Council - workshop

Boop.

Welcome, everyone. If I can get the... Oh, okay. Oh, one minute?

One more minute.

Oh, okay. All right. Now, welcome. Good morning. Wednesday morning. I know everyone was so excited about being here this morning. So here you get to experience your dream. Thank you. I want to just start, though, before we do the invocation and the pledge, making sure I don't forget... Doug. We're OK. I just want all of Doug and his team to stand. Will you just stand? And just give them a big hand for what they've accomplished. Thank you so much. Appreciate you, and thank you all for collaborating, working, communicating with his team, and where we're here today to make some probably challenging decisions, but hopefully good decisions for our city. Peter, I've asked Peter to bring the invocation and the pledge, so we'll stand and do that next.

Father God, Lord, we ask that you be with us this morning and throughout the day as we make important decisions for the future of our city. Lord, thank you for each person that is here. We acknowledge the budget team and the hard work that they've done. Lord, be with our city council, all of the rest of our city leaders, the public that's attending or watching and listening. Please guide us in our thoughts and our conversations and our discussion. We pray these things in Jesus' name. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

Thank you, Peter. Okay, I think as far as my notes that Char is so kind in presenting with me, the next is Doug. You're up. Are you ready to roll? No, roll call. Oh, roll call. I'm sorry. Forget that, Doug. You're not up yet. Roll call is priority. I better remember this council or I'll be in real trouble. Okay.

Skog.

Present.

Cengula. Here. Bills. Here. Reynolds. Here. Rodriguez. Here. Griffin. Here. All present.

Mayor, we'd like to ask for a budget amendment for council to consider. And instead of going directly into all the summary items, Is to allow council members to express the hot-button items so that we can focus there and And then mesh with finances summary work and

That's the intent, is to, this can go council and mayor and council as quickly or as long as council desires. The intent is to speed this as effectively, quickly as possible without skipping the public input into what we're setting as the budget base for the FY27. But the intent is to hit those items up front, the big items, and then come back and do a very, top line approval of the budgets by fund instead of by department. So we would go General Gov, Streets, Airport in that sequence. And that's part of what's in my initial presentation. So that's the intent. If council overall supports that.

Well, again, I think it'd be helpful for you and for council if council members have some hot button items that we get those known and or discussed and then let you proceed in there. Rather than going through stuff and then we turn around, spend one to two hours changing everything.

So question, Council President, is this a motion that you want to make?

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

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

Right off the bat, ahead of part one, and then depending on those discussions, that will guide finance on how much summary and what we need to do thereafter. Okay, do we have a second?

I second.

Okay, any discussion? Mr. Mayor, I just have a comment. So I concur with Councilman Bills on part of this. I just want to... remind people that this is the most important thing that we do as city council is our budget. And there's certain things that need to be discussed at length. And so hopefully everybody has those in order so we can pull them out and discuss them. And then other than that, I agree with councilman bills about some of the items being able to go through and just get them taken care of.

Yeah. I, I, I appreciate the comment because what I'm looking at is I believe 80% of the budget is pretty straightforward. I think there's 20% based on different council members viewpoints. That is where we need to focus, not to throw Doug and team such a curve ball, but it really gets those issues brought up to where everything else can flow pretty quick thereafter, I believe.

We support the rapid review approval because that was part of the outline of my presentation to say, we've already shared this with the public. We've shared it with you six or seven times in previous meetings. It's been shared in private meetings and reviews. So it's been well vetted as a budget. So we can move rapidly. This isn't new to anybody. And it's been a year where we have kept the budget very much consistent with prior years with very minimal changes. So there's little risk in that.

Okay. So, uh, I see we have two attorneys here, but Doug, you're in person and Preston, so is there any challenges with changing the agenda as far as the order of at this point in time?

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

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

Changula. Yes. Reynolds. Yes. Rodriguez. Yes. Griffin. Yes. Skog. Yes. Bills. Yes. All in favor? Motion carries.

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

Mayor and Councillor, may I just interject a little bit? There's a little bit of, as you and Councillors propose changes, we need to track those because we're going to have to come back and give the approval of the budget numbers with those changes in them. So as you approve and settle on something, I don't know the mechanism, if it requires an action item to make that change or you just tell it and then we vote for it. I'm not sure of that legal process, but mechanically we'll have Diana here tracking the changes you approve as council, adjusting the budgets on the fly. Then when we get to the approval, we will give you the total of the budget for that fund with the adjustment in it. But I don't know if there's any other legal need to do an action item for a change in the budget that we haven't yet approved. So I don't know that mechanism.

I think initially it's to give you the feedback or input as to the changes as far as the actual adoption. I see each issue can be kind of the, council could say yay or nay on them and we know that's gonna change. And then the formality of adopting the budget subject to the changes that have been discussed. can happen that way with the motions.

Right, so I just wanted that because that's what mechanically we'll do. I would suggest, however, if you get to an issue that is too complex to resolve in this because there are issues that may not be present before us that we find a way to approve it and the finance come back in the next couple weeks and do the necessary accounting moves to make it to fulfill the council's wishes. So we'll have to, if we come up with something that's complex, it may be broader than just this meeting to adopt, but we'll do our best to accommodate that as we go.

Okay, we'll move that direction. Diana, do you have your speed fingers on? Okay, all right.

Again, the purpose is because I believe council members have certain items that are... near and dear because I do. And so to get those out on the table, I'll start and then potentially, Mayor, we just move down the line, move and get those issues known. We won't go into the details immediately, but then we'd come back and go ahead and talk about them and know where we're going to stand on those. And then we'll work out the details to meet. So that's the approach. Okay. Hot topics, VRT. For me, there's a couple of things there is whether we take the choice of VRT. It was roughly in that 489 and leave funding to VRT. I'm personally more of a 400 number or none. And so I wanted to put my thoughts out there. The County Animal Shelter, there's been discussion this year about what are we doing with that? that Kenyon County, Caldwell, and Nampa were going to split 1 3rd, 1 3rd, 1 3rd. The last time I talked to Captain Scoglin, it seemed that was ambiguous as to what was happening with the county. And so whether we're gonna have an agreement there or not, I don't think Nampa should put in any more than 300 towards the animal shelter issue. So I'm gonna be hard and fast in that realm. and how we're gonna work that out with the other entities or whether we figure out a new program on that issue. That's what I see as one item. Library, we had discussion during the discussions this spring. I was surprised at how our library staff is not tracking residents who live outside of the city who participate with the library and we're not charging. And I feel like at this point, based on that, based on having the task of looking at payables every week, which I did not, I relied on former leadership to go through those. I'm somewhat aghast at what we spend city taxpayer money on. And so from my side, I think the budget could be held to 2025. And I don't think there's a need for increase there. Potentially we could even decrease the amount of non-city users on that issue as well. So I think council doesn't have direct management of the library, but this is where we do have responsibility as the budget side. And I'm concerned on that issue. I've talked briefly with Doug and mayor and chief of staff a little bit. I think with the deferred maintenance issues that the city is facing that we've been talking about, I think there's gonna be a need for a joint task force to handle those deferred maintenance. Public Works is willing, Public Works is tasked with a great deal of other projects and issues. Therefore, if council is able to set aside funds to begin tackling these long projects, deferred maintenance issues. I think we need to set up that a new task force or department. It wouldn't be a long-term department. It would be something that we would see one to five years and be very focused project wise and what needs to get fixed. So I think... If there's money savings that we hold back out of the budget and we put towards those issues and these deferred maintenance, why then we also look towards how we organize. I think also we need to reorganize the facilities group.

Let me pause if I may, Council President. So on your task force, is that an outside hire or is that internal?

Well, it's going to take yet some exploratory with legal. There's some ideas that are undecided on how that's going to get physically organized to meet the requirements. But if we can put together, there's some ideas there, I won't go into the details, but it allow the typical maintenance public works stuff to go, but start zeroing in on some of the deferred. I think we need to have the facilities group. We have such a deferred maintenance in our funding when we saw that report and got that report, and I'm appreciative to the facilities group for hiring the group that came in. I think Councilman Reynolds worked on that, and... It really shows how we do not take care, we minimally take care of our facilities, our assets, et cetera. And for me, being in the business that I've been in, and I've managed well over a million square feet, and I've early on had the task of having buildings maintained and taken care of, and I know what happens when you don't. And when the recession of the early 80s hit, it really impacted maintaining buildings and you saw the results of that. I believe the need is to take care of our assets. And so whether the legislature ties our hands as it has or whatever, we have to figure out how to take care of those buildings. So there's the underground side, And then there's the actual building site. And I think we got to split it apart. I think we need a facilities group who maintains buildings and so forth, but they don't build buildings. We set up a different means of how we build buildings. And so I'm pitching that to council. I also think we have to look at hiring freeze out of gen gov. I think we need to look at our hires need to be from enterprise fund. And I think we got to increase the water fund for sure. And possibly the others to take care of the, the style life changed. We don't manage the systems like as I'm learning as years passed. And consequently it takes the requirement of having personnel who paid a wage that can oversee water renewal and the water side of things. And therefore, we need to look hard at how we're funding and getting those enterprise funds moving forward. I also think police has a great deal of overhead, yet it is working diligently to provide for this city. And the budget request is, uh, is high. Um, and I think, uh, we're going to have to potentially deal with an override, uh, this fall or no later than next May. Um, I am a proponent for taking foregone. I know that, uh, rubs against possibly a couple of council members, but, uh, at the same time, uh, the legislature's dealt us the hand that we currently have. And there's roughly 2.2 million, I think, remaining in foregone. And that's not a great deal of money in the overall scheme and the overall taxation. I think we need to take that and keep the base up because of the storms that lie ahead. So those are my comments on the hot button issues without getting into details of all the departments. I've gone through that. I've met with finance, asked questions, et cetera. Mayor, thank you for the time.

Thank you. Thank you, Council President. So I believe... Councilwoman Skog, you're going to be next. Do you want to title this something different than the hot button, or is that good with you?

Well, I just want to, yeah, so I do have a couple of thoughts as well. I agree with most of the issues that, I almost called you representative, councilman bills brought up. I also would like us to pull out of Association of Idaho Cities. I attended their conference this year and I was surprised at, you know, it's a great, it's great for small cities. Nampa is no longer a small city and most of what available does not apply to our city. And I feel like that money could be put into a more lucrative spot on our budget. And so I would like to pull out of that. I would also recommend that we cut our funds for VRT. completely. I believe that other entities will step up and I don't think that us throwing money at that anymore is appropriate. I visited with a gentleman that was there when a VRT was put into practice. It was supposed to be for two years as a trial, and we have not seen a lot of production from there. And I don't believe that it is the city's job to make sure people have rides to where they're going, especially when we're looking at the deficits that we have, especially the deferred maintenance and so forth. I believe. That most of what Councilman bills brought up I am and I have on my list as well. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Councilwoman Councilwoman Jangler.

I'm good with the things that have been pulled off. I think that there will be time for us to discuss as we go through them, so I don't have anything to add at this time.

Alright, count Councilman Reynolds.

Thank you, Mayor. Some of mine are like Councilman Bill's library. There's a couple of line items in there that I have questions about. And then, um, facilities and construction is something we need to discuss. And, uh, and then the police, we need to talk about that at length. Um, and my viewpoint probably differs from some, but, um, I feel like, uh, we have a problem there we need to fix. Thank you. Councilman Rodriguez.

Thank you, sir. First of all, um, VRT, That's concerning. This year is a year of priority for me. And so I'd like to hear the other councilmen regarding the BRT. Also, another priority is police. And we just lost four who applied for an MPPD out of 12 because another agency could pay them more. That's inappropriate. That's understanding. That's not, I understand them for doing that, but I think we need to bulk up our, our officers in paying salaries. The other thing is I'm not sure about the library. I'd like to take a good look at that since I'm the liaison. There are reports that I have yet to see regarding the county library cardholders and the direction of what the library has gone and has been going for the last three, four years. I have addressed this issue with our clay long and see whether we can go further with it and determine the better direction. So it's not the employees, ladies and gentlemen, it's in the community is supportive of that. The other thing is, is facilities group. Initially, when talking to David Bills about this, I think project managers need to be assessed and need to be brought forward for fiction and well thought of projects. I like that idea. However, the funded is, is another situation here. Animals, the animal shelter is another issue. And, uh, we've got many controversies going back and forth on, on who should take and who, how we fund it. But, uh, Unfortunately, we're at a point where we need to do something and get off the stick here. The Idaho Cities Association, I concur with Councilman Scogg. Another one that I would like to reduce the amount is Compass, and that charges, what, $60,000 or so for the city of Nampa. The other thing is another hot topic, but I think it needs to be later for discussion for Doug is insurance and insurance rates. So there you go, sir. That's mine.

Okay.

You're the finale councilman Griffin. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you to all the members of the departments that are here today. Uh, and if there is a loan person from the community, I appreciate you coming and attending as well. Uh, this is as councilman Reynolds had stated a very important day, uh, because we're setting the priorities of the city and showing the direction for our constituents of what we believe should and our priorities in the city. Uh, I had one, Question for councilman bills. He had mentioned the library budget staying at 2025. Was that intended 2025 or 2026?

Thank you for the clarification on my mind was 2025 reality. It would be staying at 2026. Okay. And then the question is, is whether a further reduction from the 2026 to match the offset of what County folks should be paying.

So thank you. So of the, with that included, I had six issues that are gen gov funded because my intention and my goal is deferred maintenance as well. And establishing that, whether it be a hotshot crew or a fund to be able to commit ongoing dollars to the work that needs to be done there. VRT, the library, AIC, a $75,000 legislative research intern, ECONOMIC INCENTIVE FUND AND A FEW DOLLARS FROM THE COUNCIL BUDGET THAT I THINK NEED TO GET THE COB WEBS BLOWN OFF OF IT AND ALLOCATED IN A PLACE WHERE THEY'LL BE UTILIZED. THAT'S IT FOR ME. AND THOSE TOTAL IN AN AMOUNT OF $843,805, IF THOSE ARE ALLOCATED. AND HOW I FORESEE THEM TO BE ALLOCATED. ANY OTHER COUNCIL

Do people need any further explanation from Councilman Griffin on those?

Mayor, if I could make one mention, I apologize. I should have brought this up. I started. It's for a discussion for later on, but I believe that after going through the analysis of the budget and comparing dollars that we have to appropriate from our GenGov budget to offset this budget, that it might be worth the funds, although expensive, to get a full fiscal impact study of new growth in Nampa. I know there are a number of different firms and Doug even gets to cut his lawn next to one of the great members of Clearwater that could do this analysis for us somewhere in the ballpark of $80,000. It's not cheap, but I think if we need to be making informed decisions when it comes to growth, APPROVING THESE PROJECTS AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE SHOOTING INTO THE DARK. I COULD SAY $900 IS WHAT IT'S COSTING TAXPAYERS BUT WE DON'T REALLY KNOW UNLESS THAT FULL FISCAL IMPACT IS DONE. SO IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO DISCUSS AND APPROPRIATE THIS YEAR TO GET DONE.

THANK YOU COUNCILMAN. NO FURTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION AS FAR AS THESE HOT BUTTON ISSUES? Okay, so I believe we're ready for you, Doug, as far as how you want to present at this point in time.

So let me just go back and verify exactly what council would like to hear so we're not wasting anyone's time. It's all valuable. Collectively, there's a lot of time we're putting together here this morning. You've identified the hot button topics. Would council like to resolve those now before we get to the departments and address them one at a time, what we've listed? Or would council like to go to the departments and resolve them within the departments?

Mayor? Yes, Council President. From my side, it seems like if we address the hot topics,

We would roll or carte Blanc pass the remaining budget and not have to go through No department by department keep in mind I'm not suggesting we go by department by department by fund there were about 18 funds so and the rationale there is I

We can list those funds and approve them in totality unless you want motions for each 18 items.

My preference will be a motion for each of the items just because we have all of, each fund is different and deserves a little, the recognition in the public that we're looking at those from that perspective. We know what we've done internally. We've done a tremendous amount of reviews with you and internally. We know we've done that. I don't know that anybody online has that depth of concept, but still I'll follow the council's guidelines here. My problem with doing it as one lump sum is I'm gonna have Diana doing a lot of math over here and then adding it up. The potential for a mistake is greater the more manual math I have her do. And if I have her make adjustments and then add up each as fun as possible, we could get to the end and have the wrong total value. She's very good. Don't get me wrong, but we're putting her on the spot and you're doing manual calculations on the spot. There is a potential for error there and that's where I say I would rather go buy a fund for the 18. I think you go through those in less than an hour and be done with all of those in less than an hour. That's just my preference.

Okay. James, is there anyone listening online? Public? Okay. Okay, but no, I realize that, but do we do have a number of folks? I guess what my concern is is that if anyone who has not read through these 587 pages or the summary may need just a little bit of a brief summary from our chief financial officer or whoever, Chris, or whoever wants to present that. So, council, is that, you feel like that's necessary or not?

Mayor? Yes. Doug, how long would it take each budget if we were to give it its appropriate amount of time? Would it take each of the 18 budgets? I'm leaning more towards Councilman Bill's path.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying we go through each budget. We just approve the total of the budget, not that we review each individual budget in depth. We've already done that. Okay.

So we're not going to summarize what the budget is or anything like that. You're going to put up a dollar amount and then we'll say this amount to be approved.

Yes. And that's just mechanical, so I have less room for error in adding things up manually. I'm not proposing we go into depth because you're hitting the big issue items up front. We adjust for them. We give you a new number. This is the budget. We're done. You can do that and substantially shorten the meeting time. Instead of getting out at 7 or 8, you might be out by lunch.

Okay. GO AHEAD, COUNCIL PRESIDENT. JUST YOUR OPINION ON I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC IS TOTALLY Part of this, and whatever knowledge you got, you have studied this hours and hours and hours. Right. And I'm sure that some of these directors have too, but if the public does need a short summary.

Anyway, your opinion. Well, the public will have opportunity at the public hearing to weigh in on the budget itself and after today's session. Okay. And so it may even be simpler for the public once we get through today. Okay. I think from my side, if we can, if you're okay, then Doug, I'd rather see us tackle these hot topics and weigh in on those.

Let's get those done and go from there.

And then from there we would just go through and, uh,

Because as you do the motions, as you approve a change, this is what I'd like to say. If you have a streets change or a general gov change, we can accumulate that and make the change. At the end, if you want to talk about the capital or anything else, we can say, okay, this is what we've got and try and present that here. The challenge is once we set the budget levels today, this is why I want to be very careful. We cannot go up from here at this point. We can go down. But whatever you set today becomes our ceiling for this budgetary approval that I submit to Canyon County in the first part of September. The only way to change it after that would be through amendment in FY27. Yeah.

Let me just do one addendum. Yes, go ahead, Councilman Reynolds.

I don't see why we can't go through it by budget number for budget and then pull out these items that we've discussed as we go through it to keep it in order. And then we know that there's an item. And if there's no items in that budget, then we approve that budget.

And you go on.

And we decide if there is something we're going to pull, we leave that dollar amount as a placeholder or not.

There's good rationale for that because all we're doing is continuing on a budget we started in 26. We had made very minimal changes by design. Chief of Staff and myself and eventually with support of Mayor Bruno, we held things very, very consistent. No new programs, no new anything because we wanted full mayoral involvement in that. So we can go through this quickly with that approach.

Okay, and I'm one that I like decisions made quickly, so if there's a motion one way or the other, let's make the motion and let's see how all the council feels on this. Yes.

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

Okay, motion on the table. Is there a second?

Mayor, just a clarification before a second. Are we able to change our process after this motion if we get four budget buckets deep and we're realizing it's taking 40 minutes per budget. Can we say we're just.

You certainly could. I don't think it would take 40 minutes per budget. I'm hoping it's more like five.

Okay. Question. Yes. Council Rodriguez. Didn't we already have a motion on how to proceed? Why are we doing this?

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

It's the action item that we need to determine how, what action item.

I've heard two different proposals, so I want us to land. Getting confused here.

Are we okay, Doug? Yeah, just for the sake of the record, you made a motion initially to sort of change the order of the agenda, take a pop button issues first. You're now through that. So the change you approved has occurred and now you're back onto the regular agenda. The new motion is to sort of change the structure again, moving forward to go, as I understand it, fund by fund or budget by budget. I'm not sure which term is appropriate there. And then to address the hot button issues as you go. The one question that I might ask Doug is that any of the hot button issues cross over funds or are they all isolated in a single fund?

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

Okay.

All right, thanks. So what I'm hearing is the motion that was made by Councillor Reynolds is appropriate, and we're waiting on a second. Correct. Okay, thanks.

Second. And Mr. Mayor, if I can make a comment. I feel like it's still simplistic that way to go through it. It just keeps us in order, but I think we can roll through it pretty fast. Okay.

Any other further discussion? Mayor, if I could. Yes. I originally like David Bill's motion simply because we get rid of the hot button issues. They're able to amend the budgets accordingly, and then we take it. I think it's a hybrid of both. Hot button, and then we can go through each of the 18 buckets with the newly allocated amounts. I think that would be more appropriate than rather originating back to each department and pulling out as we go.

So are you requesting an amendment to the motion? I would. Councilman Reynolds.

Mr. Mayor, I disagree with that. I think that from finances standpoint, they're sitting there and we're pulling seven or eight different issues all over this budget book and they're going through trying to pull them out. Something's going to get missed. We're going to end up with numbers all over the place. We're not even going to know what's going on.

So why can't we go through every circumstance where I have operated mayor and council, when you rapidly rush something through with manual entries, you will make a mistake and then we will pay for it later. Um, it's just, Diane is very good. We're very good. We can probably get through without a mistake, but if we do get a mistake, we're stuck with it.

Okay, any further discussion? Otherwise, we're gonna call roll. Discussion. Discussion.

Finance, which motion would you prefer?

without getting myself in trouble with Mayor, because I support what you're trying to do here. I would like to move rapidly through this, but by fund, instead of by department. We've done a little bit of both in the past. I think we can move through it very quickly. We also need to give Diana time to make the adjustments. Let's say you go through VRT, and you say you VRT. While you're going on to the next item, Diana can make those adjustments in VRT where we need to... then we go on to AIC or whatever, she can make those adjustments, and then we get back, she'll have numbers by fund for us to approve, and you can go through that rapidly. We don't need to discuss the fund budget, we just need to approve the total dollar value of the fund budget. I dislike going through, doing it all at once, because it has to be done manually, and the possibility for error is greater.

So Councilman Reynolds would align more with what it is that would be helpful for you. Thank you.

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

It's I see the sixes and so Let's just move forward. Okay, so let's go ahead and do roll call please and get it done God Yes bills, yes Rodriguez Yes, Griffin.

Yes, and Gula. Yes Reynolds. Yes all in favor motion carries. Aye

Okay, this may be my last input, but I'm back to the hot button issue just for a minute, because I did not hear it recognized. And that's the $400,000 for the Civic Center for seats. That's in the...

That was in the capital budget and has been approved. Yes.

So we get to do that later? No.

No, we've done the capital budget already.

Oh, that's right. Okay, so that's already been approved.

Yeah, it won't be talked about today.

Okay, I'm just going to make then one comment, good, bad, or otherwise. Thank you for the clarification. We have an auditorium district that our voters voted on and passed. At that point in time, the voters were not aware of the conveyance of the Ford Idaho Center. Just my opinion, and I'm not speaking for anyone else on this council, but I just really feel like with the funds that are available currently with the auditorium district, which my understanding is is over $700,000 balance currently, and I realize they have offered $250,000 for those seats. But anyway, I'm just not in favor of the city putting out money for those seats when we have an auditorium district And in my opinion, their priority should be the Civic Center until it's totally brought up to where it should be from a deferred maintenance standpoint before any monies are presented or given to the Ford Idaho Center since the city no longer owns the Ford Idaho Center. So, okay, that's my little spill for the day. Thank you.

So, Mayor, I'd like to, rather than revisit it, go on department by department, like to make a motion. that in those departments where it's listed as personnel equipment line item, and it shows up in almost every department budget, that we reduce that amount, those line items, throughout every department to the $20.25. For? Personnel equipment. Line item personnel equipment. That's in every department's budget.

Okay, so you want to take every department and move them back to 2026 for all personnel costs? You don't want any COLA involved?

This is... buying shoes, shirts, hats, gloves, who knows what it is other than I see it on the payables report. And candidly, I realize there's a need, but I also see some excess from my perspective. So the only way to know if it's really excess or what reality is, is, is change the numbers. And I know that sounds maybe some heavy handedness and not trusting everybody to spend, but candidly, uh, I've seen some pretty weird things on the payables report that I hadn't been exposed to until January being put in this position. So consequently, I'm making a motion across the, so rather than bring this up, every department now that we're going through by department, personnel equipment needs to go back to 2025.

Does that include the police department?

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

Okay.

But to start off with, yes.

Okay. So I support the motion. I cannot give you that value today that's impossible.

Not looking for the value.

No, but I mean, if we're approving a budget, I can't give you the quantitative change to that budget for that impact today. That's going to have to come back.

That's fine. Okay, there's been a motion. Do we have a second?

Well, to confirm, Mayor, if I could. If we can't allocate that dollar amount, can we finish the budget process today?

Yes. Yes, you can. We've done this in the past. Three or four years ago, we had an issue when Mayor Darrow was on the council with travel. The council thought it was too high. We could not. It was too complex. We adjusted it after the fact. We came back like a month later, did a full review, and adjusted it down for every department. The budget total stayed up. but we took the amount out of that line item for the department to spend. So effectively we pulled it out.

Okay. Is council all right in recognizing captain Scoban? I see he's standing. So I, that's an indication to me that he wants to speak. Okay. And I'll second the motion mayor. Okay. Second. And we'll, we'll have discussion and starting with the captain.

Mayor and council. Thank you for listening to me for this briefly. So personnel equipment, also includes new officer equipment. So I just wanted to make sure you were aware of that. So if you go back to a 2025 line, it may or may not cover the cost for this year. Because of inflation or the cost? Well, we build in new equipment for new officers and also new equipment for the replacement of officers throughout the year. So that would be my only comment. Thank you.

Okay, we're in the discussion period. Mr. Mayor? Yes. I can't support this motion the way it is without a full analysis of what it is. And I understand from looking at payables in the past, Councilman Bill's that there was some questions on some things. But there again, as we go through by department, I think that's where it's really important that we look at those things, line items, so we have an analysis of it and say, why are they spending so much on boots and gloves versus, you know, the departments are very different, so the needs are different. So I can't support this the way the motion is. Okay, we're still in discussion. I see Chief of Staff Long would like to present.

Thank you, Mayor, Council. Just for context, similar to what the captain spoke as well as Councilman Reynolds, if we go back to a specific date, any staff that has been added won't have the appropriate attire. And when we talk about this, it's much larger than a shirt or a uniform. I mean, we've got folks that, based on the environment that they're in, whether we look at wastewater, whether we look at streets out on the chip seal stuff, I mean, they're easily going through their aligned resources. And if there's questions or specifics on those on a policy front that we want to address that puts more boundaries or more constraints from that level,

i would encourage we go that direction as opposed to cutting it out of the budget and not being able to to provide our staff with the equipment that's needed for them to do their job effectively okay thank you we we do have a second any further discussion mayor bruner yes i would i can't support the motion as is what i'd like to do is get a uh a number of what we're looking at uh out of a 390 million dollar budget i don't think clothing and equipment is going to cost more than Who knows? And so, but I will tell you that police needs to have equipment, period. And also the other employees, I, yeah, I just can't, I don't understand the concept yet. So I'm not going to support the budget.

Your motion's been made. Is any interest in amending your motion or are we ready to move? Just let's vote.

Let's move on.

Let's go. Roll call, please. It's okay to vote no. Yeah.

Gog. No. Angula? No. Reynolds?

No.

Rodriguez?

No.

Griffin? No. Bills?

Yes.

One in favor, five opposed, motion fails.

Mayor.

We'll move. Yes, Councilwoman Jenkins.

I don't know if I'm the only ADHD person in this room, and if you can tell by my binder, I need structure and order for my brain to work. So can we go just through the executive summary so that we can everybody be on the same page as far as the hard numbers, where we are, the public is in the same, we're all understanding the same things together, and then move forward budget by budget?

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

That's my motion.

Okay.

Second. Second.

I hear a second discussion. Okay, roll call.

Gogg. Yes. Bills. No. Rodriguez.

I don't know, I'm confused now. I guess I'll go with you, Natalie, yes. Well, we're here all day. Griffin. No.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Gingula. Yes. Four in favor, two opposed, motion carries.

Okay, CFO Racine, do you understand what now the request is? Because I don't, but that's all right.

I do, and I can go through it very quickly. Councilman Bills, I will do my very best. I don't want to be here all day either. I truly don't. So I'm trying to get my screen to line up with what's on. It's really super slow when catching up. Let me get it lined here. because we don't need to go through the entirety of my executive. The first part we've already discussed. I'd like to get down to the budget summary review part two, which starts with budget summary review as shown up on the screen. Now, let me make that a little larger so it's legible for everybody, and I will go through this very quickly.

So what page in our budget book are we on?

This is in the summary. I put it on your desk. Each of you have a copy of it on your desk. I put it on there this morning. This is just an external review to extract out of the budget. This is probably about page three. Budget summary review at the very top of the page.

Is this something, what's your time estimate on this, Doug?

10 minutes. Okay. So the budget, for clarity's sake, the budget for 2027, before council changes, is $293,003,238. That's down, if you adjust for pulling out the Fort Idaho Center, that's a decrease of $5.8 million. Their net labor and benefits increased to $3.4 million. In FY26, the increase was $6.6 million. Councilman Bill's proposal for an FTE hold, that's practically in place here. The only FTE increases are seven. And now four of those are for the police and three are outside General Gov. So we effectively have that in play. The net operation increased by $3 million. And I'll go through some small details. Prior year, it was 4.5. Capital decreased by 12.2 million. And the prior year, it decreased by 4.2. So we're seeing successive years in decrease. And I want to address that. The capital needs are increasing. Our capacity to accomplish them is the challenge. That's what David Bills has referred to. So the reason we're decreasing them is to try and decrease them so we can accomplish what we budget. If we can increase our capacity, we can increase the dollar budget and spend the money that is critically needed. The labor and benefits review, seven new FTEs is mentioned. This is down substantially. In FY26, it was 25. In FY25, it was 30. So big decreases. 4%, colon, I'll get to that in just a minute. at the very end of this. Overtime is down 0.5 million. Percy is virtually flat, 0.2 million. Health care is an impact, $1 million up. This is a statewide, nationwide, citywide problem that we're all going to have to deal with. And our increase is less than other cities because of how we're managing it. Contractual service is up 1.7. The other cost, let's see. Sewer lines up 0.5 million. That's sewer line repairs. Electricity is up 0.5 million. Irrigation assessment is up 0.4 million, and that's coming from outside the city into us. And IT software, healthware is up 0.4 million. Those are all increases that we're kind of stuck with. They weren't by department. They are system-wide cost increases. The revenues for the city were up $2.8 million from new construction, annexation, and the 3%. We have, as mentioned, foregone of $2,168,060. 1% of foregone, if used, would be $472,000. That would be a cost per taxable $100,000, or $2.83. Or for a $450,000 home after the homeowner's exemption, the taxable value would be $12.74. Other revenues for the city, the state shared revenues in sales tax are up $552,000 to $11.9. State shared liquor sales taxes are down $110,000, primarily due to legislation to pull money away from that to fund ISP. This is a challenge that the city will have to work with on the water tax. The water renewal and irrigation, they're 2.89. That's essentially CPI. That's treading water. That does not meet any of our needs for additional infrastructure support. The 3.5 for sanitation is by contract. That contract ends in 2028, so next year we'll have to start negotiating that one. I'm not really gonna go through this page. This is just, very quickly, the total general government funding for police, IT, HR, finance, and so forth in the mayor's office is $72 million, and that's up $2.5 million. The total city funding is $293 million. That's down to $17 million. $11 million of that is from decreases from the Fort Idaho Center. And other decreases will be from services revenues we pulled down and grant loans and donations and transfers. So the bottom line is, very quickly, I'd like to call the council's attention to the personnel services. That's labor, benefits. Health care, $86.6 million. And the operations cost are $70 million, 69.4, with capital at 105, which has already been approved. Debt service, 9.4, is primarily for the DEQ loan for the water renewal. And that leads us to the $293 million budget. That is the extent of my review. I think I did that maybe in five minutes. Impressive. This is how I would like to proceed. We've already addressed these issues. I would like, if council agrees, to continue on to the special projects that they brought, hot topics, identify them, solve them. We can track them and then go down to the section in part two where we show the government... general government fund, the special revenue funds, the private venues, and the nonprofit, and just do those one at a time. And we'll only dig into them if council asks for us to dig into an issue. We just move on. We pick out the total cost and we move down. The one item to kick that off would be the action item for the city's 4% COLA request. That's $2.1 million. That's a little bit higher than we did last year. But I'd like to show you a little bit of information There's reasons for this. These are our terminations for the last several years, 2023, 24, 25, and 26 not even complete. We've been averaging over 120 separations per year. The cause is what's striking. If you go down to this table, this graph, this pie chart below, This big sort of rust section is better opportunity. So nearly 45% of the people leaving the city are leaving for better opportunities outside the city, which is primarily a pay issue. I know that most of our staff are paid less than other departments. We do a great job. I think we've got the best staffing in the state. overall, but that's the reason for the 4.1%. That's probably the only action item on this. This is the only action item on here. If council wants to approve that, we can.

I move to approve the 4.1% increase on COLA. 4.0.

4.0 or 4.1? 4.0 at $2.1 million total.

As Doug has stated into the microphone. Second.

Is there a motion and a second? Any discussion? I turn it on. No discussion. Roll call, please.

Skagg. Yes. Gingula. Yes. Reynolds.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Griffin. Yes. All in favor? Motion carries.

Okay, so we're ready to move on. It looks like the general fund council discussion.

Well, do you want to do the VRT and these things up front and get them done now? You've identified them.

We'll move, that's fine. So I thought I was under the understanding.

No, we're under the, from the motion of Councilman Reynolds that we're going department by department.

Department and then discussing those critical issues was my understanding.

Then when we talk in.

Council concur with that? Mayor, if we're able. Can you, you know the topics that we highlighted?

Yeah.

I can bounce back and forth in between budgets. I have them allocated by page number, so it might not necessarily be.

There were two topics in General Gov. There was the AIC request and the VRT request. And those are the only two specific topics. I believe, Leslie, you've got that list there?

I believe legislative research and economic incentive is also within that.

Oh, the economic incentive, they are within the yes.

As well as Council.

And Compass. Compass was mentioned.

As well as Council.

As well as some of the Council line items as well.

Oh, okay. Sure.

So my understanding by Councilman Reynolds' motion that we are, as President of Council stated, that we are going and then dealing with these issues through every department. Is that okay?

I... I'd kind of thought that it was a hybrid.

Unless we have a new motion.

Where we approved the VRT, the AIC, all those issues. We deducted them and then we adjusted the budget totals and then we did them. I thought we were going to do the hot topic items up front and then give Diana time to adjust the budgets and then we approved the dollar values.

Okay, so Councilman Reynolds. Is that okay? Are you in agreement with that? That you made the motion initially?

Mr. Mayor, so Doug, you would identify what? four issues or something that you want to have approved up front?

Well, the issues that all of you councillors have brought up and identify those as hot topic items, give us your choice on them to fund or not to fund. Diana removes them from the budget. She ties it as we go through. You go on to VRT while you're going on the next item. She makes a tally. And then by the time you get through with all of them, then we can go down each budgetary fund and give you a new total that's not in your books that reflects your changes and we approve those totals as you requested.

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

Mayor, Councillor, we will move rapidly whichever path you want to go down. That's fine.

Mayor, question for clarification for Doug. Based off of your screen, it's clear that you've prepared for the hot topic items to be discussed right now. I think in the beginning we got confused because we were trying to accommodate you and the staff. Is your staff prepared to take on the hot topic buttons right now based on what you just stated?

Please forgive me if I didn't make that clear. I want to address the hot topic items and then go through by phone.

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

Second.

Thank you. That's all I need, a nice nudge.

We just need speed verbiage also.

Yes, speed verbiage.

Okay, we have a second. No further discussion? Roll call, please.

Scott. Yes. Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds. Yes. Rodriguez.

Yes.

Gingula. Yes. Griffin. Yes. All in favor? Motion carries.

OK, so we're from this screen, which I can actually see without my glasses, which is great. So we're going to move on. The first hot topic subject is VRT.

Just for clarification, the VRT budget, what's in there right now, so you all know exactly, the VRT has $474,000 in general government, I believe $402,000 rounded in streets. As per Mark's email last night, the on-demand fixed-route service is $498,000. Mark can speak to that. I think that was the threshold required to keep the grant funding they'd offer us. Below that, we may not keep it.

496 or 498? 498.

Thank you.

Mark or Elaine, can you confirm that, please? Can we have Mark come up? Yes.

Mayor City Council, Mark Stoyer, Senior Director of Development Services. So I'll just break down the three different options that BRT has provided us. As you might remember, they started with 862. That was for two fixed routes and one on-demand route. Based on City Council feedback, they reduced one of the fixed routes, the express route 40 to Boise. and came in with one local fixed route and on-demand service, a new and improved on-demand service, and they're coming in at 498, 522 for that service. If they just go with on-demand with no fixed route, the number comes in at 302, 521. However, we will lose the federal grant funding for our pedestrian 16th Avenue project. And the reason for that is that there has to be a nexus for that federal grant money which are simply put, bus stops. And if you take the fixed route out, there will be no bus stops. So that on-demand service comes in at 302.

If we just... Mark, quick question on that. So if this council denies the 498.522, this project... Is it high priority for the city then to do that ASAP or where are we at status-wise, priority-wise on this project? If the grant is not available.

My understanding is that they are in the environmental phase at this point. I'll turn it over to Crystal to ask on the question on priority.

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

Mayor, City Council, for the record, Crystal Craig, Director of Transportation. So to date on this project, the city has spent $34,169.71 in design. We have also... Designed part of this is our RAISE grant, which was a zero match grant, so some of the design is in there. Mark is correct, it is currently in the environmental stages. We need environmental approval before moving forward with final design and construction. The grant total was for $701,747. The VRT portion of that was 561,419. The city match was 140. 325, if the grant stopped right now, we would still, we would not be eligible for any of the reimbursement of that 34 that we've already spent, which about 80% is eligible for reimbursement, but we would still have a shelf-ready design that we could pursue other funding for construction.

And that would be your, that would be what your desire is, is to move ahead past the environmental and onward. I mean, other projects would not then be put in front of this If the grant is not approved.

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

You then would go ahead and pay for it. Okay. Crystal, could you marry if I could?

Yes.

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

Mayor, Councilman Griffin, a few years ago, the city adopted a scoring matrix to rank all of the unimproved crossings that we have across the city, so we're not just picking and choosing one versus another. The ranking mechanisms are based on distance to schools, parks, the distance a pedestrian has to travel, speed of the road, number of crashes or accidents at those locations. This specific crossing does not represent score in our top 10 to 15 ranks. So while it is still a needed crossing because of the proximity to the bus stops and the park right there, um, it would likely not be prioritized in our, uh, year over year for the next few years.

Okay. So to clarify the question that, so that's not a priority. So it's not a priority this year.

It is not listed in our top 10 is what I'm going to say.

Okay. Just to clarify what Mayor Bruner had stated, I was under the impression that this was a priority and it would continue. It won't continue because it's not a priority.

It will not continue with city funding this year. However, when we have projects like this that are shelf-ready designs, they're very eligible for grants. So it would continue to be a priority for grant funding.

For grant funding. Thank you.

Mayor? Yes. Crystal, can I get a clarity on that total grant fund? I had 862,000.

No, the 561 was the grant funding from BRT. 862 was for fiscal year 2026 for the two fixed routes and on-demand service.

So the grant is 561,000?

That is correct. Thank you. And the total cost, did I hear, was over 700,000 for this project? Okay.

The total cost for this project was $701,747. Thanks. Okay.

Any further questions for these two? Okay. We'll move on then as far as... So are we ready, Madam Clerk, for further discussion or a motion for VRT?

I'm ready for a motion. So go ahead. On-demand service there at 302. Um, on demand service with fixed route without fixed route 42. Is that essentially a lift or Uber style? Mark? Mr. Mayor.

Yes, we first have a question for Mr. Stern, and then you're on. I was just going to say we have Elaine in the room if you want to.

I know she's in the room. I didn't want to break protocol to ask staff here if he wants to defer to Elaine then.

The answer to that question, Council Member Bills, is rather simple. This is going to be a new on-demand service will be new and improved, and it'll be a hybrid between using microtransit, small vans, In vehicles, along with the Lyft and Uber option, if certain rides can't be met, they will then use Lyft or Uber. And the user will have an opportunity to go that route as well. So it's a hybrid service of both.

So we could go down to the 302 and have that service? That is correct. And so our total outlay is the 302 for this ensuing budget year? Yes. Mayor that that may be a transition means of transitioning versus doing nothing. Yes.

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

Elaine, and just your name and title, please.

Sure. Elaine Clegg, CEO of Valley Regional Transit. Thank you for allowing me to be here today. Certainly, you could, you know, it's your choice. It's your budget. You could make the choice to go just to on-demand transit. One of the things that would be lost is 17,000 rides that are provided on the fixed route. I sent you a document last night that shows that the majority of the riders on on-demand also ride fixed route. They rely on both to be able to get around. And very few people today rely only on the on-demand. What that tells us is if you did go this route, it's likely that the people who are riding the fixed route today would also try to book more rides on the on-demand, and there likely wouldn't be enough service to fill the demand that we've seen growing over the last three or four years in Nampa for rides. So yes, it is something, but it would not fulfill the demand that we're seeing, if that makes sense.

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

I don't. I've spoke with Elaine on this. I've got everything. I've got all my numbers ready to go.

Okay, so you have no other further comment?

I don't have questions. Okay, so do we have a motion? Thank you. Thank you. So I make a motion. On demand without fixed route 42, 302,521. Is there a second?

Hearing no second. Go ahead. Yes.

After speaking with Elaine and just breaking down the numbers on my own, that 498,522, that gives us the on-demand and the 42. And that would allow us to keep the grant of the 561,000. And since the city's already met the 20% match of that 34,000, then there's no other dollars that the city is going to need to prepare or provide for that. So we still get to keep that grant. We still provide the services. So I would like to make a motion for the 498,522.

Just clarification from Christo. I thought the other, again, 701,000. So there would be some subsidizing by the city, correct?

Yes. Mayor Crystal Craig, Director of Transportation, you are correct. So the total grant of $701,000, the city match of that was $140,325. Okay. $140,325. I'm sorry, my math's not that great. Does that include the $34,000 already spent?

So we've spent $34,169.

And that's included in the $140,000 or is that beyond it? It's included in our total match should be one for total.

Thank you for the clarity.

Mr. Mayor.

Yes. Hold on. I, uh, councilman Griffin, I heard his voice first, I believe. So we'll start there and then we'll move to councilman Reynolds. Well, if he's saying, Oh, there's no, Oh, you had a second. Okay. Second, the motion. And then, um, you said your second emotion from, uh, from Natalie. Okay.

Natalie. And then, uh, I'll come back with my comments.

All right. Discussion. Thank you for the protocol. The difficulty that I'm having, and I've had a couple different conversations with Director Clegg, has been consistent that we're chasing grant dollars for, as we heard today, for a project that is not even a priority in the top 10 for the city right now. And there's a token phrase, is the juice worth the squeeze, to have us pay $140,000. I actually am almost in the, the thought process of if we do approve the 498,000, why would we spend 140,000 city dollars on a project that is not in the top 10? So maybe even scrap it. Once again, I just go round and round. When we had introduced the discussion previously this year on a curb to curb discussion with Uber that ultimately didn't come to fruition, but we have the opportunity to see something similar to that With this, as well as the fixed route, my common complaint has been the fixed routes. So that's where I'm having a hard time stomaching as the numbers had showed 300 unique individuals, maybe adding up to 17,000 brides, but 300 unique individuals is difficult. So the reason I didn't second it is because I wanted to be able to express some of my thoughts initially, but maybe the third option is is the transition period. And maybe that's the route that we should be going is the on demand without the fixed route at the 302,000. I should have stayed this when there was a motion, uh, at hand, but we're still, we'll still there. We still have a vote for the sake of discussion with director Clegg. I think it's worth there. It, These individuals that use the on-demand do use the fixed route. There are groups after attending the meeting that have even been frustrated with the on-demand system, but Director Clegg had stated to me that that is getting scrapped and reformatted and reworked to be able to utilize more public-private partnerships. So if there are some council members that might want to zero out, I think the on-demand might be worth the discussion for this year, the 302. but maybe the fixed route is important. I just, to chase the grant dollars is where I'm having a problem. The dollars, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

Mayor.

All right, did Council Reynolds, did you have something further?

I do. And then we'll move. So my concern is more over than the grant is that we have community partners, I've spoke about this before, that invest heavily into VRT. St. Luke's and St. Al's being the two main players. I was looking at some of the numbers yesterday of what St. Luke's dumps into our community. They are over a billion dollar enterprise that is feeding into our community. I think last year they gave around $35 million that they poured back into the community. And so, They are a big partner in this and it takes everybody collectively to make it work. And the private enterprises that have been feeding this are feeling like we need to step up and fund our part as well. I know we have in the past, but I don't want to lose that fixed route that we have either. That's for Nampa specifically. And I think we need those rides. So that's where I'm at with it. over the grant funding. Councilwoman.

Mayor, thank you. I just want to make it clear. I'm not chasing federal dollars. I'm just, when I look at it and I think of the investment made, the service provided, and the dollar amount, what's the best bang for the buck? To me, that makes the most sense. And then when we're talking about getting rid of the on-demand, the $42 million, We all live in different areas of the city. I live right by CWI I see more ridership probably than anybody here I don't I know it's not a ton and what we all would love to see but I do see a lot more people riding the bus and standing on Garrity at those bus stops there so and we do know hard numbers that there are 17,000 rides that are provided by that service so To me it doesn't make sense to get rid of the on-demand I know it's a hard one to juggle, but I still think that the on-demand and the funding the 42 is also something we need to do.

Mayor and Council, one very quick comment for clarity. The capital portion that Crystal mentioned, that is currently in the FY27 capital budget. So if you vote against this, that would free up the monies, and if you vote for it, it's already built in for the capital match.

Thanks for that clarification. We have a motion and a second, and I want to confirm that that's for the on-demand service at fixed Route 42. Is that what your motion is? Yes, it is. Okay. Hopefully, in no further discussion, we'll do roll call. Okay.

Skog? No. Bills?

No.

Rodriguez? No. Griffin? No. Reynolds? Yes. Gingula? Yes.

Okay. Open for a new motion.

Make a motion for on-demand without the fixed Route 42.

So that's for the 302,521, correct? Correct. Okay. We have a motion. Second. Any further discussion on this or have we heard everything? Okay, roll call, please.

Skagg. No. Ngula. No. Reynolds.

No.

Rodriguez.

No.

Griffin.

Yes.

Bills? Yes. Motion fails.

Okay, we're ready for triple digits here. Third motion.

Mr. Mayor?

Yes.

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

Motion heard. Second? Second. I have a second. Now, let's just go to roll call if you're okay with that, please.

Chingula? No. Bills?

Yes.

Reynolds?

No.

Griffin?

Yes.

Rodriguez. Yes. Yes. Motion carries 42 42.

Okay. Okay. So everyone have an understanding of that. Okay. We'll move on. Thank you. Uh, Elaine, Brian, thank, thank you. Okay. We are now going on to general fund, I believe. No, we're not. We're going on to our next. Hold on. Before we go into these hot button, you had five listed.

There are more.

There are many more. Are we adding when you want to go through all these?

We'll go through every one the council has.

Probably the clerk has a listing, but do you have a listing of all these?

We have a listing of every one you mentioned this morning, so I think the best course would be to go through the Okay, so what I'm going to ask you, Doug, what's the next one you would like to... Let's go through the easy ones we can get out, AIC.

AIC, okay. Real quick, Mayor, if I could. Just for clarification, Doug, the $874,000 that was appropriated previously for VRT, how do we designate those funds and where to specifically, or does it all just live back in General Gov?

Excellent question. My recommendation is, since you have, in this case, you're impacting both streets and the general government fund, we take those dollars that are freed up, put them into... We can create a bucket. Councilman Bills and I talked a little bit about this this morning. Create a bucket for them for use if you wish to designate it for infrastructure, deferred maintenance issues to be addressed by council at a later time. I would like to retain the budget authority as a lump sum and then let council decide how that gets spent later on.

Could you keep a running total of these amounts for us so we can at least at the end say, okay, this is what we have to allocate, whether it be for police, whether it be for infrastructure for maintenance. Just so I'm having a running number, I'm Diana's speed fingers or fast fingers or whatever mayor has said is working it as well. I just want to be sure that we have the tools to be able to appropriate later on. Thank you.

Okay, so Doug has proposed to AIC. Are we ready for a motion on that?

What's the exact value on that, Leslie?

$50,124.

Mayor, I move to remove the $50,124. We need a repeat for the clerk, please.

$50,124 is allocated for the Association of Idaho Cities. I'll second.

Okay, we have a motion to second. Any discussion, please?

I did second.

Yeah, you seconded. I'm just saying if we had any discussion. We did lose one council person.

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

Yeah.

Okay. And so roll call please.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Okay, next hot button issue, Doug.

I would suggest we go to the, as Councilman Sebastian called, the economic incentive budget that we have in general government. We have $150,000 even budgeted there. We have, to my knowledge, maybe used that once in six, seven years. It's available as Council wants it, but we rarely, if ever, use it. And so at the end of each year, that value drops to fund balance.

Mayor? If I could make a comment just regarding a couple of these issues. I understand having numbers allocated for the day that they are needed. However, given the present moment of needing funds available for actual projects that need to be completed, we should blow off the cobwebs and allocate dollars elsewhere. This is one of them, and I'd love to hear from Robin on this. The same with the legislative research and the same with council. Not that I'm targeting one or the other, I just wanna hear, if they haven't been used in seven years, maybe it's time to appropriate it. Director Sellers, you're on.

Mayor, councilors, the economic incentive has been used a couple different times since I've been the director in the last five years, six years. We've used it intermittently as we are competitive in recruiting. and so we've used it for a couple different companies over the years. It's been at the mayor's discretion. When Mayor Kling was here, we moved it. It was going to get used in my budget underneath the $129,000 in economic development, but it stayed with the mayor's discretion. Oftentimes it is used when we're looking at things like All right, how can we help incentivize just that extra push? We used it with the Stowe Company. We also used it with JTS, Critical Mission Group. And so it has been utilized a couple of different times, often to the tunes of like $50,000. It helps maybe with some fees or things like that to help push that over. So that's how it's been used in the past.

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

About 100 grand. I think we did about 100 grand was the top.

In what year?

23. Yeah.

So I'm going to ask you, because you're getting blindsided somewhat, what would be an appropriate amount, given the fact that we're trying to allocate dollars to current needs, what would be an appropriate amount to leave in that for your use, and what can we pull out to fund elsewhere? Okay.

Yeah, the reason, one of the reasons it wasn't getting utilized is I had no idea it existed. And so, because it's in the mayor's budget. And so that was part of the issue. So I should be clear on that. And so then when I realized it was there, I was like, oh, we have a tool from the city. So oftentimes we don't have a city tool, right? There's not anything that can help like push us over. Like if we're competing against Caldwell, I can be like, hey, you know, we can offset permitting fees by 80,000. In fact, we're working on a project right now that that tool would be really helpful. So 100 grand is probably about right.

Is it something that could potentially come back given the amount in our general fund balance of tune of 28 some odd million that you come to us and say, can I get a one-time appropriation for this project? Absolutely. Rather than leaving it in the kitty and not touching it, so.

Absolutely.

Would that offend you?

No, it doesn't offend me.

Mayor, I make a motion that we strike the $150,000 incentive fund to allocate elsewhere, and Robin, I hope you come back when needed for those additional funds, because I'll be the first to support you on the economic activity, just leaving it set in a pot.

Thank you.

Do we hear a second?

Second.

Let me ask Robin, do you recall in 2023 what that incentive was used for? Who would...

Yeah, we used it for JTS, for Critical Mission Group, to offset fees.

And just curious, do you recall who we were competing with, or was there a competition? Caldwell.

Caldwell, so you felt like that was... Mm-hmm, they were originally in Caldwell, and then they expanded in Nampa.

Okay, well, I'm glad it's not hidden anymore from you.

I do have a question and probably for Doug. I don't agree with this direction, by the way. Sorry, Sebastian. It's because I have been with Robin maybe once every two weeks for the last six months. I know what she's doing. This is a fine tool for her to use. And I don't want to interfere with that because right now she's working on some major projects. That's going to help our community in turn will give us a lot more tax base. And I don't want to mess with that. So my question is for Doug. When Robin, if this passes and Robin wants funds, what will be the process?

I'm glad you asked that. I was going to make a comment anyway. In the general government budget, We have a contingency that we've had every year and it's about $900,000. We save it for issues that we aren't aware of. We have a lawsuit, we have a major unexpected expense. I would propose that if you move this value to zero, that when and if Robin comes back for the money, we pull that from the contingency and all it would need would be council approval, not an amendment. and that way it's one-time monies, so it just hits that year's budget and it comes back to us the next year. Okay.

It should be there, but it depended on when she needs it.

Right.

Okay. I'm okay with that.

Thank you.

So I'm sorry, one more question. I'm sorry. So $150,000, if it goes away, so she could actually, you could actually ask for $500,000 if you so desire, if Doug and his counsel approve, but that's not the cap is, I mean, That's up to her what she feels like the recommended need is. Okay, thanks. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Is that correct? Okay, let's go ahead and do roll call.

Changula. Yes. Dills. Yes. Reynolds.

No.

Rodriguez. Yes. Gog. Yes. Griffin.

Yes.

Five in favor, one opposed. Motion carries.

Fourth hot button issue. Doug.

Okay, the next one I think we had, I think there was an additional one, Councilman Scriven in general government on.

The legislative research intern at $75,000. 75, is it 75,000 or 7,500? It's 75,000. 75,000, okay. And that's in 130-20? Page 115.

Okay. So that one we have reserved. We designate it as an intern. This has been around since actually the first time we used this fund was primarily when Rick was the chief of staff way back when and we were looking for choosing between hiring a legislative research intern or we decided to leverage him more and he'd be very effective at that. And we kept that there for those use in times where we needed to interact with the state legislature and have a fund to pull from to support that. But it has been used intermittently. But it has been used.

My thoughts is with us removing... AIC. Well, I went blank, so AIC, thank you. Okay. That I think it would be well for us to leave a line item where we've got some funds to do some outside consultant help type of deal, so...

I think clay chief to the staff. Do you have something to add to that, please?

I think your mayor counsel, that was going to be my exact comment. Thanks. Okay.

And in my discussion with Doug, we're seeing, I similarly stated the same thing. If we're getting rid of AIC, maybe it will get tapped and used.

We've also used that line for strategic planning initiatives as approved by mayor and council when they would come up. So if you needed something strategic, let's say it was the $80,000, give or take, for Clearwater to do a city analysis. It could be used for that purpose as well. So if you left it in, you have the capacity to approve that as a council for a spend and not have it become an amendment.

Can we move to a motion or not?

Yeah, just one comment. Well, it's in. It's still in the $75,000.

It's in there, so we just need to approve it and we can do that when we do the department.

If you did a motion, it would be to approve it. If you do no motion, it stays in.

Part of the discussion, previously working as an intern at a lobbyist firm, I think $75,000 is intended as an actual salaried employee. If the intent is to hire outside support or a lobbying group, I think we would only need half the amount. However, I'm not dying on this hill. I just am bringing some perspective that the amount might have some room to cut to add elsewhere. I think for where...

where we have uncertainty going forward on certain directions, I would leave this alone and give it the ability to help assist us as we go forward.

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

Correct. I think that would be good. So to make this clear, do we need a motion to... Okay, we'll move ahead then. Next hot button issue.

Councilman, did you have any other items? Oh, Compass. Compass was by Debbie Scott, but I didn't know if Councilman Griffin had any more.

The council budget, I don't know when or if it's ever been used. We have conferences, travel, mileage reimbursements. Once again, just blown off cobwebs.

I know exactly how Mayor Bruner is feeling on that. What is that, Doug? You don't need it, don't budget for it, don't spend it.

If you're not getting certified or something else, just watch it online or get it later.

Exactly.

It's not spending a hotel room.

This was from a prior mayorship that wanted to have that capacity. It's up to the council. If you're not going to spend it, why budget it?

And that's part of the discussion for attacking other budgets. I would like to, in good faith, look at our own budget. And part of that, when you add up the amounts, it's small, but $7,500 is still taxpayer money that we could be utilizing towards deferred maintenance or police.

Do you want mileage also included?

Absolutely.

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

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

Just make sure we're clear.

Mayor, I moved that.

How much? $7,500. That's removing $7,500. $7,500 from the council budget. From the council budget, yes.

Thank you, Leslie. I'll second that. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Let's move to roll call.

Scott. Yes. Angula. Yes. Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

No.

Rodriguez. Yes. Griffin. Yes. Five in favor, one opposed. Motion carries.

Okay, we're ready for our next hot button. I love that title, hot button.

Okay, let's go. I believe that was all of Councilman Griffin's issues. I know we had Compass as an item on there.

That was from Councilman Rodriguez, I believe. Yes, if I could, Mayor. Yes.

I know we had several representatives on Compass. And actually, I don't know the new dollar amount that we're paying to be members of Compass. Could you let me know first about that? Because I think Congressman Reynolds is on that still. I'd like him to continue that, but I don't want to touch that at all.

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

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

And how many does that include? I mean, that's two people, right?

I do not.

We have one in an alternative with just one. Is that the city?

I think we need to hear from transportation. Okay. Thank you, Crystal.

Mayor Councilman Rodriguez, for the record, Crystal Craig, Director of Transportation. So we have... three wait three members that sit on the compass board as well as voting member membership three memberships in the um our tech which is the regional transportation advisory committee committee to put it in perspective so this year fifty five thousand nine hundred and twelve dollars is what our membership fees are Since 2019, we have paid $390,098 in membership fees. We have received since, as of 2026, $30,431,000 in federal grants administered through Compass. And by FY30, we're slated that number to increase to $45,449,000.

I'll remove my request.

For ROI.

Thank you.

That's pretty good budget. Crystal, can you lobby the legislature also? Just add a little duty, okay? Okay, Crystal.

I think next, while we're still in the general government venue, we should visit the animal control issue and debate that topic. We currently have, last year we had budgeted, in 26 we had budgeted, current year, $483,000. The FY27 budget is a budget right now of $350,000 based on the one-third, one-third, one-third concept that Clay has talked about, where we each, between us, Caldwell, and Canyon County, share the cost equally. I don't know more detail about it than that, but I would open it up for discussion.

Just a clarification. I thought I heard earlier that that... Captain's coming up here, so he can, but I thought I heard earlier that one-third, one-third, one-third was not confirmed. That was just what has been proposed. Can you clarify that, please?

Yes, Mayor and Council, Captain Eric Scoglin, Nampa Police Department. I'll just give you about a 90-second quick update on status of animals and relationships with the shelter and conversations with other agencies. And the shelter has provided me some data at my request. We've been tracking for the last three months, and the shelter has been helping with this, tracking animals that are coming in from different jurisdictions, Caldwell, Nampa, and then outside of those two entities in the Kenney County area. The numbers fluctuate from month to month. I have indicated to them that it seems that Caldwell is the highest user of the shelter. That flipped on me this month. As soon as I say that, our numbers go up. So we had... a couple of cases that we took over 50 Shih Tzu dogs to the shelter a week or two ago, and like 30 chickens on a case. So our numbers spiked this month. If we're tracking over the last three months, Canyon County's the highest user in total over the last three months. Us and Caldwell are about the same, but we're slightly ahead of them at the moment. It varies from month to month. That's the challenge with trying to come up with a mechanism for charging. So, at a couple of different meetings, I proposed to the Kenney County Commissioners and the Mayor of Caldwell was present, just a simple, flat, three-way split. We all have a vested interest in the shelter. We all want to see it succeed. We all get the best bang for the buck out of it if we are all partners in it, rather than any individual entity trying to go out on their own and do it alone. There might be some other benefits to that, but cost-wise, I think this is the best bang for the buck.

Have you heard directly from the commissioners? Because, I mean, I'm not going to say names, but at least there's two commissioners that have informed me that they're, and one new one coming in in January, that they're not interested in benefiting the shelter at this point.

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

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

I don't think we...

They don't euthanize at our shelter, so they're going to keep those chickens for the life of the chicken. And then Chick-fil-A can have them.

So Mayor and Council, I will say one of the challenges we've had over the past year as a police department is filling an open animal control position. We haven't found the right employee on a couple different tries to get that position filled, but I think hopefully we have it open right now, taking applications, hopefully we'll do that. Leanne, our current animal control officer, has been with us about a year and a half. She's doing an amazing job. I think those chickens were only at the shelter for about 24 hours and somebody came to pick them up that we had that coordinated. That was the outcome with chickens. First thing that's got adopted in a long time. Okay, so council? And might I add one other thing? Yes. That I forgot. The shelter gave a little bit of data to the commissioners in an open meeting. The request that the shelter had, they're asked essentially whatever each entity provided last year for funding, they increased it by about 5%. We were, I believe, 482 or 483,000, so they their request to us was $504,000 to $505,000 for this year. If we were to split the total ask went from, I believe, $993,000 that was provided in total by all the municipalities in the county That total ask went up to $1,040,000. So about a $50,000, $45,000 increase in their ask. That ask is based on a 3% COLA for their staff. They're having difficulty filling a vacant veterinarian position. So that's a challenge for them. So financially, they're trying to fund that. Their costs for veterinary supplies have increased. They gave a broad outlay. If we were to split that cost evenly three ways, it's just under $350,000 per each entity.

What do we currently have within the budget allocated?

This is not an item in my budget.

We only have $350,000 for animal services in the budget.

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

Do we have a motion, Council?

I'll make a motion to approve, Mayor.

We have a second. I'm hearing no second.

Is there a clarification, Mayor? Yes. To approve the $350,000? Yes, sir. No, second that. Okay, we do have a second.

Comment? I believe we should amend that the $350,000 allocated is subject to the county and city of Caldwell participating at least $350,000 each. And at any point one drops out, we should no longer be the one to carry the freight, so to speak.

Okay, I agree with you, Mr. Bills. I just worry about Us drop them dropping the ball on us being held. And then we already, we do with our animals. So.

Councilman Rodriguez, do you want to amend your motion?

Yeah, I, yes, I'll, I'll amend it. Hopefully get a second on that.

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

Yes, sir.

Okay.

I'll second that.

Okay. We have a motion and a second roll call, please.

Angula? Yes. Bills?

Yes.

Reynolds?

Yes.

Griffin?

Yes.

Scott? Yes. Rodriguez? Yes. All in favor? Motion carries. Mayor?

Yes.

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

Mayor? I'd like to comment on that. It's very manipulative to use the phrase that elderly people are not going to get to their appointments. And I feel that it's strong arming and unfair to say that's what the council's intent was. There are rights to wellness. There is beyond access that is federally funded. There are other funding mechanisms. I can appreciate the passion for the budget process, but please do not disparage council's intent. by saying that we're stopping elderly people from attending their appointments. It's not true, it's manipulative, and I don't think that's fair to say and disparage the council that way.

Let me just point out, in meeting with St. Luke's and St. Al's and so on, of course they wanted VRT to assistance, but they do, I mean, to me, they do an on-demand service for people needing to get to doctor's appointments, and they have no intention, at least from a verbal standpoint, of changing changing that policy. So if someone is being left out, they need to be educated and made aware.

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

Once again, Mayor, I feel that that is manipulative and unfair to say when we are fighting every dollar in this budget... for infrastructure because the proper rule of government, in my opinion, and we can discuss this, is making sure that water gets to faucets, toilets flush, and police can access houses by utilizing roadways. If the hospitals want to make sure their patients who pay them show up to their appointment, I'm sure they'll find a way.

Okay, we're gonna cease that discussion at this point in time. It's good to have different philosophies and feelings. We're gonna take a seven minute break, so we'll reconvene at 10 minutes till 10, please.

Thank you.

Okay, 30 seconds. We're ready to go.

No one should be lacking of food or shelter.

Okay, I think we have a quorum at least, so we're going to go ahead and get started again, please. And we're ready, Doug, when you're ready for the next, I believe there's just two more hot button issues, is my understanding?

We have three.

Oh, three. Okay, they're growing. Okay, if we can have everyone's attention, and we're ready to start. Doug, please.

Okay, so the next issue Councilman Bills brought up was the, not necessarily, it may not have a budgetary impact, but it has a procedural impact on the concept of a hiring freeze. I don't know to the extent Mayor or Councilman Bills proposes that be. Right now we have seven FTEs built in for the current budget. Four of those are for police and three were for CPI.

CIPP.

CIPP. So we're pretty flat this year. I don't know if you wanted to bring that up for discussion, more details of what you're looking for, Councillor.

So, Council President, hiring freeze. So here's part of the difficulty, and Chief, you'll have to cut me off if what's not appropriate or legal from the standpoint. I mean, here's the candor. We budget for personnel, we're not able to hire the personnel, and then the money gets used in some other fashion. Then we get accused of misdealing It wasn't the word used, but it's what it was communicating to me, that we budget to hire certain people, and then we don't hire, and then we use those funds elsewhere, and so others feel like, well, it's being played to hire personnel, but ultimately we're going to use funds another direction. So all I want to do is know if we're going to budget for hiring under these tight times that we've got it specifically understood what we're going for, what we need, et cetera. The second part is, is had conversation with chief of staff that, you know, there's certain positions within our city that require certain certifications. So whether it's that water renewal, whether it's at police department, different things, and then you have more of a generalized employment. And so what we're finding out is, or what I'm learning is that because of our policy, because of our large size, we gotta try to keep parity amongst all. And there's times when you gotta be able to pay somebody higher more because of the particular position that it requires and or the certifications or lack of people who are available. Supply and demand, candidly. And yet it seems like sometimes we get our hands tied. So I've heard these things and so I'm just looking at from the standpoint, if we need to hire somebody, fine. But to budget for it, unless we know specifically where we're headed, It's easier to do a budget amendment when you need somebody and found the right person than it is for us to budget and say, oh yeah, we got that in, and then we don't use it. We turn around and spend the money somewhere else.

That's a valid point. So the general approach is over the last six, seven, eight years is to tighten that down because when I started here, we had a lot of vacancies and a lot of rehirings, rebudgeting, rehirings, and never really quite filling the vacancy position. The intent is never to budget for one position and spend it somewhere else. If, however, there is a vacancy that doesn't go filled and there is budgetary authority, the departments can come back to finance and preferably they would start with chief of staff first and say, is the concept agreeable with the chief of staff and the mayor? And then after that, if they agree upon it, then they can come back to finance to actually have the money to do that. then we can allow them to reallocate a portion of that. And if it's over $50,000, it definitely comes back to the council for approval and anything like that. But I agree with you. It's not the appropriate position to hire and then reallocate those funds. And that's never been the intent in our process, but it has happened when we've not filled a position. So part of that is what we're talking about here is because I'll be blunt, sometimes the wages we offer are sufficient to retain employees and then we end up with budgeting too low, we don't fill the position and then we keep struggling to fill a position that's budgeted too low and then we end up with unmet needs. So it's a larger discussion than just here but I think we have a fairly good control on not allowing money to be automatically diverted from one purpose to the other. That being said, our budget authority is focused on the department total, not the department line item.

Mayor? Yes. Well, just real quick. I can appreciate what you just said, but having experienced the comments, that's not how it's perceived. Understood. So it's not that, oh, that's the total budget. It was, that was for four. people into this department, and now we didn't get those four people, and so then the money's going elsewhere. It came across defensive, so consequently, we've got to deal with it from a budget, I think, or know how to respond.

Let me move this way, since Captain Scovlin is up. You're speaking for the Chief, I assume? Yes. Okay, and then we'll go to you, Councilman. and then we'll go to Chief of Staff, and then if there's any other department head that wants to speak for 60 seconds, I'm okay with that. Okay, go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Mayor and Council, Captain Eric Scoglin, So to add some context to what Councilman Bills was saying, those comments came from President Tyler Gray from the NPPA during an open meeting on the contract with employees. And he had referenced essentially that each year there's typically a surplus of unspent funds due to open positions that were unfilled throughout the year. With 230 employees at the police department, there's always a few open positions. So we're always in the context of trying to fill those. So that's why that surplus occurs. I've had recent conversations with finance, Mr. Racine, and also with Preston. I think he's still online, but. So I bounced this off of him as well. So what we have done in the past that we're modifying moving forward to try and maximize those dollars that are dedicated to personnel. In the past, what we have done is tried to fill up to the allocated positions that council has provided to us. We're flipping our thinking on that a little bit going, well, we fund for a total number of employees based on our budget. But if we're open a certain number of positions, I can actually go above that as long as I don't go over the dollar value. That was my question to legal is, if I'm allocated this much money for this many positions, can I actually fill more than that? And his response, and he can clarify for me if he's online, was that essentially it's a cost-based budget. As long as I don't exceed what was budgeted by the council, I can hire as many employees as I want. Not exactly that, but essentially I can hire more employees as long as I'm not exceeding that budget allocation based on a certain number of employees that we're budgeting for.

Doug, do you confer with what you've just heard?

Yeah, mayor counsel generally speaking the council's authority on this topic is the dollars and so the particular number of people being hired would be Sort of daily operation administrative.

Yeah, okay, so understanding that our attrition rate is is a certain number of people over a certain number of months, roughly one person a month separates from the police department. I could hire three people over in October, then by the time my next academy hits, I'm gonna be three people under, and so I'm gonna average out my dollars and try to maximize it that way. Being conservative, not trying to overestimate that mark is gonna be our approach. It's gonna be challenging to get started because we have eight or nine open positions Police officer positions this year and then any new positions on top of that are going to be a challenge to fill right off the start of October. But throughout the year, that's how we're going to try to maximize that. That will give us more, hopefully more positions filled throughout the year, and we'll see how that process works out. It's not our intent to... save up dollars for projects that we are looking for. However, surplus money has helped to fund things that have come up throughout the year. Sometimes if we have a wreck car and we need to replace it, we'll use those dollars. There's just different things. I know the drones that we paid for were surplus dollars that partially funded those recently. So those are the items that the NPPA talks about. It's not intentionally save dollars for those projects. I don't deliberately go about planning for those items that way. But if there's dollars there and if we have projects like that, we have brought those back to council and asked if we could allocate those dollars for those. Okay.

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

Correct.

Okay. If they've been designated for personnel, then okay. Cause I'm hearing that from other municipalities that they're doing some things that, uh, They're telling the public one thing and spending their dollars in another way. So anyway, that's just a concern. I mean, make sure NAPA does not get involved with that.

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

Okay, do you have anything else before Councilman Griffin? No, sir.

Okay, sir. just articulating the same things that David bill has, because we both have served on the MPPA discussions previously last weekend. Captain Scoglin was there. Uh, this was a real, real hot topic for him throughout the negotiation. And it was again, a hot topic last Wednesday because they talk about how do we retain employees? They appreciate the salary increases. They appreciate the insurance increases. but that doesn't retain employees per se. It's not a retention effort. So they had brought up the salary savings being an issue because there might be 600,000 one year, and they had articulated the argument that if there's $600,000 in salary savings, that should be dispersed to the active employees that were there throughout the year because they're taking on the workload of who should have been hired but was not able to. Interesting argument. stating one way or the other, but it's something that if we do allocate salary dollars, I think they bring up a fair point. How do we articulate that salary savings is being used for anything other than salaries or the benefit of those that need to be salaried? So just a little more perspective, I appreciate I think it's a thoughtful, creative way of budgeting. I hope, similar to mitigation fees, you gotta keep your hands real tight on it to not go out of the bounds, but it sounds like you're doing that. So I hope, I'm hopeful that we get our hiring increased because it is tough having nine vacancies and requesting four additional.

Chief of Staff, are we ready for, okay, Clay, come on up, please.

Thank you, Mayor, Council. Two points, number one, on the hiring and staffing for vacancy stuff, it's very intentional, I think, from all of our leadership team that we're utilizing the dollars as they've been appropriated. Every time there's a vacancy, I think each leader and hiring manager re-looks at that position and makes sure, A, is this what we need at the time and is this the best use for that? Is there modifications or changes? And then that working with their HR and business partner to identify that. We recognize from a salary perspective, it's a tough market. We don't pay at the high end of anything. We don't pay at the low end of everything. So we're trying to play in the middle, but we need to be in the ballpark. So there's a lot of issues that come with why we have vacancies. I think PD specifically, it's sometimes the ability to get folks in capacity-wise on training. I think that's one of the reasons why they continue to work on the training division and being able to do our own thing instead of being reliant on other agencies. I just wanted to make a comment on the NPPA discussion. You know, one of the things when we do have salary savings of finding ways to recognize those staff that are working more, it's also difficult to recognize those that are getting overtime for every hour that they're working beyond that expectation. So from those that are a salary perspective that are picking up additional work because of vacancies, it's a much easier conversation I think to hear and have. We want to do everything we can to retain the folks we have, but trying to be able to have some consistency across the board to do that I think is the best ideal for the city.

Very good. Are there any department heads or directors that want to speak to this issue? Okay. Councilor, do you want to make a motion on this or where are we at?

So I think there's always going to be salary savings across the, if you call the city a corporation, with this many employees, there's going to be empty holes in each budget. People, we have, what, 800 and some employees and people will come and go. And that's unfortunately the way it is. Hopefully we can keep retention up there by having our salaries competitive, but having the budgetary authority to have those positions in there, I think is important to leave it that way. And that way, because I believe firmly that every director's intent is to have every position filled. And so we need to give them that authority to do it and not have to go through a whole process I know from having to do a budget, it is very difficult to say, oh, this is, this is terrible. I have to go back through this whole process to get one employee and where they have that allocated already. I think it's better to leave it that way.

Council President, do you want to comment? No, we'll just thank you for the discussion. We won't pursue a motion on it. So we'll move on to the next top button issue.

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

I see the need for the capital projects and from the standpoint of the deferred maintenance, the old age of some of our infrastructure that we've seen the results of what happens when infrastructure blows apart. And staff has been very forthright on the cost and The cost can be upwards of three times what it is when you can pre-plan it because you're doing it under duress. You're doing it under extreme overtime. The one night the crew's working through the night, setting up lights, being able to see in the trench, get the work done. That's tough stuff. We talk about different folks in our city having tough, but if you're in the trench at night, water's coming in, groundwater's rising and you're pumping and you're trying to get pipes in, I've been in the trench and I full well know it's tough. And so from my side, that's why this whole infrastructure thing has become a pretty strong issue for me. And I feel like we need to set aside funds as we are doing. I also believe that our current facilities group should focus on existing facility, existing buildings, et cetera. And in a certain way, whether we do it through the budget process or just through management, we're somewhat needing to reorg. And so there's still gonna be building projects that are gonna come forward, but there's the underground side as well. Those are two different lines of thinking. I believe potentially, but I haven't had the opportunity yet to discuss with legal and ask some questions of whether we can set aside more of a contract group to help us get, the infrastructure problems changed out and not add more to the public works side. Public works continues to do, but we look at a different approach. Those things still have to be worked out. So the point is, from my side, what we called facilities should concentrate on what we own and take care of what we own. The report that came out and was given And council, I believe, everybody was furnished a copy of that report. It's very large. Shows the deficit in the major millions in taking care of our buildings and what need to be done. It's another reason why I look at foregone. It's a tough issue, I understand. But we've got buildings that aren't being maintained. assets that are depreciating rather than staying level. So we've got to do something. So some way we've got to put a placeholder in this budget. Don't know exactly how. Or we have a discussion. We come back with a budget amendment once we know the legalities of putting together a team and the structure and what the dollar amount's going to be. But I felt like it's necessary for us to identify it, know about it, and understand that it isn't business as before, because if we keep having the blowups in the middle of the night and having to put several hundred thousand to repairs and when's the next one gonna happen, we're really in a firefight mode. And I don't personally do well, my personality isn't set for firefight. I like to pre-plan and think we should do projects in a timely and in a budgeted fashion. So that's, that's my comments on that issue and whether we're able to do anything at the moment. It really just depends on what we're able to do legally once we get those answers as far as how to set up a team to work on this type stuff. And secondly is how to then budget that team.

So just, Mayor, Council, just for clarity, in the facilities budget we have added $160,000 placeholder for increased staffing cost to this event. That's the amount we have reserved thus far. My recommendation is, as Council Member Bill suggests, we plan this out and organize what we want. What's the staff we need? How do we want them to work? What's the interaction between facilities? Is it a separate organization entirely that resides on top to manage the process? I think once we do that, then we can more appropriately determine the total cost And I will bring funding options to you, but I think it needs just, the concept is correct, but I think we need to put a little effort into the discussion of exactly what that looks like in order to determine the cost and the funding sources.

I was just going to point out quite the concept. I know government usually doesn't function that way, but you're in favor of prevention rather than reaction. How about that?

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

I know it just takes dollars. That's the challenge.

Well, it also takes fortitude. Yes. And due diligence, fortitude.

Cash balances are increasing because the projects are not being done, so we do need to address it. Okay.

Okay, what I'm hearing here, there's really no motion necessary for this, just mainly discussion? I think so.

Council's opinion. But, Councilman Reynolds, did you have thoughts?

Yeah, Mr. Mayor and Councilman Bills, my thoughts are we leave the budgetary authority in place and then we come back together on this and talk about what our plan is for with position control and chief of staff and we figure out exactly how we're gonna roll this out. There's benefits to making sure we have the right people in the right seats, but contracting it can be very expensive as well. So I think that we need to definitely have a meeting set aside for this and or committee, maybe both. We're going to hear from Director Points.

I don't like just talking about things. I personally set a timeline. So you speak to this, Tom, if not right. But I would like within the next 30 days in this group to decide which the group of participants going to be and bring this discussion together? And let's not just keep talking about it, but let's set a date and time, okay?

Mayor, Council, I want to thank the Council for the support on the infrastructure. I think this is great. I do think we need a little time to talk about this and come back to you. We were thinking that this discussion about deferred maintenance and how to fund it and how to personnel it would come after we'd go through this budget, because we didn't put any of that in this budget, and we'd come back in a workshop, and so you're speaking the exact same things we were thinking. I'm good with putting a timeline on it.

Will you facilitate that, please?

Yes, we can. And the one thing that I want to point out, that's why I came up here, besides a thank you, Depending on how you staff this is how, if this funding is gonna be long term or one time. And we don't really know that yet. That's part of the discussion we need to have about levy overrides and different things and how that might, what that might look like. So we wanna come back and talk holistically about all that. Because if it was just a one time money, you could contract something out for a short term. But if it's gonna be ongoing, millions of dollars, we need to develop a team in house. And Public Works does want to be part of it because of our processes that we already have in place that we can just use that to help do council items, contracting. We have a contracting group in place, and so we've got all the tools there, and this could be an arm of that group.

And it's not my forte, but I would at least, and whoever you want from your team, but Tom, this man right here, and Clay, at least your three heads and whoever else is needed. And Dale. Councilman Reynolds. Okay. Four of you, please. Then when you facilitate that, at least have these four, including yourself, involved and whoever else you feel like needs to be involved.

Sounds good. Yes. Mayor Brunner. Tom, please. Along with that same line, I would like to see our procurement director, Rick Kennedy, involved in this. Yeah. Since it would be involved in... Okay. Are you okay with that, Rick? Mm-hmm. Okay. Yes.

No, it needs to.

You decide who needs to be from the city's standpoint. Okay. You get too many heads in one room to start with and decisions are, in my opinion, are not made in an expedient fashion. But whoever needs to be a part of the integral part of this and then grow it, go to the workshop or wherever you decide.

But also I think the discussion is going to include reorging the facility site. based on that report and so forth. Yep, we'll bring that in there too. That's gonna involve other people and Clay's aware.

All right, moving on, next topic. Thank you. Thank you, Tom.

This is the last topic I'm aware of, but it's likely to be a lively one, that's the library. There has been a proposal to pull the library spending back to 26 levels. For clarity, that's $193,000 to propose to be pulled out of the FY27 budget from the library. And of that increase, give or take 120,000 is due strictly to the COLA and healthcare cost increases. The remainder is operational. So that's the topic before council is the library budget.

Mayor? Yes, who brought up the hot point? I don't recall.

I think a number of us. Multiple, okay. Just to confirm, Doug, because I was looking at page 311 where the fiscal impact amount was 187, but you said 193. How is that calculated to be 193? 187.

Apparently there was a translation difference between that ear and that voice to my ear.

Because that is what I had written down and have as well. So 187 is what we're discussing.

The other numbers about the breakout are essentially correct, though, between the labor and the office.

Thank you.

Mayor Brunner. Yes, Councilman. I think... There's a couple of proposals out that the director and the board of trustees are conducting right now. Increase for our fees. And the second one would be for locating each Canyon County cardholder to increase the fees or to lower the fee or lower the amounts. So I think it might be a good idea just to hold on to this, not designate it at this time, but hold on to it until we see the actual numbers come through. I'm okay with that.

Okay. Jared, I see is here. By the way, is it your birthday today?

It is my birthday today.

Happy birthday.

It's a great way to spend your birthday, right?

Very good. We'll sing happy birthday depending on what the council's decision is here, okay? Yeah.

All right. So the Board of Trustees did have a chance to review that. They did agree to increase non-resident fees. From our calculations from that, we are expected to only bring in about $14,000 from that increase. The expectation is because of the increase, it's over 5%, that we'll actually see a number of non-resident patrons not renew. And so even though it's calculated that it would increase by 14,000, it is not expected to even reach that. So we probably will see a decrease in our budget from non-resident fees just from that increase. And so we're not expecting that it will make much of a difference in adding to our budget.

Any further questions for our director?

So leaving the budget, excuse me, Mayor, so leaving the budget to 2026 levels, why is that an issue?

Are you asking why leaving the non-resident fees to 2026?

No, your budget. Not increasing the library budget. What's the challenge there?

It just means that staff wouldn't get their increase like other departments and things like that. I think that's the only increase we're seeing to the budget is it's the COLA that is coming in and the insurance department.

The operational increase outside labor and benefits is about $59,000. So if you wanted to hold that, the likely would be we would have to pass, still retain the COLA and benefits increases and cut the remainder from other operational costs, probably below prior year. That's one way to achieve it.

So the number of staff, are you able to cut some of the quantity of staff?