Council - Regular Meeting

All right, here we go. Thanks again for being here. And, uh, it's an honor and, uh, have these good people beside me, especially this lady here. That'll keep me hopefully on intact on task and not making too many mistakes. But, uh, again, I'm honored to have you all here and, uh, and for this council and for this meeting, we're going to start, uh, as we always do with a word of prayer and then the pledge. and stake president, Mr. Woosterhulme. Did I pronounce that even close? Okay, so we're going to stand, and we'll have the prayer and the pledge, please.

Our Father, who art in heaven, we love thee so much. We come before thee at the beginning of this meeting, recognizing thee. that thou art almighty. We're grateful to thee, especially for thy love to us first and foremost through Jesus Christ, that we would have one who is the way, is the truth, is the life. So grateful to live in this country, in this state, in a city like ours, that the praise be. Grateful to have our religious freedoms where we live. Though we take many things for granted, we are so grateful to thee. We can worship how we may. And to have moral agency and to have respect and regard one to another. We thank thee for these things and recognize that we fall short to ask thee, Father. We ask thee for thy help, especially those who lead in our community. First and foremost, moms and dads, we pray the parents and the families in this community, especially those who are raising children and youth, this rising generation that we have great responsibility for. We pray, Father, that thou would ever bless us to have them on our minds and on our hearts. And as a community, Father, we pray that we would be together, that we would stand together, that we would work together, especially supporting those we've elected and the great work that they do. We pray for them tonight, specifically our mayor. We pray for him. Our council members, Tonight will be a productive night. Altruism will prevail. We will be further unified as a city and as a people because of tonight. We pray humbly. We pray with gratitude. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

I pledge allegiance.

Thanks so very much.

Mayor, if I could, just one comment. Corey Wolstenhulme, we also have the great privilege of having him be a principal of one of our high schools at Columbia. The Wolstenhulmes are our pillar, in my opinion, of the whole community. So I was Glad to see him and his good sister Christy here tonight too.

Thanks for doing that role. That is so important for our young people. So thank you, sir. I believe it's time for a roll call. Is that correct? Okay. So I'm at Madam Clerk.

Gog. Present. Gingula. Bills.

Here.

Reynolds. Here. Rodriguez. Here. Griffin. Here. By present, one absent.

Okay, no proclamations tonight, but I just wanted just a couple sentences. This is such a special week for the city of Nampa, Snake River Stampede. And I don't see any of the board members, I don't believe here, but I'm sure they're busy, busy, busy. But boy, what a great asset it is for the city of Nampa. And hopefully you'll all go out there and get your friends and neighbors to support the Stampede, the Buckaroo Breakfast. I believe there's one more morning, tomorrow morning. So anyway, that's the proclamation, so here we go. All right, now we have a public forum, and that's where individuals, up to five individuals in the city of Nampa here, we allow to speak for three minutes on whatever subject. Please let us know if it's an agenda item or not that you're speaking to, and then we also need to know your phone name and your address. So we have Madam Clerk who is first.

Mr. Mayor, we have three people that have signed up. Our first speaker is Jeremiah Matta. Okay.

Is Jeremiah Matta here? No?

Our next speaker then is Melissa Robinson.

Okay. Thanks, Melissa.

You're welcome.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. I'm Melissa Sue Robinson, 15 5th Street North, Unit 210 here in Nampa. As Nampa continues to grow, it becomes increasingly important for citizens to feel connected to their local government. While city council meetings provide important forum for the public participation, many residents are unable to attend due to work schedules, family obligations, transportation challenges, or simply because they may not feel comfortable speaking in a formal council setting. One way to bridge that gap would be for each council member to hold quarterly or semi-annual town hall meetings within the council district. These meetings could be hosted at local schools, which are already familiar gathering places within our neighborhoods and are generally accessible to residents. The purpose of these town halls would be simple, listen to the people. Residents could discuss neighborhood concerns, ask questions, offer ideas, and learn more about city projects that affect their area. Such meetings would create a direct line of communications between citizens and their elected representatives. To further encourage participation, the city could support the formation of neighborhood groups within each district. These groups could elect or appoint neighborhood captains who would serve as community liaisons. Their role would not be political, but informational. helping notify residents about upcoming town halls, sharing information about local issues, and encouraging broader community involvement. Neighborhood captains could help identify concerns before they become larger problems, ensure that a wider range of voices are heard. This grassroots approach would help build stronger neighborhoods, strengthen civic engagement, and create a greater sense of community ownership. The benefits are significant. Residents would become more informed. Council members would receive valuable feedback directly from the people they represent. Trust between the government and citizens could improve. Most importantly, Nampa would become a more connected and responsive city. Strong communities are built through communications, participations, and partnerships. By bringing government closer to people through district town halls and neighborhood outreach efforts, we can ensure that every resident has an opportunity to be heard and involved and shaping the future of our city. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. We don't usually respond, but I just will since there's something coming up here in just a couple days. in favor of that, and council, they make that decision, but I am hoping that at least maybe a couple times a year, every council person would want to have some type of town hall in their district. But we have one coming up on Friday, and I'll let either Councilman Rodriguez or Griffin announce what's happening.

I was the first one to volunteer for the neighborhood captain in the Northside neighborhood, okay?

This Friday, we are having a District 5, District 6 town hall. at Midway Park starting at 6 p.m. Food will be provided in addition to that. So right on the money with what you're saying today. We're doing a West Nampa Town Hall on Friday and all are welcome. Doesn't have to be your district. One other person.

Yes, Mr. Mayor. Our last speaker is Santiago Nino.

Okay.

Santiago Nino. that Santiago's not here? Okay.

Oh, he's just right outside.

Well, you're supposed to, I wanted to present for about three minutes. Are you going to do it for him? I guess I'm going to have to jump in before him. We just need your name and address.

Not a problem. Thank you for that. First of all, thank you for giving me a chance to speak here today. My name is Salvador George. I'm a representative with the Carpenters Union. We're over on 4911 Grand Mogul Drive. I think it's just right outside the city limits, right? The reason I'm out here today is because we do have a grand opening coming up. It's going to be July 23rd from 4 to 7 p.m. at our training center. It's a brand-new training center, and we'd love for NAPA to be there. There's a lot of construction that's going to be happening in the area, and what better than to upscale the community and give these kids a chance to work on these projects. Santiago's here. He is a local, and he'd like to get a chance to...

Yes, thank you. Thank you, thank you, and congratulations. Yes, I'm Santiago Nino, and my address is 2808 Bobcat Drive here in Nampa, Idaho, this beautiful place that we call home. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it. I'm also a representative of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters, and I come today to extend the invites on behalf of the Carpenters Union and our new training center that we have here in Meridian off of 10 Mile and I-84. I imagine some of you that travel through have been able to see that. We are sitting now about 1,600 members, carpenters, 600 in Canyon County, and 400 which live right here in Nampa. On behalf of the ribbon cutting, it's going to be July 23rd at 4 o'clock. And we're asking everybody in the Treasure Valley to come in today. And I have a good pleasure from being here to see and meet my city council members and getting used to all of this moving forward. And why do we do this? We... so i was born and raised in idaho but i moved i've been a resident in nampa since 2014. uh i've been in the carpenters union since 2006 here in in uh in the area in this valley right here and it's been tough but and we've all seen tough we can all agree that in these communities It has been tough and just like the pastor came up here and prayed and said, you know what, God bless us for everything that we do. That is the intent behind what we got to do. I get chills just speaking of it, but moving forward, what we're just, we want to conglomerate. We want to make sure that we're communicating with our whole communities to make sure that this process that we call moving forward here in our communities is a good thing. You couldn't have said it any better, Mayor. that we see that there's so many debris in the road, but we needed to make it as smooth as we can. I've been a carpenter, once again, since 2006. I got to raise my beautiful two children here in this place we all call home here in Nampa, Idaho. We're gonna have our executive boards from our all 10 states coming down. It's gonna be a pretty big thing, and we really, biggest thing of all, we want our communities to grow, and what better way to do it together?

So, I appreciate your day.

Thank you very much.

Mayor, could you tell me the time again?

It's July 23rd, and I also brought cards for each and every one signed with your guys' name. May I hand it out to you guys?

You can maybe just give them to the clerk. Okay.

Sounds good. Thank you.

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

Mr. Mayor?

Yes.

If I could pull 1-6-A and 1-9- B and C. Okay.

One six a and no, the other one was one one nine B and C B. Okay. Do a Madam clerk, do we need to, uh, take a roll call on that? Okay, so next is the adoption of the agenda, and that is an action item, and that's all in favor say aye.

Aye.

So moved to adopt the agenda. Okay, thank you. So do we need to do the aye all over again? Okay, here we go again. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Okay, consent agenda, which I think there's several items there. And this again is, we'll need a motion and a second. And as regarding the consent agenda. Is that before we discuss 1.6 and 1.9?

Okay.

Second.

Okay.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Same sign. Okay. Go on. Okay. Madam Clerk, on the next item, are we ready for some action items?

So, Mr. Mayor, what we'll do is we'll go back to the three items that were polled. So our first one is going to be 16A. Okay.

So we need to have a roll call or just an aye on that?

We need to have Council Member Griffin discuss why he'd like to have it polled.

Okay. Councilman Griffin, you're on.

Thank you so much. And this for accounting, Mr. Mayor, just in regard to a few of the impact fee account balances, I see that there's zeroed out. Does that mean the city does not have impact fees regarding streets, water and irrigation at this time or water irrigation and wastewater collections at this time?

Is that a, by Mr. Mr. Points or by finance? Well,

Mr. Mayor, Councilman Griffin, I can answer that. That is incorrect. We do have balances. Unfortunately, I have not been able to take a look at this file yet, but I can definitely get you those amounts. Okay, that would be great.

And just looking at it holistically, there was a few that were zeroed out. And round even numbers on the parks and police and streets. Do we have a cumulative amount, or is, I'm just trying to understand why for May, it's just showing an ending balance of round even numbers. Are we pulling from a specific account to put into these impact fee buckets, or is this what's in there? I think there's just a little bit of confusion.

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

Okay, and also the next one then on Okay. So do you get a move for us?

So moved again.

Is that a roll call? We're all in favor. Okay. All in favor. Say aye. Aye. Opposed. Same. Nope. Okay. Okay. The next one you also have that you would like to have a fold.

So one nine B and C or along the same vein, I believe it's for crystal. or it could be for Tom. Just in regard to receiving these grants, are there any expectations or strings required to receiving these grants that we have to maintain any specific programs in order to receive these monies?

Mayor, Councilman Griffin, on the ITD grant for- Why don't you go ahead just for the public? I know most people- Don Peck, Lieutenant Nampa, please. THE ITD GRANT, THAT IS FOR TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT, SO THAT IS A PD GRANT. WE DO HAVE A MATCH THAT WE DO ON THAT, BUT A LOT OF THAT IS DONE THROUGH ON DUTY TIME. SO WE ARE ABLE TO USE OUR STEP TEAM, OUR MOTOR TEAM, THE TIME AND MILES THAT THEY DRIVE, WE USE A LOT OF THAT FOR THE MATCH TO THAT GRANT. THANK YOU.

DO WE NEED TO TAKE ONE AT A TIME OR DO WE GO AHEAD AND HAVE CRYSTAL? Okay, Crystal.

Mayor, Councilman Griffin, for the record, Crystal Craig, Director of Transportation. Councilman Griffin, for the active transportation grant that we have, this is a zero match, $500,000. The only commitment we have is the final product, which is going to give us a on-shelf design plan that if we get construction money, we can go after future grants for.

Okay, perfect. There's nothing that's required of us to be able to maintain or sustain in order to Keep receiving those monies. You know the history of why I'm asking these questions now moving forward. I just want to be sure that dollars committed are staying with the city. So thank you. That is correct.

Mayor Bruner.

Yes. Councilman Rodriguez. Thank you.

Crystal, there is already a pathway there and it looks good. Why are we changing it? Why are we changing it?

Mayor, Councilman Rodriguez, the pathway right now is being grown, I'm going to say under, by large branches and roots that are causing heaving. So this will redesign the pavement on the pathway as well as look at connectivity up Constitution and Juniper to get people from the pathway to the hard work rec center.

I see.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay, are we ready for a motion then on 1-9B and C? We may combine those, correct? So moved.

Second.

Okay, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? all right now are we ready for action let's let's okay i'm moving that way without the resolution what is it okay thank you all right Director Clegg, I think you're up. So this is regarding the Valley Regional Transit budgetary request. There'll be no action taken tonight, but this is the director, Elaine Clegg. Thank you.

Well, thank you. It's great to be here. Congratulations again, Mayor. It's like I told you earlier, having been at retirement and then taking a full-time job, It can be a lot of work, but also tremendously fun and very much a passion of mine. Looks like it's a passion of yours, so welcome aboard. So I think they're bringing our presentation up. While that's coming up, just a reminder that we were here in February. In February, we talked about performance. We talked about a lot of the data that the now mayor, former council member had asked for when he was council member. I think... We've gotten a long ways toward getting all of that data for you and getting it on the record so that as you make your decisions, you can make them, we hope, in the best informed way possible. Oh, sorry, I... I think we thought that because we sent this a week ago, it was just automatically downloaded, but it wasn't. Okay, our bad.

So Paul, are we able to bring this up? Looks like Councilman feels okay.

Looks like we've got something up there.

It's in our packet.

That's the PDF of it. I didn't see it the first time through. There we go. How's that? Is that visible for everyone?

Yep, it's good for us.

Okay, there we go. So I think you all know that our services depend on partnerships, and we've had a partnership with NAMPA for a couple of decades. It's always been a challenge for NAMPA to find the funding to do this. We understand that. That's kind of how our system is set up, unfortunately. But we always have been able to work together to figure out a way to provide the citizens in your community the service that we know that they will use if it's there. Go ahead, next. Our mission is about connecting more people to more places more often. My staff takes that extremely seriously. Seriously, we came to you a month ago with a proposal to increase ridership, because what we've heard over the last three years since I've been here, two and a half years, is we need more ridership in Nampa. We can't afford more, can we get more ridership for the same cost? So we brought you a proposal a month ago with just that, because my staff is so committed to figuring out how to serve the citizens in your community and we're so excited that we knew that we could really grow ridership with that proposal. What we heard from you and certainly understand is that this is a really tough budget year and instead of more ridership, what you need now is a budget reduction. So what I've got for you tonight is just that, a proposal that takes those savings that we'd found and instead of putting them into more ridership, putting them into the same savings services that you have today largely in preserving the ridership that you already have. Next slide please. So those proposed service changes are two part. One part is changes in the on demand system. The other part is preserving the largest portion of the fixed route system that serves your community, next. The new on-demand system, so one thing I want to make clear, this will be different vehicles. We'll contract with an outside private provider who will bring their own small vehicles. They'll still be shared rides, it will still be the same service area, but it will be a different look than what it is today. Because of that, they'll be able to go curb to curb instead of stop to stop, which we think will be a tremendous benefit to your residents. We are proposing that the Route 40 in Nampa be eliminated, that those miles be rerouted into Caldwell and then routed directly toward the middle of the region in Meridian and Boise on an express route, much like the old express route from Caldwell. Before it was changed, it lost ridership after a change, but before that change, it had quite a bit of ridership and we think it will regain that. And the same savings that we're proposing for you will also flow to Caldwell and we'll be able to pay for these changes on Route 40 with that. This proposal also proposes to maintain Route 42 because we're only talking the Route 42 on the fixed route and not the Route 40. There's savings in how much you would spend on the fixed route. We still have most of the unique Nampa riders are the ones who ride the 42, so we keep most of those. Next. So first, I wanna talk about microtransit a little bit. As I mentioned, it's different vehicles than what we have today. They're smaller, they're more cost efficient themselves. It can go curb to curb. It's a complete turnkey service, which also saves us some administrative costs. They do all the administration of it and have to meet our requirements and help with our reporting. It's the same service area, it's the same booking process. What we've learned, I was telling Mark and Crystal this earlier, late last fall and then early this year, I've been to four now presentations on is there a better way to do on demand service. Remember that on demand was a pilot at your request for cost savings, and we did save costs doing that, but we've never been really satisfied with the cost per boarding. And we knew that there were better ways to do it. We've been investigating those from the beginning. And finally, as an industry, the transit industry is settling on a model that includes these smaller vehicles, but also includes augmenting that with transportation network companies, which are best suited for some rides. Next, please. So what is a TNC? Well, it's a ride-hailing service like Uber or Lyft. And how would it be used in this system? It would be used by sending it on those longest trips that you can't put on a shared vehicle because they're out of the direction and out of distance, and they're really short rides. And so if we take those rides off the rest of the on-demand system and focus the rides on the on-demand in that two to 10 mile range, where it's most efficient and most effective and we get the most sharing, we can both save money because it doesn't take one of those vehicles out to do that ride and grow ridership, we believe. Although we're not predicting growing ridership, we're pretty convinced there will be more seats available even with the same service because of this change. And we're, in the back of our minds, believe that ridership will grow. I'm telling you, my staff is going like this right now because we're not predicting growing ridership, but we know that it's possible because it's a more efficient system. Next, please. Oops. So the outcomes from this are that we leverage the strengths of both the microtransit and the TNC to do what they're best at, By doing that, it maintains, and as I noted, potentially grows ridership. But what really happens is it drives the cost of boarding down compared to what we're doing today with our own vehicles and the CDL drivers, almost half, 48%. And because many of the riders who are using the on-demand today are then getting on the 42, they're using the on-demand to get to it, or we're actually driving them to it, we know that if we can maintain the service on the microtransit, with the TNC, we believe the growing ridership on the 42 will continue. It grew nearly 20% last year. With gas prices what they are, we're seeing an increase already this year. We're confident that if we can maintain the 42, we're gonna grow ridership. Remember, on a fixed route, when you grow ridership, instead of costing you more per rider, it costs you less per rider, because the cost stays the same, and you just get more riders out of it, it's more efficient. Next please. So a little bit more about the on-demand and the differences. Right now we're finding this is a big service area and many of the trips that we get asked to provide are long trips and 44% of them are not shared because the database, the algorithm can't find an efficient ride to share it with. So 25% of their trips are the longest trips, and 40% of the service time, because they're the longest trips, are spent on these single trips that aren't shared. Right now, of course, we do the large vehicles stop to stop. The new service would be a curb to curb. We'd put the mid-distance rides on the microtransit where we can share. and grow more ridership, we're confident, and shift those shorter and longer trips to the TNC. And that reduces the microtransit trips, the ones that we would put on the shared ride vehicles by almost 25% and makes those hours more efficient that we do spend on the microtransit. I should note that we have, as an organization, a fair amount of experience already using TNCs. We use them extensively in the surrounding area in Boise to get people as first mile, last mile, to get people to a transit stop. We also use them on a qualified basis for service workers who can get to work or get home from work. on regular transit, but the hours don't work otherwise for them to make that second trip, and so we make the TNC available for that. It's been very successful, and we've got a good working relationship with our provider on that. Next, please. So we're making some assumptions here. Microtransit service area remains the same. The on-demand fares remain the same. The on-demand would continue to accept cash passes and other fare media. TNC fares are $2, a little bit more. They are a single trip, not a shared one. But there will be no premium for longer trips. Anything within the zone that gets shifted to the TNC will be $2. All the trips can be booked through the VRT booking app. The rider doesn't have to have a separate app. And all of them will be served by our customer service line if need be. If the trip is booked to a TNC, the rider will get a choice whether or not to accept it. They don't have to accept it. They can wait for the micro transit ride if they prefer. The other big assumption, and this is one reason We've been trying to figure out how to bring this to you as soon as possible. One of the reasons is that we have to do a procurement and implementation. If you all, we're moving forward hoping that you're going to accept this. We're moving forward knowing this is a better way to provide microtransit and so we're moving forward today with procurement because if we don't, we won't make implementation by October. So the assumption is, that this is the better way to provide on demand and we'll be able to do it, we hope, with your support. Next slide, please. So, benefits of this new model, you get increased productivity from both services, you get increased access to fixed route because it'll be easier for the TNCs to provide either that first mile, last mile short trip, or that extended trip that they need to get into the fixed route. It lowers the cost per boarding significantly, it maximizes your funding, It supports local jobs and the economy. Remember the fixed route part of this. In particular, those dollars exchange in your community at a three to one ROI. We both pay salaries to drivers, operators, mechanics, dispatch. We buy local parts and supplies. We pay salaries to local mechanics. All of that money turns over in your community. We also provide rides to people who access services in your community. That money turns over in your community. So it's a three to one ROI. Microtransit will turn over some, the TNC less so, to be honest. Much of that goes to the private equity firms that fund the TNCs, and most of that money will not stay in this region. Microtransit is a little more local, but not as local as what we provide. So this also positions Nampa to be part of growth in providing choices in transportation. I know we're all concerned about growth and how do we move people around. We're all concerned about congestion. As I look around the country, look around the region, The places that have choices in transportation are the ones that can best accommodate growth without so much congestion that everyone just gets bollocksed up and can't move anywhere. And so we're trying to position our organization to respond to growth in that way. And as long as we can keep everything alive here, we're positioned then to take advantage of that as soon as we can figure that out. Much more so, than if we didn't say, for instance, that we are able to activate the rail corridor. Nampa's gonna be a huge hub of that rail corridor, but if people can't get to it, and without the on-demand, without the fixed route there, it's gonna be harder for them to get there. It won't be as successful as it might be. So we're trying really hard to lower your costs as much as we can, keep as much alive as we can in a good way that grows ridership on both pieces of the system while we work to figure out as a region, how are we gonna respond to 21% growth in the last six years? 21% in the last six years. I don't know a region around the country that's had that kind of growth. And we're... If it's a one size fits all response, we'll probably not get there. So we wanna be part of a response that offers some choices, offers some options. And so we're hoping that this proposal today offers you the opportunity to be part of that. Next please. So the fixed route really is critical. Ridership is increasing significantly. It's been one of our highest performers in ridership increase. That decreases the cost per boarding. The beauty of on-demand systems, if you look again, as I looked around the country and listened to these presentations, was not that the on-demand system was the be-all, end-all. for a region or a place, but that the on-demand system provided the connections to the region, and they did that through the regional connections, and that typically happens on the fixed route. Without the fixed route, Nampins won't be able to get Boise. They won't be able to get to Meridian. They won't be able to get to Micron. With it, they will be able to do those things. I know you'd like every job to be in Nampa, just like when I was on the city council in Boise, I wanted every job to be in Boise, but it isn't. We know that. We know we're a region, and if we can be a region, we'll be stronger. And then there's the higher gas prices. We're really seeing an increase right now as the gas prices go up. of fixed route transit used regularly can save a ton of money if you're really struggling, especially in these times. Next please. So the budget detail, go ahead to the next one if you would. Significantly less than last year's request, 42% less. Part of this reduction is reduction in capital as we change the kind of vehicles we use. most of the reduction is in service costs. About half of it's fixed route, about half of it is microtransit. So fixed route is less, microtransit is less, and together we think we can provide 34,000 rides in 2027 on VRT vehicles versus the 31,000 that we had last year. So 10.3% increase in ridership, A 13% increase in unique riders. We are pretty confident this is gonna attract more unique riders, cost per boarding almost half, and cost per rider significantly less as well. And a little note about that cost per rider, if you will, and specialized transit, two things. So specialized transit, we also provide in this community, you don't pay any of that. Well, a little bit of your general goes to the planning for it, but that's really all that you contribute to the specialized transit, and that includes beyond access services, and also includes rides to wellness. Rides to wellness, as Councilmember Reynolds pointed out last time I was here, is largely funded by the healthcare system, and those rides are really valuable for your community. Next, let's go ahead to this next one and we can come back to this if there's questions. So our policies as well as FTA policies require if there's a significant change in how we're providing service that we hold a public hearing and get input on that. So regardless of the decision you make, we are gonna have to hold this public hearing. So we're holding it next week, next Monday. You guys don't have a council meeting. I know you've got lots of other things going on. But if you wanna hear directly from your constituents about this, it's gonna be right next door at Civic Center. Open house from 3.30 to five, and a public hearing from five to seven. We expect the public hearing may not last that long, but we're publishing it in case people can't get there earlier. We really would love to have you there. I think as a council member, when I went to these, when VRT would hold them, they were always valuable in terms of hearing from my constituents about how they used the service, what it meant to them, and what changes would impact them and how they would impact them. So really, really encourage you to come with us. And with that, I'd stand for questions.

Go ahead. Elaine, will that meeting next Monday be online?

What's that?

The meeting on Monday, will that be online? Available online? The hearing, your public hearing?

The public hearing is, yeah, next Monday, the 22nd of June at the Nampa Civic Center in what room?

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

Oh, okay. The public hearing part of it is we couldn't make the open house. We do have some information available.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, I'm sorry. It's okay. Was echoing for some reason. We are.

Mr. Mayor.

Yes, council.

Thank you, Elaine, for all of your work. I know this has been a crunch time for you. And I still am wondering, have you been able to reach out to the hospitals and even Micron and CWI and possibly Walmart, these places that you are taking people to, to give more to the transit? Because I feel like they should be pitching in a little bit more than the city of Nampa should.

Well, thank you for that question. Yes, we have continued to talk to them. No, we haven't gotten any commitments. You know, public services are typically paid for with taxes, which are a collection of money from everyone, and typically the microns and the, Walmart's of the world contribute more than your regular household does to those. For us to go out and individually fundraise each of them is frankly a challenge. They have... who's the right person in Nampa to talk to, for instance, and how can they make a corporate decision about funding? So by the time you get up and down the ladder, it can be quite a while. We've been up and down that ladder. We've started it in some of the places you're talking about. We've been up and down it already at Micron. We think ultimately there will be a service commitment from them. Again, don't know how much it will be. So, you know, I'm not saying that you're wrong on that, but I am saying, I guess, that nobody goes and holds out their hands and asks them for more money for the road in front of Walmart, right? I'd like to. Maybe they should. I don't know.

Thank you. Further questions? Yes. Thank you, Elaine.

I'm looking at your budget and I don't see 24, 25 or 26, but in 23, according to the Ida Bailey report, it shows that your revenues were 26,978,060. And that was 23 and 22. And your capital was 28,177,389. Could you give me the updated numbers just to operating costs and capital budget, please?

So no, we did not provide that tonight. We have been providing it previously and thought it might be redundant. I'm sorry if it wasn't. Yes, budget requests have been growing over time. NAMPA's at no higher rate than others. I will make the note that I think in just before the pandemic hit, there was an adjustment in cost allocation And frankly, the city of Boise was paying about 93% of the costs, and they weren't getting 93% of the services. And so we made an adjustment in that. That was before my time. VRT made that adjustment. The Nampa representatives voted for it, So there was a jump at that point, but since then it's been pretty steady up and down, or up. Based on inflation, we have the same cost increases you guys have. So we've been doing our best. I will note that what we were gonna ask you for this year was not more than last year. We've been doing our best to keep those as flat as possible, recognizing everyone's challenges. And even with that, we have a lot of deferred maintenance because we frankly haven't asked for the kind of capital contributions we should have been just like you have a lot of deferred maintenance, um, for those same reasons. So we're, we're trying our best to, to keep it.

So, uh, getting back to the, my question, the fiscal year of 24 operating budget is 25,588,639. whereas the capital budget is 8,624,500. That's in 24, we're now in 26. I'm asking you if you could give us or show us the 26 numbers, the 2026 budget numbers.

Sure, we can. Our 26 budget, I don't have it at the top of my head.

We can provide it. It's in our published budget. We don't have actuals for 2026.

Just 25. Yeah, 2025 we have. 26 is still underway, so we know what we budgeted. We don't know what the expenditures are.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions, Councilman Griffith?

Yes, thank you. I understand that this is trying to have a balance with both the fixed route 42 as well as the micro transit. Is there any way to just get the micro transit? I know previously we had received numbers in the last budget hearing of $353,000 just for micro and then $375,000 for fixed route as two separate dollar figures, knowing that those were ultimately going to be combined, but... That's more of my appetite is the microtransit. Is that possible to just get microtransit?

Anything's possible. It will cost jobs. It will cost almost 17,000 rides. It will mean that the people who depend on that to get somewhere else to work probably won't be able to. It may impact whether they're able to work. I know that that's a small number of people. I know that that's a decision you could make. Yes, we could do that. But doing that will impact access and travel options and opportunities for people in your community.

dollar figure be closer to the 353,000 that you had proposed?

It would be below that.

It would be what now?

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

In terms of the vehicles, you mentioned smaller vehicles. You, And you also mentioned that you're going through the procurement process. Are those vehicles available now on hand or are you purchasing them to get ready for October?

No, we won't purchase them. They'll be owned. They'll be a private company. They'll own and operate them. Private contracts, right?

Yeah. And who would be some of those companies?

We'd have to do a procurement. There are two leading, just like there are two leading TNCs, there's two leading companies. We don't know yet.

Is Uber and Lyft both already part of that plan?

We would do the same thing with the procurement on the TNC. We'd ask for bids. I'm checking around the country. It's not unusual for transit agencies who are doing this to contract with both of them because that way there's more likelihood for a ride being available.

One last mayor, if I could.

Asked? Yes. Promise? Promise. All right.

In terms of the grant that we received two years ago, now heading into the third year, if we terminate the fixed routes but maintain our micro transit, do we still receive that 500 and some odd thousand dollars?

It is dependent on the fixed route. We did double check that with FTA. It's not our choice. And you well know we did that in good faith, expecting A, that it wouldn't take as long, and B, that this is the main place in Nampa that needs that service. Thank you.

Any other questions?

Mr. Mayor? Yes. Elaine, if the fixed route was terminated, how would that affect... service to St. Al's, St. Luke's, CWI?

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

I'm looking down the line. You're all by yourself there, Councilwoman. All right, no other questions? Okay, Director Clegg, thank you for your time.

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

Thank you. Okay, we're getting close to public hearing time, but let's try to get some of these staff communications here. And the first one, from what I'm reading, is a fun one. Is that right, John? And you have an individual here that received the award. and help me with these acronyms. PNCWA, what does that stand for?

Mayor, City Council, John Spencer, Director of Water Resources. The PNCWA is the Pacific Northwest Clean Water Association. Okay. They're ones that kind of oversee the, or they're just an association that deals with wastewater water renewal.

Okay, so go ahead and let's honor.

Yes, so yeah, I'm very pleased to be up here to share with you that Jordan Trevino has won or has been recognized for this award, the wastewater lab operator of the year. So she has worked with the city for six years. She has a class four lab operator license. She oversees the processing of over 30,000 samples a year and testings to make sure that we meet the EPA requirements of federal and state requirements. She does an outstanding job for us and I'm very proud that she got recognized as a leader in the state for the lab operator.

And I saw the, but when did the award actually happen? How long ago?

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

And that happened, where were you to receive the award?

To Moscow.

To Moscow, okay, wonderful. Okay, did you have something to say, Tom? No, I just came here to support. Okay, Amy, are you wanting a pit photo? Yeah.

All right. Jordan, thank you. Yeah, thank you. Hey, that's it. All the hard work.

Yes, hold that up. All right, give her a hand. Okay. Next. One of my favorite people, Cody Swanner, you get to come up and talk about parks and recreation staff communications regarding Centennial golf course irrigation project update land value appraisal for the city property proposed for the potential real estate exchange with the Napa school district. So you, uh, quite the subjects tonight, huh?

Thank you, Mayor Bruner. With me this evening is our golf manager, Tony Blazius, and we actually have two items to talk about. He's gonna speak first about a centennial irrigation project update.

All right, Mayor and Council, thank you so much for the time. I just want to give you, sorry, Tony Blazius, golf manager for the city of Nampa. I just wanted to give you a brief update of what's going on over at Centennial Golf Course with our irrigation replacement. As you probably know, we contracted with the Mid-America Golf and Landscape Company to do this $3.8 million project to replace our irrigation system. It is a huge project, enormous because it involves the contractor as well as golf and trying to keep golf open at the same time. So it's a heavy lift. I just want to let you know it's going very well at this time. It's going to require about six months of our project, of our season. We hope the contract goes through October 12. We hope to have everything completed by September 30. Everybody with Mid-America is confident that we'll meet that. As I said, an enormous lift to keep the golf course open during this time. It is challenging, the communication. Sometimes it happens very quickly. So our main focus as a golf department is to make sure that our golf customer does not miss a beat. When we come down to communication with our golfers, it's face-to-face, social media and such, a lot of collateral hung up around the club and a lot of our attendants speaking directly with our customers. Just to know, When we get into the project, our golf team has created an alternate par three. So when we do get to pulling laterals, which will probably be a little bit towards end of this month in July, we will have to close down a hole. So we'll close down a hole, and that alternate hole will come into play so our customer will not miss a beat playing 18 holes. As you can see some of these pictures, this is going to take Mid-America installing over 125,000 linear feet of pipe, mainline and lateral, to just under 2,000 individual irrigation heads. These heads will be individually marked with GPS. And what that'll do is that'll let our superintendent irrigate the golf course in a better way to where we won't get wet spots right next to a dry spot. What it'll also do is mitigate any water usage that is going to be run afoul and not be being used in a good spot. So it'll be in a much more efficiently irrigated surface so that the conditions for our golf course will improve quite a bit. See some of the main line that they put together. This was in April, first of May. They fused a lot of the main line in preparation. They're digging some irrigation main line right here. The open holes is where they'll come back to start pulling the laterals through the fairways. This is a spot now at the lower part of the screen, you'll see a T for the main line. That will go underneath the parking lot and fuse up with the holes two through seven, and then it'll continue along as it goes behind nine green and go right between nine and 18. Here's that spot between three and five, an aerial shot of the installation for the main line. More mainline shots. Some of the issues we have been running into, although be it pretty small right now, we have run into some rock up on the top bench of the golf course. We believe after they get done with the top part towards the end of the month that we will kind of be out of the rock area. We expect a little bit, but down in the bottom portion of the golf course, we shouldn't run into too much rock. Some of that stuff is pretty big. They've brought in another rock hammer to get through this. So there's been some rock up on the top side. This is where we board underneath Centennial Drive. Successful there, and they'll hook up to that this week. I'll show it right there. And then this is some main line going through between 9 and 18. So all in all, the project is going great. Mid-America has been very nice to work with. We do believe they'll get done on time. Thank you. Any questions?

I think so. When Councilman Rodriguez is out there golfing, though, can you just turn all the sprinklers on?

Don't worry. My balls are going in those holes.

I appreciate it. Thanks.

Also, I just wanted to say, Mayor Brunner, is that this project is about $2.5 million under budget, and that is great. I don't remember the first number was 5.7. 5.5, and we're down to three something. Great job.

Mayor and Councilman Rodriguez, our bids came in very competitively, which was very nice. So our budget estimate was around the 5.5 with our bid coming in at 3.8.

Great job with that. Okay, Cody, you ready for the potential real estate exchange? Thank you.

Thank you. Cody Swander, City of Napa Parks and Recreation Director. This staff communication is to just bring to City Council members attention regarding the potential property swap that Napa School District has approached the city with several months ago. Part of their process that they learned kind of late in the process is that they legally were required to appraise the property that they owned in order to enter into any kind of negotiation or an exchange, the potential of an exchange. neither the school district or Parks and Rec Department have a professional real estate person, and we were guesstimating, I would say, that the value of those properties were somewhat equal, not knowing an exact number. After the appraisal came back at a little over $6 million for the school district property, I come before you tonight to just let you know that that has happened, and to maybe get some direction on whether the city of Nampa feels or does council feel that it is important for the city to have our park property that is in potential talks for an exchange to be appraised. I did get a estimate for an appraisal through Right of Way Specialties Inc for $4,500 for that appraisal with an estimated 30 day more or less time period for it to take place.

Mayor? after they received this appraisal, what was the school district's opinion on how we move forward? I think obviously they're very interested in the baseball field and with tight budgets, I just am wondering how interested they are in the field at this point.

Their interest to me, the communications I've had with their representative is that they are still interested in some sort of an exchange. They just wanted this to be known that they have an approximate value. They believe that that value of a little over $6 million for their property is higher than what the city's property would appraise at, but they have not indicated whether or not that would be a deal breaker for them to move forward. I just wanted to come to you to find out if, in order to make a decision if we were to show up, because this deal, if were to happen, has to be approved by the Nampa School District Board and Nampa City Council, and so we would want, is the information of the city's actual real estate value important for this body to make a decision? I don't, from what I understand, is it's not a legal obligation for the city to have its property appraised like it is for the school district, but it is an option that we would have.

Yes, Councilman. Cody, quick reminder, the 40 acres at Robinson, the southeast corner. Southeast corner.

Mayor and Councilman Bills, it's approximately 43 acres that we're looking at that the school district owns, and it would be the northeast corner of Airport Road and Robinson. Right.

Previously in our discussions way back, we looked at 35, 40 acres. Unfortunately, I didn't... find my notes on roughly what was that dollar?

That piece of property is still for sale on the market from what I last saw on real estate websites, and it was around the 36-acre mark, or about 2.2. 2.2 million.

My concern is, if they're at six, we're spending money to get a market appraisal on Rodeo Park, but if it comes in that worth three, four million, trade in part plus cash to get to their 6.6.

Six million even. Just over six million, 6,025,000, I believe the number, 65,000.

In my mind, they got a generous appraisal and depending on what code allows them as well as their board for us to spend money and say now we know what rodeo park's worth whether it's up or down at that number um i guess i'm i'm becoming closer to a pause unless we know what the school district wants to do we if we go ahead and get the appraisal I don't know if we got a feel as far as what that's going to come in at. For me, the discussions were it was an equal trade, do the trade. I understand the requirement of law to do the appraisals, but at this point, I don't know that we're going to hit that. And 2-2 on the 36 acres is starting to look pretty good if we're going to have to trade away Rodeo Park plus put in possibly

Mayor, Councilman Bills, they did not necessarily say that that would be a stipulation of an exchange as adding cash to the property if the values were unequally valued. I think that's probably a future discussion. I think this was just an opportunity to know if there was value in knowing the actual appraised value. dollar amount that the city's property is worth if that would help this body make that decision going forward. I don't think it's necessary to continue down the road with an exchange discussion and then maybe that desire would come forth from the school district at that point, but it hasn't to me so far.

Councilman Reynolds. Mayor Cody, does this include the barn on that property?

Mayor and Councilman Reynolds, yes. So far in our discussions with the school district, it did include the property that the barn is on.

I don't know if those of you that watched Channel 6, I had an opportunity recently to tour that. That should be on a register somewhere. It's a historic property. I don't see myself having any desire to give that away to anybody. It dates back to 19... or 1915, it's still got horses' names inside of it. I think we need to steward that property carefully. But I am not in favor of getting an appraisal on this. I think it's a waste of our dollars. And if they wanted to do a trade without that, to me this appraisal seems inflated that they got. Maybe it's not, but it seems inflated. And I would not be in favor of spending our money on getting an appraisal.

You want to also add to that, Councilman?

I am also not in favor of doing the appraisal. If they would like to trade and do a trade-off, I think they have a lot of sentimental value to the property, having that be Nampa's baseball field. So they might have bare dirt, but we have improved dirt that they want to have... control over. So I would be interested in still doing the trade off, but not if there's going to be additional capital that we have to throw into the pot to make it happen or an appraisal to do that either.

So I think there's more or less a consensus on that. Is that correct from the constituent?

Yes. Thank you, council. That's exactly the direction I was looking for. I appreciate your time.

Thank you. We're now at 610. So who out in the audience are here for a public hearing? Are you the applicant? Okay, so if it's okay with you, I'm gonna go ahead and keep moving with some of this communication. Well, we'll see, you tell me. You're gonna be my boss for a while, by the way. Okay, so next we have Lieutenant Childers. Okay, there he is. you're going to talk about a path ordinance for motorized equipment. And I was, uh, had the opportunity and I know what the councilman bills also to attend, uh, a public forum where I was amazed by the turnout of the number of people that, uh, were interested and, uh, and there'd been a lot of research done. So I guess you're going to present what you, what your findings are, huh?

Yes. Mayor, uh, city council, Brad Childers, Lieutenant for Napa police department. I think the point of this discussion is two-prong education for how we evaluate what is a motorcycle and what is a bicycle or e-bike or e-motorcycle. The other part is what Napa Police Department is doing for it. So hopefully you can see that okay on the screen. We have two different classifications. If it's got pedals on it, it's an e-bike. If it doesn't have pedals on it, we consider it an e-motorcycle. You can go pretty far into the weeds in this as far as how many wattages, how many batteries they have, how many motors for those batteries and so on. But this is kind of the direction that we took from state and ran with it. Going forward on this, this is our current city ordinance for our bicycles, scooters, e-bikes, e-motorcycles, whatever you want to. classifying this is what we already have in place. I'm not going to read all this to you, but we do have something established in here for it. It does go through all the definitions for them, what they consider them, and the reason behind it as well for the public and public safety. Also in our city ordinance is areas that doesn't matter what you're on, you can't ride them. So if, for example, the parking lot out here, you cannot be on a e-bike or e-motorcycle or a scooter, Um, the, I did do a map of the downtown area where they have to dismount. So in areas like this, uh, councilman Reynolds would not be able to do his kickflips. He would have to proceed to go further outside of this area to practice those.

Yeah.

Um, it's laid out pretty simple. I think one of the things that we, we could do maybe on our side for the social media part is to update that for the public to see where they have to get off those bikes. our scooters, whatever they're riding on that. Again, this is just the continuance of our city ordinance to also go over some of our pathways, speed limits on those. During our town hall meeting, that was a big topic of it, of if these were limited to speeds in our area. No different than someone driving down the road, we can say you can only go 20 miles an hour, but if this bicycle does 28 miles an hour, people will probably test that. For some reason, I can't get over to further slides. There we go.

Calls of service since March, we had 30 of them.

And normally these come in as either reckless drivers or juveniles on these bikes. April, we had 24. You see a large spike there. in May of 66 calls of service. We already have 25 in June. I believe the major spike is we made it a project for the city of Napa for the police department in giving our resources and attention more towards it. That is limited, meaning the priority call of service is not probably a juvenile on a bike. It's going to be someone with a true 911 emergency. However, most of those now were categorized correctly, so we can pull the stats on those. and see what we're doing. And I believe that was Councilman Rodriguez. Was that your patrol car there? Yes, and I wrecked it. You wrecked it? Right, Joe? What we're currently doing for the Napa Police Department to kind of combat this, first and foremost, education. Shout out to our school resource officers who drafted up a wonderful letter that went out to all the parents. to the Napa School District and Valley View School District for our area. This gave the parents, I think, to see firsthand of what they can and cannot do with their kids riding these things, the potential dangers out there. The education through our social media was another big impact on it. And then, as you mentioned, Mayor, that we did have a city hall meeting at the police department. It was pretty well attended. We had approximately 60 to 65 people that attended that. A lot of education went out in that. And then enforcement through citations and warnings. We're not just citing or warning the kiddos. We're also educating the parents as well. So some of that would be a warning the first time. Second time would be a citation for fail to supervise for your child that is out on the roadway with these motorcycles. Our most success that we're having on this is we don't think it's safe for police officers to be running code in and pursuing these. So we had, during that town hall meeting, we had an incident where these bikes were located. We had one available officer, thankfully he had a drone, launched the drone in the air and followed the child back to his residence where we made contact with the kiddo and parents at that location. That's where we have the most success. We do have times where we can have officers on green belts. That's just a little far and few between with our staffing right now, but we're continuing to do that where we can. We did make this a CompStat project, which hopefully you'll learn more about, Mayor, on it and throwing what resources we have due to this on education, both on enforcement side and education side. I know that was fast, but if you have any questions for me, if you have any questions for me. Mayor Brunner.

Yes. If I could clarify that one e-rider or whatever he was, he was tearing up Osborne Park. And rather than send out two officers to go find him, he put the drone up, and that's how you found him. And so he was vandalizing Osborne Park. So that's very good on our drones. I just wanted to thank you for that. using that kind of concept out there.

Thank you, Councilman. You're welcome. Appreciate you, the education on that to the school districts. That's wonderful that they're partnering with you. And if there's an individual, young or old, that gets out of hand, I guess it'd have to be young for it to have parents, but then the parents actually could be responsible also if a citation is necessary.

Yeah, and again, we are giving a warning on that first so that they understand.

Sure, understand. Mayor?

Yes. Question for you. Uh, are we going to need additional resources or funds to do greenbelt patrols or anything like that on bicycles? I know that's how Boise does it, but are we, are we moving that direction or that's not the plan right now?

That's a great question, Marin and councilman. We are trying to do that as we, uh, have some bodies to do that. Occasionally when we have what we call a super Wednesday, both patrol sides of the week are together. We were successful in doing that one time so far. And that was the extent of our resources for that. We didn't catch anybody that day, but I think when they are on that pathway, it's also a major deterrent for it.

Well, and I think for any crime, we've seen not only in this city, but other cities. And historically, there has been crime on a green belt. Just have that police presence. Might be nice to make everybody, young women, young moms, My wife's one that frequents the green belts.

We did have one other occasion where we had our community service officers take the UTV out and went on the green belts with that. The overwhelming response was really well. They were thanked a lot for being out on there.

Volunteers might be the best route to go. And we may be able to have distinction and have a horseback. Sure. Joe about hit his head on the back of the wall.

I think our chief may disagree.

He goes, what's with that new mayor?

I've got a good idea, Joe.

Okay. Mayor? Yes.

Crystal?

Want her up? Well, does she have a mic? Do you have a mic there? No. I'm up then.

With your experience on the street side and the signs and all that, is there a practicality to having some type of sign that provides a beam and tracks the speed on some of these e-bikes on some of the main pathways? And also, do we have the ability one day to put a camera there? Trying to look beyond just our immediate problem, but how do we... How do we think future forward on some of this?

For the record, Crystal Craig, Director of Transportation. Mayor, Councilman Bills, that's a great question. These e-bikes are newer. I would hazard to guess, and so I haven't seen studies done specifically about speed feedback signs regarding those. However, I have seen studies done here in the Treasure Valley regarding speed feedback signs. and they actually proved to be ineffective. Ada County Highway District got a grant, put in on around 20 different signs throughout the Treasure Valley, and then did speed studies before and after they installed them to see what happened. And in most of the cases, speed adjacent to and around the signs increased. I don't know if that is because drivers were driving under the speed limits and realized it and sped up, or if they found it as a challenge. if I had to assume and make an assumption based on what I've seen, some of the e-bike riders that we would want to target, they tend to be more aggressive riders, so I would anticipate them also challenging the signs similar to how the vehicles do. That being said, it's something we can absolutely look into in the future if that's of interest and if it still becomes a problem.

Well, that helps. If it's not going to do much, no reason to spend the dollars.

Just to follow up, on the sign, that there will be potentially a citation. Did Boise or Ada County put what the enforcement may be if found guilty of such a?

Mayor, the speed feedback signs were the standard sign with your speed is and they were black on white and enforceable. So that was about as close as it was.

So a spike strip would probably be the best deal.

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

You do recommend?

No, no, no. Do not recommend spike strips in front of those signs. Thank you.

I still think it's a good idea.

Anything further?

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

Yeah.

So.

Okay. There's no other questions. All right. Appreciate you. Thank you. Thank you for taking the time in the presentation.

Thank you.

Thanks, Crystal. Rodney, is yours short? Well, I'm talking like three to five minutes. Okay. Our madam clerk's going to time you. Okay. Here we go.

Mayor and City Council, just need to report on two meetings. The first one is the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that occurred on June 9th, and that we had two final plats, so Cherry Grove, number six, and Middlebury South, number one. And those were both recommended for approval and we're on your consent agenda tonight. The next one was annexation and zoning and subdivision preliminary plat for Issa Ridge Estates. This is northwest of Franklin Boulevard and Ustick Road for two existing homes and seven additional homes. This was recommended for approval and this will come before you on August 3rd. That's it for the Planning and Zoning Commission, but I'd like to just kind of touch base with you on the Comprehensive Plan again. Last week on the 8th, we held our Comprehensive Plan workshop, joint workshop with Planning and Zoning and City Council. The Steering Committee focus group took seven major themes we heard from the public outreach and then researched and created policies for those themes. The steering committee then refined those policies and agreed to recommend them to city council. At the June 8th meeting, we began discussing the comp plan steering committee's recommendations. And after being unable to cover most of the material at the workshop, Council President Bills asked council and the commission to review documents and provide your comments by this coming Wednesday. so that we can complete the update within the contracted schedule. State code essentially puts the responsibility for the plan development on the Planning and Zoning Commission, but City Council is the one to vote for adoption of the plan. So this is such an important document that staff does not feel comfortable moving forward unless we are, We have vetted council's concerns and ideas for the document. We really need your input. What we can't do is get to the plan adoption hearing and find out there are concerns with the content of the plan. In discussion with Clay Long, if we do not hear from the majority of council by Wednesday, we are proposing to brief council at your regularly scheduled meetings on two themes each council meeting. until we have covered all seven themes and have vetted your comments or concerns. The first of these would be connected and accessible community and then complete and resilient neighborhoods. And we could present those at the next city council meeting or if we get everybody to respond and they feel comfortable with the policies that have been presented by the steering committee, we can move forward without having to go through the council updates each time we meet. So just kind of looking for a head nod or a direction there. Council?

Mayor, if I could. I'll give one comment then I have a follow-up for Rodney after the fact. I gave a comment at the meeting in lieu of the email. My comments still remain the same. Not naming specific agencies within the document and removing any language of affordability because I think it's smoke and mirrors. So if we just are focusing on housing, providing housing, providing supply, I think that's one thing. But to give a developer the opportunity to say we're meeting the comp plan because we're going to provide affordable housing, I think that's just not true anymore and I don't know that That's their fault or our fault. So just maybe removing phrasing that might do that and affordable is the one that I was looking at when I went back through it.

Council have not taken all the time tonight. So are you willing to respond as far as any suggestions and so on in email or however you want to receive it, Rodney?

Emails fine. Yeah. Or, or phone call.

Do I have a head nod that that's okay. I can't force you to do that. So that's your choice. But if you were only to do that, let's plan on that for Wednesday, certain time on Wednesday, this Wednesday by 5 PM.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Can I ask one follow-up question for planning zoning speaking? And I know I had reached out to you and Daniel regarding this. Could you just update the council a little bit on, uh, potentially tightening our development agreements on language. I know you sent me a very good email expressing if there's specific conditions that we're wanting to see to be very, very detailed and explicit on what those conditions are. I know we're heading into a public hearing tonight that it might be relevant and maybe just a quick, very quick and fast version of if we need something specific to verbalize it so it's put in the agreement and not a gray area.

Mr. Mayor and council, in response to that, in fact it applies to more than just development agreements. What we do is when there is a motion by city council, that is the official, wording that we use when we go back and write a decision letter or write up the documents of approval or denial. And so even though there's some discussion, we try to gather some of that discussion in the conversation, but if there are specific things that council want as a condition of approval, or if you want something specifically in a development agreement, you need to articulate that in your motion. That really helps staff so that we know exactly what you're after. We also bring those development agreements back to you for your approval, but it goes on consent agenda. So if you're uncomfortable with any wording that's in that development agreement, then that's something you can pull off of that consent agenda and have a discussion about it and give us new directions so that we can revise those development agreements.

To follow up, are we okay?

Mayor, I might recommend that we just start pulling those off consent agenda moving forward. It might be able to, and I'm going to speak about me specifically. I've had times where I've never even noticed that it's been in there and then the development agreement gets signed. Not because it's my error going through the exact language on it. If it's pulled off the agenda, I think it gives us a heightened awareness to look at it and then vote on it. I just don't want to potentially make that mistake again.

I think from the standpoint of setting agenda and that part, potentially for a time we should just have the exercise that approval, the follow-up and approvals of development agreements would be just put as a business item and opportunity for discussion. If we find ourselves just unilaterally approving again, then it may make sense to go back to consent. At the same time, we have the opportunity to read those agreements and if we want them flagged or we're not sure that everything's covered, but it also, sometimes there's a period of time and a lot of issues that go by that, you know, we made notes, we can miss, you know, typically picking up on that particular agenda packet is that particular project that one of us or two or three of us wanted to make sure certain items were included. So.

Okay, is there a consensus by council then for Madam Clerk to? Is that what we can do for the next council meeting or what's your response?

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

Okay, press the agenda. Yeah, so my understanding is at least we'll scrutinize it closely and then decide when the, Okay. Thank you so much, Rodney. Appreciate it. I think we are way, and I'm way past my fault on the public hearings. So if it's okay, since the mayor's staff is close to me, they can tell me tomorrow that they're upset with me for putting them off until after the public hearings. But here we go. And I know I talked to the city attorney a little bit about this first one. It's a continuation of and I'll read it here in just a minute from April 20th. Of course, I was not involved at all with that, so I may have you, sir, once I read it, then also explain what kind of expectation is for the applicant and so on.

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

Okay. First public hearing is annexation and zoning to RS four and RS six single family residential and BC community business zoning districts at zero North Franklin with the corresponding road and can nail right out canal right away. Potential development agreement. and subdivision preliminary plat for Highline Estates subdivisions. For Assamendi Holdings LLC, original concept was 355 single family detached dwelling units, 33 common lots, and one commercial lot on approximately 93.75 acres and right away. And this is, I repeat, was continued from April 20th of 26. So our applicants here. Come on up, sir, and give us your name and address, please.

Thank you, Mayor. Connor Lindstrom with KM Engineering, 5725 North Discovery Way, Boise, here representing the property owner. Thank you for having me tonight. I don't know, Rodney, if you have a presentation you can pull up for me.

Mayor, are you wanting Preston to speak to it at all? One more time. Are you wanting Preston? Yeah, I'm sorry.

Yeah. So go ahead, Preston. And in case you have not communicated, so he knows exactly.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you.

For the record, Preston Rutter, city attorney. And for everybody's awareness, this is a continued item for a public hearing. The last time they were here before us, there was discussion on the council and deliberation that they wanted to have more interaction. They reopened the public hearing, continued it to tonight on a limited scope. And those items are going to be presented here to the extent the public is welcome to obviously comment, those comments will be limited to what is said here on this limited scope. So it's not a redo of what we did before, but more on a narrow limited scope from applicant staff and also the public.

You're able to focus as he presented?

Thank you, Mayor. So yes, with that, I'm going to skip ahead. I don't know, Rodney, if you can click for me. Oh, is that what's going on? There we go. That's why. Thank you. My apologies. I'm going to skip ahead here, but a lot of this is from a presentation a couple months ago. But really the main focus here was on open space amenities. That was the main focus. So meeting with the property owner and the developer, we've come to a conclusion that we did need to add some additional amenities to meet your request. So this is what we originally were showing with the amenity plan. We had a tot lot pavilion and seating area on the south half of the canal. And then on the north half, we had a open space, um, grassy area with pathway and then pavilion, uh, picnic pavilion and seating. So moving forward, these, this is what we went back to the table and discuss is, you know, how can we get additional amenities into this development, um, that all age groups could enjoy, um, from young with the top lot up to, um, I'm not trying to, uh, back on seniors, but pickleball courts. Um, so everything in between.

So shuffleboard. Okay. Yeah. Okay.

So here we have, um, kind of three main, uh, open space amenity areas that we wanted to focus on. Um, the first being letter a, we added a bocce ball court, a picnic pavilion with seating and barbecue stations. We feel as though this can be a, you know, gathering space for all ages. We have a letter B here on the south side of the canal. And we have some open grassy area with the tot lot. We do see the importance of that with a community such as this, we're going to have younger families and we have seating barbecue stations there. And then the Southeast corner of the development, we have pickleball court seating pathways and some, open grass areas around. We did want to move that pickleball court to the southeast corner just to keep it away from as many homes as possible. We have seen with previous developments that there have been some concerns with noise from pickleball courts. So it's not an afterthought. We think it actually is in a great location there in the southeast corner of the development. This is the open space exhibit that we caressed a bit. You'll see in the upper right of this slide There are two open space amenities required. We are providing five now, and we are at 15% open space for qualified open space, which is about 14.35 acres, just over the 14.06 acres. And then you can see in the legend there on the bottom, kind of breaks out qualified versus not qualified open space. So I want to dive into that a little more. I know there was some discussion at our last hearing about drainage areas and can these actually be utilized for open space? And perhaps going forward, you know, if that is something you'd like to change with your code, fire away. But we have seen in many developments that these drainage basins are utilized for recreation. For much of the year, they're completely dry, specifically These will be designed within this development to infiltrate water within 72 hours. So that would only be during high storm events. For the most part of the year, they're gonna be maintained, open space, grassy areas that can be utilized for children to play in, run in, you name it. And then I also wanted to provide an additional rendering here that just shows how a typical lot is going to be developed. We have A, which is in that RS6 area, and then B is the RS4 zone area. So this just shows a typical lot, what a house would look like on that lot, and there will be yard space, open space within that lot itself, and they can have their own landscaping. So we just wanted to provide that so it's just not a bunch of blocks on a plan. You can kind of see that in more detail there. and pedestrian connectivity. Uh, this just further shows, um, the various sidewalks and pathways throughout the development. Anything in green is going to be your four to five foot wide sidewalks. And then, uh, 10 foot wide would be that in blue. So you'll see along the arterial of, um, the subdivision, both along, um, you know, Franklin and Linden there, you have 10 foot wide sidewalk and then it, on the east-southeast side of the development and the northwest side of the development, there will be sidewalks going north-south to cross that canal so you could get from the north side to the south side. I also wanted to touch on the commercial lot in the southwest corner. I feel like we didn't really address that much in the last hearing, but there is great potential for that lot to develop with additional you know, amenities, open space. We just don't know what that commercial lot will develop as. But, you know, you could have some restaurants there, additional patios, barbecue areas. So I just want you to think of that as you're considering your decision tonight. I do not have anything else at this time, but happy to stand for questions.

Yes, sir. The commercial lot, what's the dimension?

Oh, that's a great question here. I do have it in my notes. One second. So, Commissioner Bills, that is going to be 6.51 acres. The actual zoning is eight acres, but the developable lot size is 6.51 after you take into account your landscaped areas and right-of-way dedication.

Do you know the dimension?

I don't. I don't know. Rodney, if you're able to thumb through our application.

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

Mayor, for the record, Rodney Ashby, Planning and Zoning Director. Yes, this is an annexation, and you can put conditions on that annexation for what uses could be possible.

We talked about it in a couple other hearings where we were going down through the list, and that's an awkward time, but it seems like these neighborhood centers, six acres is a larger, it's more... possibility of being a larger development or multiple buildings. So my concern is, is we haven't put together kind of the neighborhood friendly lists instead of us trying to go through it and check it down. So I guess if we go forward on this, somehow I'd like to have the condition that we're going to see what the proposed uses are that are going to be put there?

Mr. Mayor and Council, we were thinking the same thing. There' s some code changes that you' re looking at tonight but the bn zone is the neighborhood business zone and it' s intended to be uses that are uh... complimentary to and neighborhood area rather than just the bc's on the allows a lot of you know big box stores or whatever uh... those neighborhood business uh... land uses there's some overlap into the bc zone so potentially what you could do and since you're you've already taken a look at that the end zone and approved that uh... the the land uses at least potentially what you could do is just say those Land uses that overlap to the BC zone that are in the BN zone are the ones that would be approved Yeah, so BC zone has let's say they have a Retail just written typical retail Well, so does the BN zone, but the BN zone might not allow some of those more intense uses in the BC zone So what you could do is just have whatever is in the BC zone. That's also in the BN zone Those are the land uses that are possible. You could go that direction

I see Daniel took the podium here. Is it okay? Go ahead, Daniel.

Mayor, Councilman Bills, the commercial... You might just announce who you are. Daniel Badger, City Engineer. The commercial lot is approximately 515 foot square. 515K square? Yep. Yeah. No, I mean, so...

because what we got in our packet, we're not seeing dimensions. But that's why I was guesstimating, this is more than just the short strip mall. This has potential for either a larger retailer with some smaller shops beside it, or depends on how the development goes forward. My concern is, is from prior discussions that council has had, has been limiting some of the uses that under a more, larger commercial project would just come under the BC and they're proposing BC and I'm seeing a neighborhood center that's gonna be next to 300 home sites along with the other home sites proposed already around this intersection. So I'm just trying to, we say yes and yet we don't know one day what goes in and then we scratch our head and wonder or the neighbors say and obviously the marketplace but I think the marketplace should have the opportunity knowing what's approved or not and depends on how the project's marketed. So.

I would, I would absolutely agree. And I would agree with Rodney that, you know, the neighborhood business zoning uses, you know, restrict a number of those that you would likely find more objectionable. And we've done that in the past where we've restricted the uses within that BC area to only those allowable within the PN zoning.

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

So I didn't.

Yes. So would staff prefer that on emotion? We specifically say this might be approved BC, but with the approved uses of BN, Would you like that as part of the motion or do we have to go through and scratch each one that we wanna scratch today? Because I got my list.

But why wouldn't we just change the zoning to be in?

So Mr. Mayor, council so because they have requested the BC zoning we're kind of stuck in that application we have we've said that for a while now that we would like to see developments come in with the BN requesting BN instead of BC and I think that this is a good discussion that we can take back to these developers and say hey our council agrees that we need to see the BN zone But since we're stuck in that position right now with a bc zone being applied for we we have to either restrict it or you have to deny it and send them back to the drawing board and come back with the bn zone.

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

Councilman Griffin, that is correct. Yeah, we're willing to work with you. At the end of the day, BC Zone was, you know, we were just following the comp plan. I believe just south in the southeast, I'm sorry, the northeast corner of Franklin and Linden is BC Zone. It's a similar kind of acreage lot there. So that's what we were following. But we are more than willing to work with you and we understand if you need to restrict some uses, that is just fine with us. Just a couple hookah lounges, that's all. Thank you.

So question mark is, Mayor and Preston, can we put something on there that before it goes all the way through, the applicants actually stated what uses are going to be used in the BC versus us going down the long list and saying what we don't want? here's what the applicant's actually planning on, or are we better to table again and ask for that to get clarified?

Mr. Mayor. I would recommend while you're here, if you want to have a dialogue, take advantage of that time. Either way is an option for you. They're both legal. If you want to take advantage of the setting, you can do so. And if I may, Mayor, Councilman Griffin, you had a question about can you just state the BN zone? Sure, in the spirit of efficiency, you can just state all uses in BN are there. If you want to knock a few off, maybe highlight those just to save time.

Thank you.

Okay.

So a follow-up, I may, Preston. So as far as an applicant at this point in time, can he just say we're not going to do anything that would not be outside the BN zone, even though it's a BC type of request?

Mr. Mayor, an applicant can do so. The best way to probably record that would be in the development agreement that we have as part of this, and that would be stated into the record. And at that time, when it comes up for you as a new business item, you'll be able to review that. and confirm that it is just the end uses.

Okay, any further questions for the applicant?

Jada, thanks for your time. Rodney, go ahead, I'm sorry. I apologize. Clarification. I believe it showed, I need the clarification if a pathway is being built along the 10 mile or the 15 mile, I guess it is,

Yeah, Councilman Bills, that is correct.

You've got a high-lying canal and you've also got a drain.

Yeah, it's very wide. So on the south side of the 15-mile creek, there is a proposed pathway along there. That is correct.

Because Parks had a comment about it, so I'm trying to make sure this current proposal is meeting what you're after.

Cody, why don't you come on up since we're on. Thanks, sir.

Cody Swander, City of Nampa Parks and Recreation Director. Mayor, Councilman Bills, I was kind of squinting at the image, too, to make sure that that pathway was included on there because I do believe that that was requested from the Parks Division for that regional pathway to be included.

Well, it's on the drain side south.

Yeah, I believe for the connectivity for future connections, it was the south side of the 10-mile drain, yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes, that has been provided on our pedestrian connectivity map here on the south side of the canal. There will be a pathway. That is correct.

Any other questions? I'm just trying to follow up all the issues that we had a couple of months ago. Making sure that we're handling it and don't have a misunderstanding.

Understood. Thank you, Council.

This will be the staff report from Rodney, please.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and City Council. Rodney Ashby, Planning and Zoning Director. Again, I've said that enough times. And I also am a pickleball player, so I don't know if I'm senior now. I guess I am. Welcome. Welcome. Play two so we got the lights walk good Okay, so you've you've seen the application I'm not gonna spend too much time on here, but I do want to highlight the history here So January 27th went to the Planning and Zoning Commission. They recommended approval then on April 20th City Council Discussed it they opened the public you open the public hearing you close the public hearing and Then you opened it again in order for them to come back to address the concerns that you had discussed.

So what are those concerns?

I'm going to list them up here on the screen, if I can get this to work. There we go. So the first one was the need for a centralized common area in the development south of the Highline Canal and 15 Mile Creek. There was some discussion regarding converting block 6, lot 16 and 17 to common area. Number two is the amenities provided were primarily the minimum required of taut lots Which do not address the needs of most people that was expressed by one City Council member Concerns expressed over the lack of truly usable amenities number three utilizing drainage basins for qualified open space does not get it at the end and intention of creating a space people will use for recreation and Then number four the placement of some of the qualified open space near the irrigation properties and roadways Makes that common space less likely to be utilized for recreation I think the comment was a ball could go over the fence and go into the canal or or into the road or whatever and Number five, many homes have been approved but not yet built in the area, which will add impact to roadways and schools. Council requested the staff provide the number of homes approved but not yet built within a one mile radius of the project. That was from Councilwoman Jangula. And I'm going to show you that in just a second there was some discussion about development being approved and reducing farmland in this area So councilwoman Jane you last for the one-mile Situation there are 12 subdivisions approved within one mile of this project some of these have existed for many years and have been built out of all the approved subdivisions there are 970 lots that have yet to be issued a building permit within one mile the proposed project but have been approved through a planning process. So that's the radius that we did from the parcel that one mile distance and then you can see the number 970 down at the bottom there. uh... applicant proposed changes i think you've heard that and i've just listed them here uh... there's their uh... typical lot scenario i think the idea here is that when we see these little squares on a landscape plan or concept plan you need to remember that some of that will be taken up with landscaping and and a yard right i think that that's their intention here There's the amenities that they are providing again. They are exceeding our requirement and then the pedestrian connectivity We've already had a discussion about that one and then here is a couple of motions for your consideration And I'd be happy to answer any questions Questions from council Okay, thank you go ahead excuse me mayor yes one more clarification

So in making the motion, if we say RS4, RS6 and BN, or do we have that latitude or do we have to stay with BC and restricted to BN?

That's correct. The latter is the correct approach. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

we do have a list Christy showed me a list of one that you recently did that for that listed some of the concerning land uses we could bring that up if you would like when we get to maybe the motion but I I I can do it either way mr. mayor I'd advise it that we put that in the record have it shown for that motion if that's the desire of the council to limit it to feet and uses there's there's even a B and

use that I would like to strike too. So either way, we're going to have to strike something.

So we could copy basically what we did on the other project. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Hey, thanks Rodney. So we're time for public testimony. Anyone signed up at Madam clerk?

Mr. Mayor, there is not.

Okay. Uh, so there's no one signed up. Is there anyone that's interested? Okay. Let me see how many folks are interested in speaking. Okay. We have three. Okay. So I think Cheryl, I think you have been here for a long, long time. If you don't mind, I'll allow her to go first and then we'll go. Yes, ladies first. Are you speaking in favor or against this proposal?

Against, yes.

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

Okay. Good evening, Mayor Bruner and council. I'm Cheryl Higley at 12441 South Abbott Downing Way. And even though this isn't in my neck of the woods, And I hate to beat the drum again regarding schools, but in your packet was the letter from Valley View School District. And I just hate to see these keep being ignored. The tally of the proposed or in process number of dwelling units on these developments that Joey Palmer has listed is almost 7,000 dwelling units. And even though I have no school-aged children or even grandchildren in the area, education is really important to me. We homeschooled our kids all the way through. I gave up my career in order to do that. And so you might think, well, I'm opposed to public schools. I'm not. To the contrary, I think they're very important.

I am sorry to interrupt. As a reminder, this was a limited scope for the project. and we appreciate your remarks here tonight, madam, but we're here for the amenities that were the limited scope. This was a topic that was adequately covered at the first hearing, and so we do need to keep the comments to what the applicant. Just the amenities, is that what I'm hearing?

Yeah, that limited scope that the applicant was allowed to come back for. So is that, are you comprehending what our legal counsel is saying?

I am, I didn't realize that. I thought the public hearing was reopened in general.

As stated earlier, this was just on a limited scope. We wanted to make sure that all were aware. So keep those comments, if you could, and add them to those amenities, and that will stay within the confines of this hearing. Thank you.

So are you able to direct?

Are you able to?

redirect schools into amenities. That would take a lot of creativity. So please just keep these letters in mind as mainly what I want to say because I hate to see them keep getting ignored. Thank you. I didn't realize that it was limited. That's fine.

Thank you. And I believe the two others that are And you want to, okay, come on up. And I don't think you were here when legal explained, so. No, I understand.

Okay. My name is Jim Blake. I live at 19593 Madison Road, just right next to this project. And I want to, I just looked you guys up, that the Nampa, Your code, the comprehensive code that you have for 2040 and 2050 requires 15% open land, which means most of the time it's a park. These items that they have here are not 15%. It also says in your comprehensive plan, anything over five acres has to be 15%. Have you done the calculation to make sure it's 15% of the land? That's all I have to say because I've never seen anything else.

After the public testimony, the applicant will come back and if you'll go ahead and respond to that, please. Okay, we have one other. Thank you for being here.

and congratulations on being mayor. My name is Shelly Montclair and I live at 19721 Madison Road. It's a sad day for me to know that Mrs. Jangula is not here as she was one that was here to really to talk about how she wanted more green space. She said at the last meeting, I would love to see a ball field where kids can play and throw the ball around. Instead, we got a bocce ball field. I love the pickleball idea. My son's 13 and plays pickleball, and would probably love to go and join that. I know that this, This is hard because I love the barbecue idea. Again, Natalie, because I don't know how to pronounce her last name, said she wanted no gazebo because the gazebos don't ever get used. She wanted a ballpark and she also said maybe a little bit less dense. because an open field would be more used and more utilized. I know that the farmer thinks that the neighborhood is not wanting him to build this. We know it's coming. It's been on the comprehensive plan. However, we're the ones that live there. just maybe a little bit more thought process into that of yeah, more green space and not around that canal. I've watched people die in that canal. Maybe not around that. away from that is the green space, the actual open usable space and having the barbecues is a great idea. I'm not sure about that bocce ball. It looks to me like they just squeezed a little tiny area in instead of really thinking about opening the space up and maybe making it just a tiny bit less dense, knowing that area and what we all have spoke about on April 20th and before that, just because There's a lot to think about. We live there, and I'm not saying don't build and don't sell your property. I'm saying let's be reasonable and think about the people that do live there and what everyone could really enjoy. So thank you.

Thank you. Okay, anyone else as far as wanting to speak regarding this proposal? If not, applicant, make him back up, please. answer any questions or any other comments you'd like to make.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. I won't touch on school. Regarding the open space, we're not just required to have 15 percent open space, but 15 percent of qualified open space. What that means is, usable open space as city code defines. And so we are well above the required, I believe it's 14.06 acres and we're at like 14.63 acres, which is quite a bit of acreage when you really think about it. Given the site here, I think Ronnie's pulling up. Thanks, Ronnie. Yeah, we're just over 14 acres. I don't know what would be a correct amount of open space. Is it 20%, 30%, 50%? But like I said, we're meeting the code. I'm not sure what else we could provide as far as open space goes. In addition to open space, we also want above and beyond with our amenities. We felt that adding additional options for amenities would give the most wide range of user groups to find recreational opportunities. bocce ball court, I enjoy. And Mr. Assamendi said his dad plays quite a bit. Pickleball, we know how popular that is. And then I'm not sure if Ms. Blake has been, or no, I don't quite remember her name, but if she's been out in the city of Nampa or city of Caldwell, but many pavilions that I see, picnic pavilions are being used by folks. I've also used them many times. I like to think that the pavilion will get used, and we have a couple of them, as will barbecue areas. I don't have much else to add other than that, and we hope that this development will meet the needs of the neighborhood and be a great development that is utilized for years to come. We'd also like to note, too, that we're meeting the comp plan here. designation and density requirements. We could actually be quite a bit denser, uh, but we're keeping it within that, um, RS six RS four zoning density requirements. So, um, I think that's all I have to add here. You have any questions?

So storm drain lots, are they part of the list of qualified open space?

They are. Yes, sir.

How much of that? We're thinking on the same wavelength here. How much of that percentage-wise?

I'm not sure I have that number off the top of my head, Councilman Bilzer-Griffin. But if you look at the breakdown there on this table, we have that open space data. So we have our total... acreage of qualified open space required is 14.06 acres. We're providing the 4.35 acres, 15%. And then if you go down to the bottom, we have the legend that shows common lot, qualified open space, and not qualified open space. So the qualified open space are those areas for drainage that are too skinny to be utilized. Um, you know, you can see them there, especially on the north side of the development. Yeah. Some of those areas there that are in yellow, they're just not usable areas other than maybe your dog going to the bathroom. Um, there are requirements for drainage areas to be counted as qualified open space. They have to have a specific width or length to them. And I don't know if staff has that number. Um, but We are meeting those requirements for the qualified open space, but as far as the calculation goes, what's drainage and what's not, I don't think I have that off the top of my head. I'd be lying to you with the number. It would be defined in our preliminary plat application. We have preliminary drainage and grading plans that have been provided in that packet.

Thank you. Other questions? Okay, thanks.

Great, thank you.

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

So moved.

Second favor. Say aye.

Aye.

Opposed. Okay. All right. So council discussion.

Uh, mayor, I have several questions if I could get Daniel or for Daniel, I think Daniel, maybe crystal, but, uh, I just need the clarification here and I'll have a followup. So, Daniel, when you have a residential project coinciding with a business that we don't know what kind of business that would be, is there a difference in water flow and would it be a difference in water flow from our resources that they have to connect to? Is that a fiscal impact would hurt or would depend on what we can give

um i know that's a loud question but mayor councilman rodriguez um when we review these um facility the these preliminary plots and they have commercial areas we we put in those demands on both the pressure irrigation system and the domestic system when we do those models. And so when we modeled this development, that was accounted for and the analysis showed that we have adequate facilities to serve both pressurized irrigation and domestic for this development as proposed.

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

Uh, they would pay their standard connection fees and that covers the costs, um, to the city to provide the services and then they would pay the applicable rates based on, you know, their usage.

I see. Okay. Thank you.

I have no other questions for discussion.

Yes.

Councilman.

Uh, what I'm having a difficult time with not necessarily this application, but the future applications in general, I think this, uh, kind of gets grandfathered in as we've discussed, but I think over the last year we've been weighing, okay, if we don't know truly the cost of growth and if it's really paying for itself, what do we do as a council? And I know some of these applicants have expended expensed monies to be able to get to this point. And we've said time and time again, We should allow them to get their hearing and then we'll discuss. What's difficult is applications keep coming and we haven't had the discussion. So I just am putting that out there that I think we really need to get a true comprehensive number of what it costs to build in Nampa and how much is the city of Nampa subsidizing to be able to make sure that we're meeting our public service standards. I know previously last year, Rick, had put out some numbers, we've had some discussions, and it could have been anywhere in the ballpark of 700 to $1,200 per rooftop that the city's ultimately subsidizing if we maintain our standards. And so we could say, well, it is paying for itself, Councilman. It could be, but then we're risking public safety because ultimately we'll meet the bottom line. We're just reducing from other areas. So I think this is pretty high density and I have issue with the green space allowance on the storm drains. I think this is the third application where I've expressed that and councilman bills has expressed that today too. Uh, I know they're not flooding often, but they do flood at times. So is it truly usable if it is hindered at days and times when it ends up happening? So I think for this application, I just, at some point I'm going to have to draw a line in the sand and say, okay, applicants, I'm not going to be voting yes anymore. because I think we need to have this conversation and legitimately talk about what is the cost to build in Nampa? Where are we going to build in Nampa? If we have a $600 million deferred maintenance bill coming due, are we focusing on North Nampa to try and help offset the costs of main Nampa? I don't think that's wise building. So a lot of things that I unloaded there, I took the opportunity on a project Thank you for coming back with some changes. We're not Boise, so if somebody complains about a pickleball court in the neighborhood, sorry, they can find a new neighborhood because they play all day long. I love pickleball. I think we should have pickleball everywhere and in every neighborhood. So other than that, those are my initial thoughts, Mayor.

Mayor? Yes. That's so nice to see Mayor again. I have a couple of concerns here. I know you had talked about, or we had discussed changing to business, or BN, and of course my issue on that is that that allows for multiple housing units to be placed in there, up to three stories. And one of the issues is the density, of course, as you said, somebody said at the beginning, because we had asked last time how many lots within a mile radius are in this area, 970 that still aren't built out yet. And this area, I live out here, it's really difficult to maneuver in this area already. And then we want to add with this applicant, it would be another 355 more units. And then if we go with the BN land use, then we have the potential of multifamily units apartments up to three stories high, which then would add more traffic, more people into this area. So as we look at this, I I just, I understand wanting to build. I understand the whole building idea and that it's gonna happen, yes, and all of that. But we also have to be wise. And I don't believe there's such a thing as smart planning or smart building. I think we have to have some wisdom on how we are building. Yes, we have the comprehensive plan and yes, This is following that, but at the same time, is it the best thing to do right now for this area? And I say no. It is not because we have, we're playing catch up right now to try and get things done for what is coming already in this area, what has already been approved. And I think we need to slow it down and perhaps even, you know, not allow this many units to be placed on this amount of acreage. So that's my soapbox.

Any further discussion, sir?

So this is frustrating to me because we've told the applicant exactly what we want them to do and developers, and then they go to all this work and trouble, and they come in here, and we tell them, no, we want this, amenity, we want this, that. I'm like, have you ever developed anything? Probably not. Councilman Bill certainly has. and spend a lot of money doing it. But I don't think it's our place to tell them what we want for amenities. And if they follow the plan and what's in code, then I think that if we don't like that, we should change that code. And as far as growth, we haven't reached saturation point. I've talked about this before. And smart growth, Exactly that. By increasing the density, we are protecting farm ground. And so we don't have a sprawl. So this does that as well. And affordable housing, it's a catchphrase, but by building more homes, we get to a saturation point and we get affordable housing for our kids and grandkids and whoever else to be able to afford This development's not gonna happen overnight. This is looking down the road and improving down the road. And we had done a lot of studies with Doug. He's not here to defend himself, but after when Rick was still the county clerk on growth, paying for growth, and then we did see that with sales tax added in, it does pay for growth. And that tax base, that you're creating ultimately is something that we're striving for as far as growth goes. If 389 ever gets repealed, goes away, whatever, then that growth will be there and that tax base will be there and that's important. And I appreciate what the gentleman said that owns the farm about not being able to farm this piece. harder and harder and they just get squeezed out. And the, I can appreciate Ms. Higley's viewpoint on some of the things she said, but at the same time, I have a trouble with that too, because one of the reasons why we're growing and we're creating space is people that are moving here like Ms. Higley. That's taken into account as a native Idahoan. And, um, you know, we, we have, uh, faced this problem of people coming here or challenge, I would say not a problem, but a challenge. And, um, we're trying our best to address it as we grow. Growth is inevitable. It's going to happen. Uh, let's just be smart about it. And if we don't like the code, let's change it.

Yes. Thank you. Councilman Rodriguez.

So when there is growth and the tax received from growth, 45 million, 46 million, and it's about 2 million a year that we receive from growth. Uh, that's not growth pain for itself right now. The city of Nampa is funding growth and that is a, a mechanism that we need to stop. Regarding the school children, regarding Valley View School District, that is a real issue here, folks. When you have so many children that can't attend not enough school because there isn't enough room, then that is part of the growth benefit and issue with, with our North area. So the one thing about this project is a density issue with me, RS seven, RS six. And then now we have RS four plus with the business amenity. And I think that is a good thing with the business amenity, but both when you have the huge amount of growth expansion in the North Nampa, um, the, the, the, maintaining that growth and direction that we have is to slow it down, match the density, match the zoning of the other eight of the other acres, other subdivisions. And that's where we have an ability to stack up with our police and fire and our, our amenities of water and demand for our services. I think this is a good plan. However, it's timing at this point, it's timing whether we change this or not. So there you go.

Sir. Mayor. A couple of things for council to keep in mind and consider, please, is the marketplace determines timing and councils should not consider timing. We're not the purveyor of the marketplace. I've experienced and seen and personally been involved that if I had to wait in line before I could put in a project because somebody else wasn't building theirs out or hadn't started, I would be still waiting in line. There's ground that has been sitting for some time. So my point being is, is eagles fly, turkeys walk. Occasionally they fly when forced to. And again, I think if we're gonna have ordinance that say, here's our allowances, then we need to make sure what's being before us is what the ordinances say. And if we have the ability to modify, we modify. But... The plat meets our ordinance. We asked for clarification on common areas and we extended the public hearing to give the applicant the ability to do that. The density issue met our ordinance. We were weighing in on the BC versus BN or having it be a BN with still some modification on the corner, which is within our perusal. But to say that, well, We now don't want plats. If you're going to, if you're going to do a de facto moratorium by not approving or something, then staff needs to know. And the marketplace needs to be informed because we're collecting fees and we're taking applications. And it's a misnomer to spend a hundred thousand dollars to get to this point by people thinking, if I, apply and put a plat application together that meets the ordinance and then get told, no, we don't want those anymore. That's a serious thing from my perspective. I think it's appropriate for us to comment and to look at and say, well, we'd like to make sure that we're meeting the open space or we wanna make sure the open space is usable versus flooded storm ponds that are not usable and having experienced both. But for us to be at this stage and the reason that we came back to this stage was to get clarity on those open spaces in terms of approval and now say, we don't like this project, we don't want the project, I think is a misdirection. And if council is desiring to change our code or our application process, if we're thinking something totally different based on the comments I'm hearing tonight, then I think we have an ethical responsibility to notify the development community and the public at large to say, Nampa's going on hold. Or Nampa's changing its stuff. We're not taking any more applications. Don't spend any more money. But right now we haven't done that. And I feel we have an ethical responsibility to consider this and does it meet our ordinance. And we have the ability to modify the BC within our ordinance, within this process and limit. We've done that as a council. But I have a hard time with just a hard and fast no at this stage with this applicant based on what we asked them to go back and change and come back before us. So I'm speaking a little firm and tough, but if we're going to change our acceptance or that we don't want to accept new plats and we're drawing a line, then we got to be upfront about it. That's the ethical thing to do. Council has to come to grips with actually making a decision of such. So I personally, if it's possible, I'd like to say, I think the applicant's come back and has met our deal that we would go forward in the approval part. However, I think we need to include Councilman Griffin, your limitations on the BN or that the commercial is, is per the BN list on the city of Nampa with the exceptions of what you've probably just listed there. Is that right?

Mr. Mayor and council, this is just a previous project that got approved by city council and you list out the things that you didn't want allowed in that song, in the BC song.

Which we did before. Thanks for bringing that up, Rodney.

Mayor, if I could. Yes, and I would just like to restate and reiterate, I'm not going to necessarily hold Mr. Assamendi's project hostage tonight because of exactly what you're saying. I think we do owe an ethical duty to those that have put the applications in, the money for it, to get to this point here. In the same breath, I would say, though, we might need to seriously consider having that discussion as a council, whether it be a workshop here or now, when, ever, because I'm only one of six. If we're going to propose potentially levying for funds for our public services and our infrastructure, we should also show the public that we're considering their tax dollars and the best use of their tax dollars by not going as far north as we possibly can. So that's for a later date. To stick to this, I remember that we talked about density as well. I think Councilwoman Jangula had mentioned the green space as well as potentially Closer to RS6 rather than RS4, but that's not what's before us today. So I'll just focusing on that side of it. I'd like to add the hotel motel to that excluded list. Perfect, thank you. And those would all be CUPs. I don't necessarily want to outright denying that opportunity. If they want to go before another board and get a conditional use permit, we should allow them the opportunity to do it. We don't necessarily just need the outlaw vape shops. I'm just not going to be the one approving it. So... add it to the conditional use permit, possibly route. I think there's a lot to unpack. This hearing just right now is where it's getting unpacked. We say we're going to have higher density of the stop sprawl, but we keep approving project after project after project. How do we protect farmland when we keep approving sprawl? Once again, you're hearing most of it tonight. I'm ready for a motion likely to just end this, but we seriously need to have a discussion about future projects coming forward.

So a clarification, excuse me, Mayor. On that list, I believe Councilwoman Skagrave's department is available under the BN.

Yes, it lists up to three stories on my list of the BN, anyway, that I have. Is that correct?

So Mayor and Councilwoman Skagg, because this is in the residential mixed use designation on the comp plan, it is required to have a certain amount of commercial uses. So because they've already exhausted the residential uses with the lots that they're proposing, this parcel would have to stay commercial. We would not be able to do the conditional use permit for any kind of residential.

Okay, thank you for that clarification. You're welcome. Because it does list it in my notebook of uses, so thank you.

And off the subject to a certain extent, but for those that are here or anyone that's listening, at least as far as my direction, and I think I can't speak for Clay, our chief of staff, but I think that our workshop is merited and that so we can be totally transparent as far as on these issues. and the cost to the taxpayer, and for the developers, then to be able to know where they stand. So Councilman Bills, I totally agree. From an ethical standpoint, this needs to be accomplished. So hopefully within even the next two weeks, I would hope that we can get our heads together and discuss this issue.

Okay, any other discussion?

Otherwise, we're ready for a motion.

Go back one slide. I'd make a motion to approve the annexation zoning as allowed and be in a business neighborhood subject to a similar list and added items of Councilman Griffin. in terms of restriction.

I would just state the motion, approve the project as stated on the screen with the limiting of these certain zones and we can just list them out. I think saying BN takes away from the applicant filing for BC.

Let me step back. You want to make the motion?

I will on this one. I move to approve the project as stated on the screen with the additional development agreement listing the prohibited uses as presented on the screen, but I'll read them out as well. Alcohol sales establishment, drug paraphernalia, storehead slash shop, homeless shelter, hookah lounge and bar, mobile home, manufactured home, RV sales, motels slash hotels. One of them has hotels listed, so I'm going to put both of those together. Tobacco shop, vape shop, and tattoo parlor.

In addition to? In addition to. I thought there was another use that you were.

No, on the BN zoning, it allows for a vape shop or a tobacco shop. I was just saying at a future date, we should remove BN vape shop from that one. These are all the excluded lists from BC that I would recommend.

Second.

Okay, we ready for. Any further discussion? Are we ready for roll call?

So clarification, Preston, are we in line with what we're doing tonight is in line with what we said in April 16th and to this date?

Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bills, that's my understanding. You've brought in that public hearing, all those comments and deliberation, the limited scope from tonight on amenities and tonight's deliberation. You've packaged it together for this motion. and I'll defer to Planning and Zoning if they say otherwise, but I understand it matches it.

I think we're good, yeah. We've had a motion and a second. Madam Clerk, will you please call roll?

Skog? No. Reynolds?

Yes.

Rodriguez? No. Bills?

Yes.

Griffin?

Yes.

Three in favor, two opposed. Motion carries.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for your time. Mr. Mayor, I know we're gonna discuss this during the workshop, but I would like to state, I'm not necessarily stating we should be anti-growth, anti-development. I think we should focus on infill rather than continuing sprawl, but that'll come out later, on a later date.

All right, we're ready for our second public hearing. And I'm gonna read some, you wanna take a 10 minute? Yeah. Okay. That'd be good. We don't have to take roll call on that, so we'll take a ten minute.

No, we ought to do.

Debbie's behind you. Don't step on her. It's normally elbows.

People have to watch elbows. Okay, we'll come back to in session, please. We're going to make a slight change in agenda. We're going to move to an action item, which is 5-7. And that's to authorize Chief of Police to sign Motorola Brink proposal to acquire drone as a first responder. This is a five-year agreement with a total price of $560,000. So moved. Okay. Is there a second?

No second.

So... You know what? You're seconding. Okay.

Of the drones, right?

Okay. So I want to make sure you were on the right action item. Right around the back of there. Okay. I thought maybe you were just feeling yes, man. Okay. Very good. All right. Madam clerk, I guess we're, is there any further discussion before we have roll call?

Mr. Mayor. Okay. Maybe Chris could explain about the dollars and where it's coming from. Just for clarification.

OF COURSE, YEAH, MAYOR, COUNCILMAN REYNOLDS, SO FOR FY26, WE DO HAVE $116,000 BUDGETED, AND IT DEPENDS ON THE COUNCIL'S WILL ON WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO PAY THAT, THE FULL PRICE, I BELIEVE, IS $560,000 UP FRONT OR PAY THE ANNUAL COSTS. IN SPEAKING WITH CAPTAIN SCOGLIN, He did make me aware of a clause in the agreement that states there is the possibility of the company adding an additional charge if CPI passes that 3.5%. So if it is the will of the council, we can pay it all up front. We're going to use cost savings from the FY25 budget in order to cover these costs.

Thank you. Hey, Councilman, it looks like you're ready to say something here, Councilman.

Thank you, Mayor. I try not to speak to every issue, but it just happens to go that way. Where I have pause or a little bit of hesitation is just in the discussions that we've had with police and how do we allocate those extra dollars? What's appropriate for those extra dollars? Should they go back to staff or should they go back to projects? I think it's just worth bringing up. Councilman Bills can probably speak to it as well. I don't know that he wants to, but I think it We're balancing a difficult thing in the middle of negotiations, and so that's where I'm just trying to think through, probably till the very last second, the direction that we should go on this.

Any further discussion?

Council President, I'm sorry, David. Mayor Bruner, this money has been saved up for the last year's budgets. It doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. But just to clarify, I want Lieutenant Chad to come up and give us a little information.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, Lieutenant Chad Sheppard with the PD. First, I'd like to address the clause that was brought up for the CPI. So there was a packet that was submitted and then a modified packet that was submitted or dropped in front of your stations earlier tonight. So to clarify that, the 3.5 was originally three. Doug Racine asked for Motorola to move the 3.5, which they did. The additional language in there states that if the 3.5 gets enacted, it is up for renegotiations beyond that. So the language is very friendly towards Nampa City. There's not an obligation to accept their increase. Councilman Rodriguez, do you want me to go into some of the details as to why we purchased the drone, or what was your request of me?

No, I think that's fine why we purchased them, but just the issue is payment of and the financing and the funding of it. And I understand that even though it costs that much, that you're going to be able to be able to split those costs up yearly, correct?

Correct, yes. So the way the contract's broken out is, and again, like finance mentioned, suggested that we can either pay for all at once depending on the council's will, or the first year based on the contract is a no cost to us. And that's $140,000 for each year after that. So it's a five-year contract.

And already you do have $307,000 in the bank ready to just be transferred over.

That is correct. That's from the FY25 budget.

Yes. Thank you. I have no further. Mr. Mayor. Yes, sir.

Lieutenant, can you talk about the... how important this is where we're having trouble filling our empty positions and how this helps assist our officers and also with understanding if we need to send everybody, send the cavalry or we need to send one person or nobody.

So the drones are a very valuable tool for us. Amongst the PD's goals for the city. One item is to reduce our response time to priority one calls. Our partnership with Brink, they have demonstrated a model for us that will take the response time from what is now just below 12 minutes in our priority one calls to roughly three minutes or below, depending on if the drone is the first responder on scene. That's a significant decrease in time for our service to the community. So if we're just looking at how much time it takes a cop to get to a scene, that's a very important factor. When you talk about resources, how many resources are we sending? This opens up a whole gamut of possibilities. I'll give you an example. The other night we had a call come in that was entitled an aggravated assault based on the reporting party's information. A suspect in a parking lot used some sort of a weapon to threaten them. We ended up having to send two to three officers to figure this out. Turns out there was nobody in the parking lot. Deploying a drone in that situation to start gathering live information is somebody actually in the parking lot. We would have seen that there was no suspect vehicle matching any description that was given to us. We would have seen that there was no victim vehicle there matching any description given to us, which means the officers that were dispatched could have been sent to a priority call that was actually pending or in progress. To go on the other side of that coin, if you want to talk about end progress calls, for example, we can go back to Officer Huss's pursuit that ended in a canine death. What happens in that call, if you remember back in 2024, we had a pursuit related to a drug crime. Officer Huss gave chase to the suspect vehicle, which ended up rolling into a field. Suspect was detained, but they gave information saying that there was a second suspect in the vehicle. Regional Intel also told us that there was a second party in this drug field. So we had a reason to believe that. The problem is they crashed in a cornfield, and those of us who live in this area know that cornfields can be very, very problematic, not just for responding officers to clear the cornfield, but for perimeter in general. So if we're looking at the, let's say, county mile, right, four corners, how do you get officers to that location to try and contain that? And then if you do get officers to four corners to contain that, how do you guarantee no one slipped between the cracks? Utilizing the drone puts us up in a position of air superiority, for lack of better terms, where you can see down below and direct officers to if there was someone running in the field, someone running out of the field. Or with the drones we've chosen, there is a thermal capability where we can reheat direct officers in to a scene to better use our resources. Some of the examples I have for you, I could go on and on about the benefits to this package and why we believe we need it.

Mayor, for a follow-up. Yes. Can we track down the electric motorcycles for them?

So here is, that's interesting you say that. It's much more cost effective to do this than it is to throw spikes out and injure people. So in this circumstance. Saves on lawsuits also? It might save some lawsuits as well. So the electronic bikes, you may have a picture in your mind of juveniles who are riding those. They're across the board. The other day we had a suspect driving in a reckless manner on an electric bike on Idaho Center Boulevard, weaving in the traffic, causing concerns for the regular motorist and law enforcement in general. One of our officers responded to the scene and gave chase as much as he could. The devices are much more adapt to the waiting list than regular patrol or regular cars. So what happens is he loses the e-bike. Once he gets around the corner where the cop can no longer chase him, he ends up ditching the e-bike and walks away. What we found in law enforcement is that if we don't need to chase somebody, they'll continue their activity. where we could launch a drone in this scenario, get above, get a visual of where they go, and then dispatch an officer to the location. It's much safer for the public and for the e-bike person. Eventually we'll get our charges and in some circumstances seize the e-bike.

I have one more question, Mr. Mayor. Just one? Just one. So this would tie the legal side of things. For like illegal fireworks, it's always been something that annoys me. But we have all these enclave areas, so we can't dispatch officers, and we don't have the resources, quite frankly. So if you had a complaint and you could send a drone out and you take a picture of that person sending out mortars in the air, would that be admissible in court of law?

I'm going to go on a limb here and say that's going to be a very far reach for us. The reason I say that is the drone technology doesn't have any sort of facial recognition. DEPLOYING THESE DRONES ARE FOR PRIORITY RESPONSES. FIREWORKS, WHILE THEY'RE ANNOYING, NOT A PRIORITY RESPONSE FOR US. WE USE THESE ITEMS TO FURTHER OUR TRUST WITH THE PUBLIC, TO ENGAGE WITH THE PUBLIC, AND TO SERVE THEM. ORDINANCE WOULD SOLVE THAT PROBLEM.

IF YOU START DISPATCHING THESE FOR FIREWORKS, I'M GOING TO VOTE NO RIGHT NOW. WE DIDN'T MAKE IT 250 YEARS NOT TO LIGHT OFF SOME FIREWORKS.

I THINK OUR FIRE DISTRICT CAN GO AHEAD.

Mayor Bruner, I just have one more question. And this for Chris. Chris, I understand when I spoke with Doug Racine, he said that this money could not be used for any other purpose but this, which negates sending it to personnel.

Mayor, Councilman Rudder, do you guess that is correct? It's a one-time cost, and that's what we have allocated the money for. Thank you.

Chris, can you, Mayor, if I could, Can you confirm that 100%? Because one of the arguments that got brought up in police negotiations is this is salary savings that ultimately should have gone to hiring of a police officer, but because we did not hire, we had a surplus, and because we had a surplus, it rolled over this year, and we can now use that as one-time savings. What was the original intent of these dollars?

We have labeled them, sorry, just to clarify, Chris Boaz, Capital and Grants Manager, filling in for Doug Racine, CFO. We have labeled them our FY25 budget savings. I believe in doing that, we've kind of, we haven't named whether their salary or one-time dollars, but we have chosen to give police the ability to use these funds for a one-time purchase of the drones.

And for the following two years, it's just going to be an expenditure that we're committing to whether before salaries or not, we're committing these dollars specifically for this. And I'm not saying I'm against, I think the drones are a great program. I think it was very much raised in a hot moment in our discussion with our officers. So something that I've been gun hell for the whole time, it gave me pause. Chris was in that room. Councilman bills was in that room and captain Scoglin was in that room. It was, it caught me off guard pretty heavily that we might have some officers crying a foul and, rather than that going to police, it's going to drones. So that's just why I bring it up. Not necessarily that I don't support it unless you start dispatching them on the 4th of July, but that's a whole different issue for later. Not for those sort of calls.

Mr. Mayor, I have a question for legal. Preston, so on page 660 in our packet, there's a five-year agreement. And what I'm concerned about was if we don't do a lump sum, that we would obligate future councils to this $140,000 a year. And I don't think we can obligate future councils to that. So can you give me some clarification on that?

Mr. Mayor and Councilman Reynolds, I'd be happy to do so. I just want to pull up what you're looking at. This should have a non-appropriations clause in it. And what that means is it allows us legally to do kind of a year to year basis, not binding future councils.

Yeah.

And so the agreement has that language. I'm happy to drill that down. These tend to be pretty verbose and long. I'd have to chase that down, but we should have some non-appropriation language in there to guard against that legal concern, finding future councils.

Thank you for that clarification, Mr. President.

Yes. So the question is, how many drones do we have currently either we own or under lease?

Well, as luck would have it, I have some counterparts in the room who can help with that question. I'd ask Sergeant Clint Wilber to assist me with that answer.

Mayor, Councilman Bill, so currently the drones that would are similar to what we are looking at with the DFR program, we have one. How many drones total do we have? We have that one and then we have two drones that we use for interior. So interior searches on search warrants, situations that we would put an officer, we refrain from putting an officer in so we put a drone in first for officer safety reasons.

And what's our life of those three units?

We've had the two interior drones for Quite a bit of time working with Brink, the company that we're going through. They have an excellent program. It's a refresh. Anytime we crash and destroy the drones, which happens, they send us new ones. The other drone, the one drone that we have that goes up in the air is built by another company called Skydio. They've sent us replacements as well when we've crashed that one. However, you know, it's a lot of that. is at the leisure of that particular company. And with us not having a long-term contract type program, like a DFR program with Skydio, once that one's crashed, it's going to be done. However, with this system, you crash them, they send you a replacement immediately.

If I could, just to add to that, to be specific, that drones aren't all-encompassing. They don't do the same thing for every type of drone. Sergeant Wilbur mentioned a couple of those are interior drones, which we use during search warrants after we do our activation into a house. A drone can enter to clear rooms that we can't get to, but they would not be sufficient out in elements that the drones we're talking about today could handle as a patrol, as a first responder. The one that he mentioned from Skydio is a patrol that drone, which is a part of this package as well, that is able to launch, which Lieutenant Childers mentioned on the e-bike pursuit. But this specific package does not equate to some of the drones we currently have.

So from the standpoint of, but you still got to have an operator, you got to have a dog house or something that's where it's being stored.

Correct. So these two items would be stored. One would be at the Harvard Rec Center, and the other one would be at the Boys and Girls Club. I've contacted both facility CEOs, for lack of better terms, and they're aware of this conversation. Both are very amenable to it. So these locations that they would be housed at will give us 88% coverage of the city once we start launching them.

And so is the cost of the doghouse and all of that included in what we're looking at?

Yes, sir. The entire package costs $560,000 for all the items that would go with this patrol DFR.

So it's two drones for 560 or one drone for 560?

It's three. It's actually three. So you'd have one at the Harwood Rec Center and you'd have one at the Boys and Girls Club. Those are physical stations. The third drone in this package is a patrol-led drone, which much like Sergeant Wolfer mentioned, as far as having a Skydio drone in the back of the patrol vehicle, is where the third drone would actually be stored.

I have a question and kind of follow up to Councilman Bills here. So you have trained operators that handle all these drones, even if they're needed simultaneously, 24-7?

We do. So we currently have, and I would ask Sergeant Wilbur to give me a number here, how many pilots we actually have. But in addition to the package, Brink also trains the current pilots to their standard of how to use these drones and any other certifications they need to fly them. Clint, do you want to give us an answer on how many pilots we have?

Currently, we have nine Part 107 certified drone pilots. It's a certification we go through. It's a long training course, very involved, and I've got at least one other.

If you have a 2 a.m. situation on a Monday night or Monday morning, then you would have somebody right there. You would have to call somebody in.

Correct.

That's the way it's designed.

And that's the advantage of a drone as first responder program is that anybody with access to a computer can launch the drone.

I'm sorry, Mayor Brunner. It's been a minute. We've been here before. Mayor Brunner, so the design of this, the drone as a first responder, it wouldn't be a situation where we're calling anybody in because we're looking for calls that happen like that, which means someone has to be on the ground. I think that you're going to find amongst our larger budget requests for FY27 is an increase in staffing for a real-time crime center to aid in this function. and many more items that need to happen in the real-time crime center. So we do have nine currently certified, and we're looking to bolster those numbers.

Okay, I believe if there's no further discussion, we have a motion and a second. So are we looking down? Okay, let's go ahead and do roll call, please, Madam Clerk.

Garg? Yes. Bills?

Yes.

Griffin?

Yes.

Rodriguez? Yes. Reynolds?

Yes.

All in favor? Motion carries.

Thanks, gentlemen, for being here. I'm sorry if I would have known, I would have had you a little earlier on the docket.

So where is your company out of?

I was out of Washington. Okay. Very good.

Feel free to move to Tampa, Idaho.

I can smell that I live in Ikesville.

That's right. Thanks. Was it the three cowboy hats that gave it away or what made you smell freedom?

All right, here we go. So now we're back to staff on public hearings. And let me move to the right page might help. 6-2. Yeah, 6-2. I finally got there on page 7 of 9. Okay, this is an action item, and I believe Christy Watkins, and we're not going to have her repeat a lot of things, but I guess I need whatever's in bold print here I need to speak of. So this is a Nampa City Ordinance text amendments for Title 5, Chapter 2, Title 9, Chapter 6, Title 10, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 11, Chapter 12. Chapter 14, Chapter 15, Chapter 16, Chapter 19, Chapter 22, Chapter 23, Chapter 24, Chapter 25, Chapter 26, Chapter 27, Chapter 31, Chapter 33, Chapter 34 for the City of Nampa. Is that all I need to say? Okay.

Very good.

Yes. Thank you, Mayor and Council. My name is Christy Watkins. I'm the Principal Planner for the City of Nampa. As stated, the action before you this evening is approval of a few code changes throughout our city code. This really was just grammatical and clarification changes. So if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those for you. Hopefully you've read your staff report and know what you are looking for or we're good to go.

Mayor, move to approve. Oh, it's a public hearing. I apologize.

Nice try, though. Okay, nothing for Christy here, so is there anyone left in the audience that's interested in testifying regarding this issue? Mark, you're not gonna do it?

Okay. Tonight only.

You don't wanna talk about tree services.

Okay, it says staff rebuttal or closing remarks. Do you wanna rebut anything?

No, thank you, Mayor. I'm good. I'll pass with a good thing.

All right, so now we need a motion to close. Move to close the public hearing. Okay, all in favor? Aye.

I think I heard all ayes. I make a motion to approve the Nampa City Ordinance text amendments as provided for on the screen and in our packet. Second.

Okay, roll call, please.

God, yes. Reynolds? Yes. Rodriguez?

Yes.

Griffin?

Yes.

Bills?

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

All right. Doug, you're going to be next, it looks like here. 6-3 is an action item, comprehensive plan text amendment to remove language recommending developments, five dwelling units per acre or more, be required to get approval of a planned unit development or a master plan community for the city of Nampa. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mayor. Council, Doug Critchfield, principal planner over long-range planning. This is a section of the comprehensive plan within the land use section. There's a statement in there that says that developments that exceed five dwelling units per acre should be a planned unit development or part of a master plan community. Those two tools, a PUD and an MPC in short, are tools that a developer can use to increase density or request changes that are outside of the norm in the zoning code, and those are tools for that purpose. So this has created some confusion with developers and the development community and the public about what the purpose of this section of code is for. staff has reviewed that and has recommended that this be removed in that the Subdivisions that are proposed within the medium density residential land use designation From two and a half to five dwelling unit per acre don't have to use this same tool So to make it contiguous for the entire medium density residential staffer recommends that this be removed If there is a desire for the council to hear developments or to see a plat that is over five dwelling units per acre, then there needs to be some other mechanism or tool in place for that to be a requirement going forward. This language in the code doesn't necessarily require that. So we just wanted to remove that and if necessary then get a recommendation from council that we could bring back later if you would like to add something that would require developments over five dwelling units per acre to come to the council to review the plat. So we're giving you the analysis. And the regulatory framework is in Idaho Code 67, 6508, and 6509 to make these changes to the comprehensive plan. And this is the motion before this evening. I'd be glad to take any questions.

Question, Mayor? Yes. So Doug, clarification. It was several years ago when the city began hearing or having holding workshops and asking development to pursue and do master plan communities. And it seemed like that was moving along pretty well. Is this removing that issue or is this just some code clarification issue?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor Brunner and Councilmember Bills. It's just a clarification issue. Master plan communities are still a tool that's available. We're still seeing them come in. It gives an opportunity for a developer and the council to review a concept for a fairly large area to see different land uses within that area and how they all work together. That's the purpose of a master plan community. A planned unit development is a similar type of tool on a smaller scale generally. But the master plan community does have to come in front of the council, but a PUD does not necessarily have to come in front of the council, especially if it's not tied to an annexation. So we're just clarifying that in the code. Good. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions for Doug? Okay, how many are interested in speaking in the public hearing tonight? Cheryl? It is now time. Three minutes and then you get to tell who you are and where you live again.

Good evening, Mayor Bruner and council again. I'm Cheryl Higley at 12441 South Abbott Downing Way here in Nampa. And respectfully, I would like to see the language in question remain in the comp plan. and here's why. Number one, because of the context. It's important to note that what comes immediately before the language that's proposed to be removed, here's what it says. Compatibility with existing development is an important consideration when designing subdivisions in this land use designation. Next is the language, developments that exceed five dwelling units per acre should be a planned unit development or part of a master plan community. Based on this context, it appears that the limitation of five dwelling units per acre was included in the medium density residential portion of the comp plan to help new developments be more compatible in density with existing neighborhoods than if up to eight dwelling units per acre were allowed. The second reason is because of the reality. From my observations, my personal observations, the gross density for large development applications that are in medium density residential are either a PUD, an MPC, or are already less than five dwelling units per acre. Examples are subdivisions like Clear Creek at 3.64, Lakeview at 2.73, Adara at 4.08, Deer Flat Ranch at .72, Swainson's Hawk Arbor at 3.70, to name a few. Therefore, removal of the language seems that it would mostly affect the smaller infill projects, where compatibility with existing neighbors is very sensitive and especially important. Such as Shadow Creek at 1408 Lake Lowell, where recently the council cautiously approved the application to annex and zone the property as RS4. but with the condition that there were to be no more than eight dwelling units on the two acre parcel, which resulted in a gross density of four dwelling units per acre. The application for Jennifer Reynolds at 2102 Midland is another example where the council limited the gross density to five dwelling units per acre. If the comp plan is to reflect to developers the expectations for how the council and P&Z want the city to develop, then letting the language remain in the comp plan gives developers a better indication of what has historically been approved and is realistically projected to be approved in the future. Thank you for considering these points as you make your decision. I would respectfully ask that you allow the language to remain. Thank you.

Thanks, Cheryl. Always impressed with your research. Okay, anyone else in the audience that's interested in speaking to this issue? All right, Doug, you want to go ahead and respond, please?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor and Council. So when a development comes in front of the City Council at any density, the Council has practiced this in the past. That's their option if they wish to reduce that density. Visa via some type of condition on the project. They they certainly can do that What we're arguing is that the the PUD and the master plan community are tools that a developer can use It's their option to use those tools, but it's it's not necessarily a requirement what a PUD for example will give them is the option to increase the density by 20% and or a master plan community, if it's approved, can also increase the density by 20%. So we're asking that that be removed as an option for this type of density coming in, and that the council evaluate it at the density that's claimed for a medium density residential type of development.

Council, any questions for Doug? If not, I think we're ready to close public hearing.

Mayor, Doug, need a clarification because you're saying sounds good what Cheryl has testified sounds correct. I'm trying to see is there a particular part of the code that we're missing or the issue here? I guess I'm a little confused on that. Little confused on that as to this particular area of the code, the importance of removing if our actions in prior have kind of gone in. I guess I need a little more clarification.

Rodney, you're going to give that to us?

I'm not sure I'm... I have all the answers here but I will I will just say that uh... this language is in a comprehensive plan that is guidance so it is not in city code there is no standard that says over five acres you shall do a PUD in city code there's nothing it's a guidance in the comprehensive plan what we're suggesting is it doesn't change what you see when they bring a project forward to you, excuse me, If they bring a project forward to you in an annexation and a plat, you're going to see the same thing, whether they've applied for a PUD or not, and you still have the same capability to require restrictions or reducing density or increasing density, whatever. you could do all those same things either direction if there was a PD or not a PD what a PD does though is it cost them more to go through the process and it allows them some capability to adjust their density beyond what our normal limits are. So, potentially, with a PUD, you could increase your density beyond the maximum that would be allowed in that designation on the comprehensive plan. this just gives them a few to gives them more options for developing in different ways and we're just suggesting that this shouldn't be a requirement on anything that is over five acres that's a case-by-case basis when they decide that they need a few d to achieve something different then they come before you and requested but you can still restrict it. And so the comments that were made, respectfully, I just disagree with. I don't think that this is limiting in any way. The PUD requirement is not limiting densities in any way. It is just giving them an option, and it's costing them more.

Thank you. Yeah.

Councilman, you're kind of set straight up. Do you have a comment? Okay, all right. All right, so are we ready to have a motion to close public hearing? So moved. Second.

Your choice.

I'll take a second. I'm leaving that up to the Madam Clerk here. Okay, so we need to all in favor say aye. Aye. All agreed. Any council discussion before the vote?

Nope. Okay. Do we have a motion? Mr. Mayor, I move to approve the comprehensive plan text amendment to remove language recommending developments. Five dwelling units per acre or more be required to get approval of a planned unit development for a master plan community for the city of Napa.

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

Gogg. No. Rodriguez.

No.

Griffin.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds. Yes. Three in favor, two opposed. Motion carries.

All right, we're ready for the mayor's office. And Amy, she looks like you're ready. I thought both of you were going to be up here. I thought you were going to carry a banner. Okay, so this is Chief of Staff, Clay Long, that'll be bringing communication regarding his responsibilities. Good evening, let me pull this up real quick.

All right, for the record, Clay Long, Chief of Staff. I just wanted to go over briefly, the last time we had a conversation with Council on the function of Chief of Staff was in January at the Council workshop. when we talked about the operational structure of the city. And as you know, we've gone through a lot of change over the last six months, but I just kind of wanted to reemphasize what and how that position is shaped at this point and answer any questions that may come in. So starting back in October of 2025, council approved changing city code and adding the chief of staff as an appointed position. In that appointment, the description of that was that the chief of staff shall plan and direct all administrative, financial, and operational activities and provide oversight and guidance to projects for the city. As you'll know in that section of code, it's a similar of one to two sentences within each of those positions. And then from there, we take that and mayor who has authority over those positions identifies what that job description specifically looks at. In December of 2025, we worked through the transition planning and process with Mayor Hoegeboom and identified what his administration planned and how it planned to use the chief of staff function. And then in early January, presenting to directors and staff, we articulated out the function enrolled reporting structure and how the position would serve. Later in January, I presented to council and gave again a high level overview of that. The intent was that we were going to look at it in March and see what changes or modifications needed to be made before we formalized the job description. And then that turned into June. And so I did have an opportunity last week to sit down with, at that time, Mayor Point to kind of go over that as well as Council President Bills and identify here's where things were going wrong. and how they've been operating to solidify it for me personally so that I have a clear understanding and expectation of what's expected of me. From a high level, there's really kind of two specific areas, well, three. There's strategic advising to both mayor and council, looking at directing the day-to-day, implementing the policy or code or administration that both council or mayor identify, provide updates, ensure that anything that does need change, we come to council for when appropriate. And then on the operational side and leadership, focusing on ensuring that the organization's running well, provide support to make sure that we're meeting our needs to our customers, internal and external, working on and with our workforce development team, directors and supervisors, the hiring for personnel. Obviously, any of those that are appointed still come from the mayor as a recommendation to council for their approval, for council's approval. and then supervision and annual performance valuations for identified staff, senior leadership as well as staff. The other areas that I think are important is just, again, I mentioned it, but that implementation piece, when council adopts policy, obviously that's typically handled through the department that it's relevant to, but ensuring that that happens and gets carried out, and then also if there's any type of facilitation that needs to take place if there's other folks that are impacted that are more of a cross department, if you will. The coordination and oversight pieces, and then also working with the mayor at that request and as directed for relationships, external, and intergovernmental representation. I know that's a lot quickly. But that's really it. I just wanted to give a high level to this group as a follow-up from the last time we talked. I know this was originally on an agenda earlier. After the conversation discussion, I think it was more appropriate that this be an update from an administrative function of the mayor or mayor appoint, as opposed to coming to council and having council adopt something separately.

And if that- And on the screen, council questions. Any questions?

Mayor?

Yes.

Just one clarification and this is one of the questions I had sent to press and originally when we had gotten the original draft just on one word agent I understand that you would be an agent frankly representing the city in most capacities on major contractual agreements is the chief of staff authorized to sign any agreement of that magnitude that may, how do I word this? May have some political blowback that we might want the mayor to have to sign ultimately. So we have a stop gap in between major contractual obligations that could be controversial from you and maybe over to more of a elected officials perspective.

Mayor and Councilman, so when the city or council agrees to sign something in that action item, it always says who council is authorizing to sign that. So like tonight, you notice with the drones, it was the chief of police. You'll notice other department titles or positions where it could be the mayor in some situations. Other times it's a department director. So it would be left up to action item that council approves.

So no matter what, ultimately council has to appropriate and approve those dollars. And at the end of the day, it's who we assigned to have the signature.

Thank you. Yes.

Yeah. The one thing I have, not for you Clay, but for legal. Isn't there a statute that says that appointed officials shall report to the mayor?

Mr. Mayor, may I address that? Idaho code 5602 is the starting point for all this. That designates the mayor as the chief administrative officer for the city. So that's the starting point. How a mayor wants to be assisted in that is up to the mayor. That's the administrative executive function. Some may do a part-time chief of staff, full-time chief of staff, chief city administrator, even adopting a city manager form of government maybe. There's not necessarily a code that requires it. There's a procedure, this is an appointed position, and so there is guidance about how that is appointed and removed, just like any appointed official, but nothing that specific. Okay, follow up, sir. Good question.

Okay, also, in order to continue with this, and I think Clay's done most of the responsibilities he's list anyway, would it be out of order if I was to Let's say go to Twin Falls or Coeur d'Alene and talk to those people and investigate how good it's working or how it's not working. Or am I just, because I'm legislative, that I shouldn't do that?

Mr. Mayor, I can speak to the legal side. I think that's maybe more of a council, Mayor.

I believe, I don't want to speak out of turn, but I believe there was some research, I think it was mainly, though, The Coeur d'Alene area? Coeur d'Alene.

Okay. Yeah.

Yeah. Please speak.

Yeah. I just want to just kind of. Yeah. Councilman Rodriguez. Yes. whether it's in or out of order, if it's from a legal standpoint, not per se, but from a duties, roles, and how you want to address those, that's probably a good conversation between the mayor's executive branch and as a legislative body, how you want to go about that. Legally, it may not hit on any of those issues right on the head, but more of an administrative operation question. I see, okay, thank you. Mayor?

Yes, sir. A couple comments. I wanted to make sure that we don't cross that line of state statute that talks about the city manager, strong mayor, form of governance. And I think it's important to... have clear definition for the directors of who they're reporting to, and that's worked out between staff and the mayor. I think that the last thing that's really important is that we are a legislative branch, the mayor's office is an executive branch, other than budget and policy.

Maybe just a comment. So when we met with directors in January, what we shared with them is that they would report through the chief of staff. So that's the reporting structure, that information. And there's a lot of nuances to that too. Obviously, if the mayor has requested information or has initiated something, that's a natural backflow. If it's a operational level thing, an administrative thing, as codes indicates, that's where they report back through the chief of staff and report to the chief of staff.

Mayor.

And I don't know if this is, I thought that I had heard this, but I'm not sure. Does this position change each time? I mean, is there an option to change this with each mayor that comes into office?

The mayor, councilwoman, the position itself from an appointment perspective, council would have to vote on changing the person. As far as the job description, that's an administrative function. So that's within the mayor's purview. When we first were headed this, and I shared the information on the city administrator as Court Elaine had, that's where the Coeur d'Alene council adopted a resolution to identify what these specific responsibilities were for the longterm. Um, and wasn't something that the mayor could just go in and change, uh, depending on who the mayor is. So as it stands now, it's a, it's a discretion of the mayor.

Let me go ahead. No, you speak.

No, you can go ahead.

I'm just going to say, yeah, and I've said it many times, so it's not nothing new to any of you that I'll believe, but, uh, You know, my first question on this to Council President and to Clay was, what was the direction that Mayor Hogeboom was going? And my understanding is this was the direction, as Clay already stated, in January. And I think emphasized, maybe more than enough, that that's the path I desire to follow as far as what he was setting forth.

Mayor, can I follow up too? I'm not asking that because I think you're awesome. I'm just asking that because of future. And I remember telling our former mayor, Rick, okay, I don't agree, but I will go with you because I trust you. And then, you know, he was gone. And so I don't want to do that again. But I do trust you. Mayor?

Yes. Just to confirm, what is... actually the difference between what we're establishing here now and a manager-managed city system other than the election to formalize it? What are the main differences if somebody does raise those questions?

I would say high level, the mayor is still the ultimate decision point. So it's really the mayor vesting the authority and trust with the chief of staff position. And then that relationship of what are those decision points you want me to bring to you as opposed to make independently versus in a city manager function, it is the mayor function of that operations and that executive or CEO of the city. And I would say similar to any of our directors or leadership, that relationship of what autonomy they have and then what things filter up. Obviously, our goal is to have folks run their departments independently with guidance and vision. So I would say that's the biggest piece where you still have an ultimate deciding factor as the mayor as opposed to with a city manager that's vested in that person.

And how would they exercise that role if there was a disagreement on process with a chief of staff and a mayor if they ultimately said, I'm not doing this Well, I'm going to, I don't foresee that happening, but like Councilwoman Scogg stating, just, you might not be here forever, Clay, I hope you're here forever and a day, but if you're not, if we get appoint somebody else, possibly less experienced and maybe off the rails, you could say, how do we make sure there's a balance there?

So in this structure, the mayor's the boss. So the mayor trumps any other staff member that's employed or appointed, it's still their call. There are some specific areas that could, like I think of the treasurer, for example. There's some specific things they're responsible for that they would be responsible for bringing back to council. But again, that independent decision making or that autonomy level is vested by virtue of the mayor saying, you have the authority to do these things. Thank you.

Questions or comments?

Just a comment. The reason to me why that is important is because that means the people have a say. Yeah, and so that's my main focus is that we don't take away that power from our citizens. It's that we continue to allow them to elect a mayor that will run the city how they would like it.

I just appreciate that in a year from this November that that can happen.

Yeah, and again, I want to publicly say, Clay, you've been amazing since we lost our mayor. And I cannot say enough about how much I appreciate you and your position. Thank you.