. Not speculating on that at this deal. My my question is we're seeing all the approvals that we're doing incrementally and I keep hearing the comments when we're sitting here public hearing wise. So I appreciate we're moving forward. I just don't know the time frame. It seems like we're we're going to be after the fact of what's been approved. So, and so as we look at that, if if that gets approved, that will get incorporated into that study um to to identify, okay, this this we would change the land use there. It gets changed in the comp plan and the specific area plan and that feeds into the um transportation master plan and would be accounted for within that.

Okay. I just see I mean I appreciate you working on it. It's it's just it's upon us here and how to deal with, you know, from the from the project approval side.

Yeah. And on our master plans, we generally try try to have them done every 5 to seven years typically um to update those um and so you know they are yeah 2019 was the last one we did. So we're we're right on our our typical schedule for those updates. Um they are not insignificant cost nor are they insignificant efforts. Um and so we they are planning documents. They are all based on assumptions and and the land uses that are approved with the specific area plans um have refined detail over just the the regular comp plan. So with that refined detail, we get better answers um out of those studies when we have better inputs and less assumption having to go into them. Um and yeah, so they

no I understand the difference for me is it's been a wakeup call in in a sense. Uh the last couple years for me we saw projects two to 300 and smaller. We're seeing much larger. We're seeing projects that are 800 to,400 and you take multiples of those and that's pushing our envelope of information and history experience and so I'm concerned now it's like kind of woke up from a bad dream and uh we're we're now seeing those. So that's what I'm trying to look at and I appreciate that you're looking at it

and I will say as we get those larger developments they they obviously have additional they'll be more of those area of influence type thing they have a much greater likelihood of triggering significant impacts that will you know benefit the city to have those uh funded through the development rather than you know some of those smaller more incremental developments that don't necessarily trigger those Um, so there is there is advantages to those larger projects in that respect. Um, there are also challenges that come with them as well. So it's again I don't envy you guys having to balance all of that and make decisions on those.

Well, and it's, you know, just partly that we're trying to be as proactive versus the reactive. Yeah. So appreciate that. Thank you for the presentation. Thank you for the time. I did have one more thing. If do we're running against it. So

Okay. All right. The only other thing I had was talking we often get comments about speed limits. Um speed limits are um a the city council does adopt those but it's done at the recommendation of the city engineer and the police chief. Um so when we get calls in and look at speed limits um we are looking at data. Um we look at accident history, we look at um what the traveling public is actually going, what speeds they are going and safety issues around that. Um so that is really how we look at um speed limits. Uh we are setting speed limits generally at an 85th percentile. So we recognize that there are people that are going to drive faster than the speed limit. Um but we we are setting those speed limits. We don't want to set it for here's how fast the fastest person drives. We we back that off and and do that accounting for safety and that uh we recognize that there are those people that if we set the speed limit at 100, they would still speed um

110 110. Yep. That's you know, so those those are kind of the things we look at. The only two uh real things that affect how fast people actually drive on a roadway are the amount of enforcement and their comfort level while driving. So, um those are the two real levers we have to pull to affect people driving. The posted speed limit doesn't necessarily affect how fast people drive. It's really just those two levers. So, just quick quick one on that. Excellent. appreciate the update. We're going to move to Lindsay, I think, on uh airport.

Good morning, council.

Good morning. Just a second here. Let me share my screen. Lindsay Johnson, airport superintendent. I'm here to share updates on the airport. We're going to run over uh city-owned hangers and the status of insurance requirements. Um the hangar assessment that we've completed and a quick update on the airport terminal building. Um first I just wanted to give you a little information about the airport. Uh Nan Municipal Airport was established in 1928 by the Nampa um city council chamber of commerce and various civic organizations. The airport was established on 80 acres of um ground at the corner of Airport Kings and Gerity. It was 1.5 miles from town at that time. The airport is now uh it's 98 years later. It's now 249 acres. There's 24 city-owned buildings, 145 private hangers, home to over 300 based aircraft, and provides an economic impact to Idaho of $16 million annually. As many of you know, we recent we recently had a hangar fire in a city-owned hanger. This has prompted us to re-evaluate the current insurance requirements for city-owned um tenants. We currently um rely on the indemnification paragraph in the rental agreement. This is where it gets complicated. Aviation insurance is complicated. There's not a federal or state requirement to ensure one's aircraft. It's not uncommon for pilots to be self-insured. Uh land leases for our private hangers, we do require a general liability insurance for those folks. rental agreements. We just have this

indemnification clause that I've provided. What are our options? We could begin requiring aircraft insurance for all aircraft at the airport. We could require renters insurance for city-owned hangers. We could have the city provide hanger keepers insurance. Or we could do nothing. No. Yeah, we're not going to do nothing. No, not a good option. Council, I just wanted to give you all the options. Okay. Um, so we're we're going to have our buildings and our assets protected and the tenants are going to need to insure us as for any coverage loss by Absolutely.

So if we look at aircraft insurance, it will um cover the premises which is an option. Um we there's also renters insurance that we could require our renters to to provide. The one downfall there is it doesn't cover aircraft in a tie down on the outside of the air. Uh if they are just on the tie downs or transient um aircraft um the if the city were to provide hangers insurance legally we can't do that. The state code does not allow us to do so and doing nothing is obviously not a great idea. Yeah, we won't do that.

So that that's what's next. We need to determine our insurance requirement for the rentals and how we want to do it. Do we want to do it within the rental agreement or within the airport rules and regulations? And this is something we'd come back to council for final adoption.

Well, legal may want to weigh in on that or have a chance to look at it. But from my pers all the years of uh managing commercial properties, etc. that the tenant must carry the insurance to indemnify a fire on the building and contents etc. And just doing it as airport rules and regs I think is ambiguous. I think when somebody signs a document it says we will and you are required and you initial that paragraph. I think we need to have that strength in our leases and our operation. Okay. So we will be coming back with an updated rental agreement with some provisions for rental insurance. Are there other comments on this?

Yes. Um, okay, Lindsay. Yes. Here, what a couple of months ago, there was a fire at at one of the hangers. Yes. Was did the city did we cover that or did the owner of the property cover that? I mean, not owner of the property, owner of the the airplane, whatever was in there. the tenant where the fire originated, they was insured and they're going back and forth with ICMP currently on um that on the payments on that piece. Um from what I understand, the final reports still coming out, but I believe it was not the city's fault for that fire. It was a something within the tenants um possessions.

You see, so this is what we're trying to cover is make sure that our property is is covered but not other property within that. Right. Correct. Okay, I got it. Thank you. Okay.

Uh the next piece of this, we did complete a city hanger assessment uh in we we had pledged to you in 2024 when we did the market rate um increase to the city owned hangers. We would assess all of the city-owned hangers. Uh this city assess hangar own assessment was completed by JGT architectures. They uh evaluated the um 18 city owned tea hangers and the structural integrity, the physical condition and maintenance needs and capital repairs. They broke this report down into short-term and long-term needs. The um hangers outlined in red here are the city-owned hangers that were evaluated. The assessment provided short-term recommendations, long-term recommendations, probable costs, and the building life cycles. The report also broke this down for each individual hanger building for short-term needs. U some of the items that were identified were roof replacements, torching the eaves, replacing roof screws, skylight panels, bird medication, um replacing some of the man doors and paint on some of the hangers. The estimate about $451,000. These are some of the images of some of those uh short-term needs. long-term needs. There's 16 hangers that need their roofs replaced, new e fascia, uh random door paneling needs to be replaced, roof edge blocking, uh random door hangers themselves need to be replaced, and uh new floor surfaces. The cost estimate is $2.1 million for these these improvements. Here are some of the images of those needs. Of that $2.1 million, there are two hangers that account for 1 million just over $1 million of the long-term improvements. Uh let's talk

about the history of these two hangers, 450 and 540. Both of these hangers were were constructed by a private party in the 1980s. They had a land lease with the city at a lower rate. When the city in the 1990s upgraded the land leases, um I guess one of the things I should go back in the 80s, the land leases, at the end of the lease, the building reverted to the city. Period. In the 1990s, the city updated the land lease, increased the land lease rate, and went back to all the lease holders on the city and said, "You can sign a new land lease at it'll be at a higher rate, but you could keep your building at the end of the lease." The owner of these two buildings said, "Nope, I don't want to. I want to keep the lower land rate and what happens at the end happens at the end. Well, the buildings reverted to the city in 2015. When he realized he was not going to keep the buildings, he stopped maintaining them. Uh so both of these buildings have quite a bit of work that they needs need done. Hangar 450 needs uh the floor to be regraded, doors to be repaired. Uh it's a 12,000 ft hanger. There's um like the storm on Monday, water just sheetated through the building. You if you had something stored on the ground, it was soaked. Uh it's been an issue for many of our tenants. Hangar 540. Uh the biggest issue with this building, it was built on um just dirt. Uh so there's 20x 20 pads where the pilots pull their aircraft in and dirt in the rest of the building. It um is a very dirty hanger. There's um we even having problems with the groundhogs getting in there. hits this. So, this building needs roofing, floors, door improvements. It it has a lot of needs. Um, so using this hanger assessment, we did complete a return on investment. The ROI includes revenue for rental fees, cost savings that we would have through in-house labor for some of the improvements, cost of improvements, and annual overhead costs.

the in your packets we did provide the summary for the hangers and most of our hangers the return on improvement for the proposed improvements pencil out hangers 450 and 540 both do we we we don't break even in 20 years with the improvements that are needed at our current rates what's next we're working with the facilities to work through our short-term maintenance needs developing a regular preventative maintenance plan for the hangers and we need to determine the fate of hangers 450 and 540. I also wanted to give you guys a quick terminal building update. Uh we're working with stakeholders on the airport to re-evaluate the needs of the terminal building if um the the cost of remodeling the existing facility versus a new facility and we're re-evaluating the future space needs for the FBO cafe and airport administration office. So, we're still progressing. We're we're going to get there to updating the terminal building. Do you guys have questions?

Lindsay, thank you. Uh I not necessarily comment or question, but comments. Uh those two hangers I personally think uh you ought to get bids to have them torn down, polished and uh and then I would release the land and let people build buildings.

Okay. And that way they get slabs, they raise the grade and uh we continue to be in the land lease business more than the building lease business would be my recommendation. So you might look at that cost and but I think uh there's people who could go in and demo those or put it out for bid to to get a bid on the demolition. Uh but there's no reason to put money in those those buildings as they sit. To take in water every time it rains is inappropriate. And uh so we took over the the buildings. Obviously the person I'm going to lose them so I'm not going to maintain them. They didn't do a good job when they built them. Uh I I just think council that we should be encouraging get off the dime and let's get future forward with assets and doing what we do well is leasing ground and let let the private sector deal with the buildings from my perspective.

Okay, we'll work on a plan forward. I'm seeing nod heads and and I think we ought to move that right on ahead if that helps you. helps a lot. I appreciate that input. Council, anything else that you need from us or Nope, that's everything at this point. Okay. We'll be back with updates on the insurance requirements and progress on those hangers as well.

Yeah, we we we definitely need to act like we're the landlord and we expect our tenants to carry insurance and if their fire bleeds over to the next unit, they've got that next unit covered. And soon some of the tenants will say, "Well, that's just too expensive. We can't handle that." They'll be in your office. I understand. They'll be whining. The reality is Nampa needs to operate as an appropriate landlord and uh not be on the hook for when these things happen. Sounds good. I I hope that's concurrence with council. So, okay. All right. Thank you.

Thank you. So our next item is uh pertum drain Doug Graine. Is everybody okay or do we need a fivem minute break? We're good. We're good. Share your file. Let me share a file very quickly here and then we'll get started. All right, let's get that readable. Councilman Griffin, are you still with us?

Still here, Councilman. Excellent. I was concerned you were up so late you'd be sleeping by now. No. And I was going to say I concurred with everything you said, but I figured I'd practice brevity. Wow. That's a first, man. That is a first. I heard the sun has definitely risen.

Okay. So council what this is is uh Doug is giving us uh his team met uh roughly 20 30 days ago with different uh folks and uh I sat in that meeting and talked about the Pum drain uh improvement trunk sewer the improvements what's going in the cost how we're going to continue to be a part of funding it and his plan on that. And so this is the report uh for that and we appreciate Doug and team uh putting it together.

Fantastic. President and council, uh just a bit of background here. So, we've been building this file for probably before Mayor Rick was elected and we kept we've kept refining it uh based on meetings with um both Rodney and with conversation with Daniel and with Mark and we've gone through this probably five or six different iterations to try and make this as as comprehensive as we can get it without um uh trying to capture every little minute detail. The goal is to capture the totality of the cost, when the cost will be incurred, and how the cost will be funded. That's the first stage. The second stage is to look at the potential revenues that will be generated over time by this cost. So, what I want to have uh Chris Boaz do is walk through the cost and the funding, and then I'll come back and walk through the revenue sheet. So, quick question. Do you have an updated print out that we can physically see those numbers in front of us?

I think he does. The the file included in your deck, we have two presentations. One goes to the original and we have a slight update to it because some costs changed uh recently. So, that's what Chris has got for you. Thank you very much. Councilman Griffin, do you have uh are you able to see this online or you have this graph in front? I do. I I I see the Excel the Purdum drain cost funding summary. I don't I don't have that full packet, but if you can email it, I'll pull it up on my additional screen.

Yeah, we can definitely do that. Uh just for the record, Chris Boise, capital and grants manager. Um so president and council just want to kind of walk you through this. Uh I've been asked to make this as simplified as possible. Um with knowing that this is not a simple project. We have about eight different funding sources over three years over three different work packages. It's a bit like playing 3D chess. Um so what we're going to do is we're going to walk through uh our funding sources which is that that top box or top section that you're seeing. And then we'll walk through uh the project expenses by phase. um and by fiscal year on the in the bottom section. So, uh that very top line we can see we have uh the 1.214 million that's coming from uh money that's been budgeted in FY25 and prior. And um so we are going to roll over that last amount which is the uh 538,000 UC in FY26 and then that will be done with that funding source. Uh the next funding source we come to is the sewer impact fees. This is straight from sewer impact fees. I believe they have uh roughly uh it's either 9 or 12 million. I would have to to double check um that number, but enough to cover that that $8 million um just straight from sewer impact fees. Uh the next line down, you'll see again sewer impact fees. The way we're going to approach this is that $9.5 million is actually going to come out of water renewals fund balance first and then it will be reimbursed um through the sewer impact fees. We're collecting about $230,000 a month in sewer impact fees. And so it'll take roughly three to four years to reimburse that $9.5 million. Uh the next funding source down is we have our water and irrigation funds.

This is money that is coming from uh the water and irrigation fund balance, but it will be uh reimbursed through lakecomers fee. I'm going to say lake commerce fee a couple times. These are separate lakecomers fees for the water and irrigation. Um, our next funding source is the development services fund. As you can tell, that's a quite a big chunk. I know we have ample fund balance in there uh to cover that $10 million coming from development services. Um, our next one is our foregone taxes that were uh approved in FY25 for $1.6 million. So far, we've expensed about $800,000 of that and we'll be using the the remainder in FY26. Um, the next one is the developer latecomers fees. This is what Mark Sauer has been working on so diligently. That's the eight and a half million dollars we've secured from the developers that are going to benefit from the city putting the pipeline in. Um, believe 60 days after we sign work package 2 is when we will get our first payment, roughly half of the $ 8.5 million. And I'm not quite sure of the timing of the second trunch, but I'm sure Mark has that that nailed down. Uh

the next one we have down is the the repayment of land behi behind FM. FM stands for FredMyer. Um so this was the uh I believe 4 acres of land that's

oh sorry my my apologies 11 or 12 acres of land behind Fred Meyer that we've purchased that uh the water renewal is slowly repaying Genggov for. Uh finally in that um underneath the currently unfunded section we have the the Gengv loan. So, what we're proposing and um this obviously for council to decide is for uh the Gengv loan water renewal. It's up to $7.5 million um over the course of the next two and a half years. Um, it's your guys's prerogative if you want to just call it a straight out, we'll call it a gift to water renewal or if we want to repay that through lakecomers fees or we have sever several different mechanisms on how we can recoup that $7.5 million.

So, can I ask a question? Yes. Thank you, Chris. Yeah. I don't recalling 1.6 six Oregon to fire pin trunk sewer line. I thought half of that 400,000 something was going to the police department. Can we rearrange the numbers here or what?

No, the totality of the foregone that year was about um we had 2% for capital that we reserved aside should be this 1.6 six and we had a 1% for operations was an additional $400,000 two separate chunks. We took the but what we did is it was split into two years. So since the 1% operations was built into our base in the first year of that we gave the 2% capital and the 1% operation which totaled the $1.6 million. We put that entire amount to the foregone in the succeeding year. that additional 1% next year in 26 this year it went to fund police so

we used we used it twice appropriately okay so all right next question Doug while you're up there the general gov loan of 7 million we I don't recall that no you have that's that's the presentation portion this has not been formally approved by council yet okay so let me add just a little flavor around that in terms of fund balance Yeah. So clarification council that line is what is this presentation is about is for information. Okay. For information. No action today. But it will come back for action uh at some point here soon through our budget times here. We'll have a public hearing on it down the road then. Right.

Well, it'll be a part of our budget uh sessions. R. We can do it. You can do it as council wishes as a separate action item to approve the totality of the project and the use of the fund balance and then we can include that use of the fund balance into the budgeting process for the next three years. Yeah. So we're going to be looking for an action item on a meeting coming forward. We're just not taking action today on it. So just today today's an information session and then

item but very understood we were correct. You're correct, Cant President. In terms of capacity to fund that 7.5 million, uh we have um roughly $39 million of general gov fund balance. About half of that is statutoily reserved for um we can't embade it unless there's a disaster and council approves that. That leaves the remaining half available for us to present to you for your use how what is the highest and best purpose for the use of that fund. So you've got roughly $17 million of available funding to use for the purpose you should choose. So there's not a problem. My preference would be to initiate this as a loan that is repack repaid over time by developer fees to rebuild that into the capital balance so we have it again 5 years down the road to use it again for another project. So follow up. Yes. So we're not going out and getting a loan. We are giving the loan.

Exactly. That's what I want. So the cost to us would be interest income. We're lending to ourselves Yeah. out of one bucket to another bucket. And what Doug is saying is is do we just transfer that money or do we do it as a loan with the expectation that other development and building monies are going to reimburse it? That's the approach I would like to see us take is the reimbursement back and that's a better clarification. Yeah. Thank you. So, all right.

President council, that's my fault. I should have clarified that better. So, I just want to draw your attention to one thing in that column G that you can see. You can see two different colors. Kind of a a salmon pinkish and then the green. Anything in that uh or reddish orange, whatever you want to call it, that's something that has not been budgeted this year. And so there will be a that will be on either our first amendment or our second amendment later in the fall. Uh the the shaded green are is what actually has been budgeted so far in FY26. So if we move down to the the lower section, then we get into kind of our different uh phases of the project. Uh we have the JUB who's doing the majority of the design um consulting. uh Brown and Caldwell uh who's working with our CMGC to kind of oversee the project. Um and we have our construction engineering and inspection public involvement easements. And then we get into our construction piece which is the CMGC contract and our three work packages. As you can see over the three fiscal years, our two biggest spends are in FY26 and FY27. I will say the getting this project going, it it took some time uh because that the first section of the project is so deep in underground that it it took time to get down that that far. And now that we are down that far, we're starting to really pick up steam and we're seeing um us just trudge forward and it's uh we're yeah, like I said, we're we're definitely picking up steam. So, we're we are hoping to get the majority of this done this year and next fiscal year. And I believe I'm if I understand everything correctly, um once we get the pipe in the ground and we're moving further down the road, then we're coming back and then we're paving over top of that, putting the road in. And that's why we're seeing a lot of those uh costs happen in that that first and second year.

Do we have any questions before I move on to the the funding plan? No, let's keep let's keep going on it. second page, right? Correct. Of what you handed out to us. Yes, that is correct. Council President, maybe we don't need to go. Maybe you've already gone through this.

I want to just talk about a couple things real briefly on this. So, what this does is this lays out a very specific funding plan for our finance department. It's we're going funding source by funding source, knocking them off one at a time rather than pulling from seven different buckets at once. we're going to knock one or use one funding source, then we'll move on to the next and then move on to the next. So, that's what's laid out in that top section. Um, if you look down on the bottom right hand um section, you'll see two boxes. The first one is um funds that are coming from uh water renewal fund balance and then uh so we wanted to give you that entire picture and then what's being reimbursed to water renewal and then how it's being reimbursed. So, um,

just just to clarif,56,000 that will be the totality being used by waste water or water renewal over the life of this contract after all of the impact fees have been repaid. So that's the net value and that's so that will take place over three years. Big investment up front repaid in the second half. Again, which number was that? It's the let me point to it. It's this $5.8 million

right here. So, we're It looks like we're going to be using 15,000 or 15 million from water renewal fund balance, but then that 9.5 that we're reimbursing again from impact fees is going to drop that number to the 5.8 million. Then if you just follow that down, then we'll see kind of our final once this project is done and completed, all the dust is settled, this is what these are the amounts that are coming from each funding source. So, we have that 5.8 from water renewal fund balance, the 17.6 six from water renewal impact fees, 10 million from development service fund balance, 8 and a half from the lake agreements, um the 1.9 from the water and irrigation developer agreements, and then the seven and a half proposed from the Jengov flow. And with that, I'll turn it back over to Doug.

Any Chris, thank you. Questions on the funding Chris, thank you. Very good job. Any questions on the funding? It it took us a while to put that together and figure out where the money is coming from and the flow of the monies to get the most most effective use out of each individual funding source. Question. I do have a question. Okay. In our water renewal plan uh payments system that we have for the new plant. Yes. Yes. I think we're reducing our prices to our customers, but now it appears that we may have to increase to make up this difference. is that

no this will not by itself in and of itself this will not impact the customer pricing model. Now, if you have a significant number of pipe breakages, well, it's not a pressurized line, and I'm not I'm not the expert here, but if you had significant issues on other sewer issues, and it used up the remaining reserve, then potentially, I think we'll have at least a 5 to8 million reserve outside of all these values that waste water or water renewal can call enough to need it. But this won't drive costs up for the customer, not coming from fund balance. Mhm. Right. Exactly.

So Doug, little clarification. Is it possible for us at some point to re reimburse back that genv the 7.5? Yes.

Yes. In in dialogue, I think Mark was talked about this a little bit. Uh how to get the um the number of the dwelling units to to repay the government back or the general government portion back. And I think that was through uh I don't know if it was kind of a late commerce fee, but it was more of a developer fee, but per unit that we talked about. Council President, council members, um the the discussion Mark and I had had regarding that was that we could implement a perm drain specific area fee similar to what we did back in the early 2000s for the Middleton trunk fee that would be able to then recoup that cost back.

Okay, we need to do that. Yep. Yeah, it it worked well back then and I I think that's the right thing to do. And then we get the money back in for the JNG gov side because it's so difficult to to go up on the levy to to recoup that from a overall. Yeah. Yeah. And that that was our discussion. Y

and that would be if we can do that that would be my preference as well. That way in 10 years time you've got that money to use for another project. So, I'd appreciate if we can plan to implement that and sometime while we're approving this that we're moving that implementation forward for council to approve if if council needs to approve or do something on. So, thank you.

So, that was the cost. Let's talk about the potential revenues that this project could drive. Now based on conversations a lot with Rodney and impact fees with um Daniel and more with Mark Styer to help bring this together. This is kind of what we find for the undeveloped portion the currently undeveloped portion that goes along this pin drain. So there are high density medium density low density and so forth and these are the number of acres in each of those categories. So a total of 1,700 acres that is currently undeveloped that's likely to be developed as the the after the completion. These are this is the value per acre. Rodney has given me a lot of this information. I've massaged a bit of it. Uh but mostly keep in mind that most of these numbers are conservative. They I purposely un downgrade them so we don't have an overinflation of values but I tried to be very conservative on it. We have the number of dwelling units per highdensity residential eight. Maybe some might be more, but that's what we put in for here. For medium, we have four low density two. And then when we get down to the uh commercial, um it gets a little more guesstimated on what it might be. And then the comm community mixed use is uh 31% of its highdensity residential and some of its commercial. So we have an estimated total of 7,39 dwelling units. Now for population we just use the average value or average population per acre. Right now I didn't try and guess what the difference between high density and medium density. I took this based on the number of acres at the average. So we would come up with a population increase potential of 17,361 at the completion of this project once it's all developed. if those population

per unit per acreage is correct. Now, what this results in is a midpoint valuation increase to the city's total asset base of almost $3 billion. That's the increase in valuation once this project is completed. If we go down the road and kind of figure what's that what that means in taxation, we take off the 10% that 389 removes. Uh that's uh $2300 million. That gives us a basically a taxable almost taxable amount of 2.689 billion. remove the estimated impact from the 125,000 homeowners deduction of the $478 million gets us down to a taxable value, a net taxable value of $2.2 billion. At our current levy rate of 02791911, if this were all build out, that would be $6,170,000 per year in property taxes. That's per year. We're going to we're going to break that down in more detail. Let's go over just for a moment and look up here at the impact fees. Now, this is based again on the dwelling units and the rates uh that I Daniel and I talked about. There's a little bit of guesstimation when we get down to the irrigation and a little bit on some of the other areas. But we I've tried to be conservative on the number of dwelling units. So, I've taken the dwelling units down to 5206 instead of 7039. Again, there's calculation behind it, but the attempt is to be conservative on the type of values and the amounts we could receive over time. So, if anything, I'm understating revenues here. The total revenues once this all completed from impact fees would be $44.7 million. Again, that can be used for growth, but not for current operations.

So, let's go over and look start looking at some of the one there's one other revenue stream we can add in here. sales tax. We receive right now quarterly installments on sales tax based on the population per capita of Nampa. Uh two quarters ago that was $258587 per capita. I've scaled that down saying that maybe 25% of those people are just relocating from one part of NA to the other. So I'm not adding the 100% of that in. If I scale that to 75% of new, that would take the net tax per resident in 1940 or 336,000 per quarter equaling 1.347 million per year in new projected sales tax at the current rate. So we have a revenue stream there. Now let's start looking at some of the cost, a little bit of the cost. We have we know we have a population increase of say 17,000. What's that going to cost in police? Well, that might need 21.7 new officers when all is said and done at a cost of 130,000 per officer. That's $2.8 million just in new officer costs. Then we've got the vehicles, $100,000 a year. In today's dollars, it's $100,000 a year. That would be for for the number of vehicles we need a million85,000 out of the gate. Now that's again keep in mind that's today's dollars not future dollars. So let's look and see if we start bringing this all together down here and this is off by the cost increase. But assuming that we net out the latecomer fees of 1.8 $8.5 million and I think there's another one of 1.6 we could pull out. The the funding mechanism coming through the city is about $40 million probably 42 with the increase that Chris just showed this morning. So, let's look at what that means per

year. Now, what we built here is a annual process that stretches out to 30 a 30-year total. We're estimating that we will grow by 10% per year. Meaning, out of the 1,700 acres you've got, you'll do 170 the first year, 170 the second. I can change this up or down. I can make it 5%, I can make it 20%, but we've chosen 10%. That would complete the the growth in this area over 10 years, which seems reasonable if the growth rate continues as it is. That means in year one, I would get $617,000 of new property taxes, 10% of the 617 million that was on the further up on the screen. And in year one, we would have $134,000 of sales tax for annual inflows uh before impact fees of $751,000. You'd get $4.4 million of impact fees for total revenues of 5.2. And then we start pulling out costs. So we're going to have the police cost $282,000. the cost of the investment which is the total cost of the project net the latecomer fees and then we have we've also tried to factor in vehicles the first year's vehicles will be paid by impact fees so not from the city so I didn't include that in year one um but over here we have what's going to happen to the streets down the road we know we have a seven-year cycle for doing chip seal so we need to factor in that for the new road so we factored in chip seal over here uh in the various cycles that uh Chris has worked with traffic uh to get streets to get this estimated amount in here. And uh those

are the primary costs, the safety and the streets and the the vehicles. Now, I've also factored in here the safety public safety is growing at a rate of 6% per year. That's their cost growth rate. So, I want to factor that in going down the road. I factored in that the sales taxes might grow by 1% per year. That's reasonable. Property taxes will apply the 3% statutory growth per year and the growth in the investment is 10% per year. So when we look down here at year seven in this gray section right here, we find that over here in these two highlighted colorful columns, we have accumulative net revenues. The first column in column O is without impact fees and the second column P is with impact fees. The reason I've highlighted this column is this means by year seven we will have broken even. we will have recouped all of the funds we put into it and we begin to make money at that point in time. Um, I will tell you from a business standpoint working 20 years at Albertson's, I loved the seven-year ROI. If it went longer, it became more dubious. You get a seven-year ROI, you're in the right track. We're we're paying this back in seven years. If you include the impact fees, if you pull out the impact fees and say, "Well, I really don't care about those. I'm going to leave those separate. I'm so sorry.

Shame on me. Okay. Um, if you pull out the impact fees and say, "I don't I don't care about them." It will take us until year 14 until we break even, but we still have the money from the impact fees coming in. Um, and then over the life of this project for 30 years, the net cumulative revenues would beund. This is after expenses. 102 million with the impact fees and $57 million without the impact fees. So over 30 years, now lots going to happen in 30 years up and down. And I'm not trying to capture every single cost, but I'm trying to capture the ones that are driven directly by this project. Um it's a lot to absorb. This is included in your packet. Uh, but it's it's about as comprehensive as I can get it. But it gives us that view that over time this will pay more than pay for itself. Which is why if if we don't do it, well, we're pretty much committed to the sewer. But if we didn't do it, another city would come and say, "Yep, we'll take it." Questions?

Anybody have questions for Doug? Council President. Oh, yes. Sebastian, thank you. Uh, Doug, I'm sure you've gotten the same inquiries from the same group of concerned citizens. Is this publicly and readily available for distribution to be able to give to them so we can alleviate some of their concerns and give them some of the same timelines that uh they've been requesting that we just got a full presentation on today? Yeah. Once I present it to you, this becomes a public document. So, it's I couldn't keep it hidden if I wanted to. It it it's available. My suggestion is if we're going to put something out that we put it out in a little less detail, more summary fashion.

Exactly. And uh and then just reference back this document. If those who want to get this document, it's available. But um I think I think if we could if we could do a little more summary, we we'll put a summary page together. it it will be easier for the public to to digest. I think it's tough for even for council members to digest this much. This is a big nut to crack right here. Yeah. So, appreciate that. Did I I would ask from Mark or um Heather, did I did I miss anything here? Rodney, could we get a copy of that? It's in the packet.

Oh, okay. Just a quick note, we were um we were just discussing here about the estimated amount of time to build that area out. Um that seems a little rushed for 10 years uh to be developed out within 10 years, but ultimately I think it is a conservative approach and so that conservative approach kind of balances that that uh quicker time frame for buildout uh a little bit. So again, some some serious assumptions in this that we don't know the actuals yet.

No, understand. just want to I I think it's going to help us as we continue to navigate through some of the public hearings that are on the docket coming and uh to to know this and I think it's going to be important that we continue to communicate and if we have that summary sheet uh we may end up needing to have uh staff use it and continue to remind the public uh where we're at and that we are looking at the financial side and it's not the existing uh property owners who are picking up uh the fees and the cost so that it it is truly being understood how Nampa is operating. Uh I think the clarities may help on some won't make a difference for a few in terms of position on approval of plats and and going forward but uh we're we're making a full faith effort here in my mind the

the best estimate I can give but it is an estimate. Um there could be other people with different assumptions that would look at it differently and we can address those if and when they come up. But this I think this is a a relatively reasonable process. If council says let's go back and scale it to 5% a year. I can scale it to 5% a year and show you what it looks like. Over time it will still pencil out. It's it's just the raid. It depends on what the market does, what the economy does, uh, what war we're into, but that's why things are going globally, nationally, and state of Idaho legislature can affect us. So,

the levy rate will change. That will change the numbers over time, but I don't know whether the levy is going to go down or up. It's been very stable for the last few years, just moderate decreases. Growth rate will change and council could decide to increase impact fees. That would increase them over time, too. So, a lot of things could happen. Yes. Okay, Doug, this is important. Thank you. Is there any other questions for Doug at this point?

We're coming up on our twohour for this meeting. Uh council members, any follow-up questions from this morning? Want to thank uh staff for putting together the information for these four topics. Uh hopefully you've received direction on path forward and that we're desirous to move and implement and we'd like to do it sooner than later. So that would be helpful uh on these topics. If you have questions, please uh direct them to our chief of staff, Clay Long, and uh he'll help continue to keep council informed on on this part of it. At this point in time, we'll adjourn the meeting. second.

I Yes. All in favor? I I Excellent. That's That's my weak spot is uh calling for the vote to adjourn it. So