Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, good. Thank you.

Well, Char, of course, arranged all the, I don't know, is there anybody out there actually watching the crowd out there in the foyer as far as who's coming in?

Well, I have two staff members manning the front counter, so.

Good, yeah.

Okay, let's go.

Anybody?

All right, welcome. Is this old Paul? We're good? Okay.

We're good. Welcome all. It is 5 o'clock, so we are going to get started. Thank you for being here. We expect an overflow crowd. I don't know why. Is there something going on special or what? But anyway, we're going to all be very respectful and say our piece, and that's important. I'm one who you'll find with my year and a half here that I go out of order just a minute, and I have to, before we do, Call to order and the most important part of what I think of every Council meeting is and that's the prayer and then the pledge of allegiance. But something happened last Tuesday. Anybody know what happened last Tuesday on Garrity? At 1259 all of a sudden. Boom water was everywhere and pavement going everywhere and whatever the case. I have been so impressed in my 10 weeks. with our employees, with our leadership, but I was just totally blown out of the, that's probably not a good analogy. Blown out of the water as far as 24-7. And we had cooperation, we had folks from Caldwell, their truck, we had Idaho Transportation Department, all the collaboration. that Crystal over here and John, they're sitting to the side over here, and they'll be bringing some information later. But everything just came together. At 8.37 Saturday, I went out there at 7.30 Saturday morning, and by the way, CEO Clint Childs is here from St. Al's, and that had to be really, really a stress time for him. But 24-7, and everyone working together, and 8.37 Saturday morning, everything was done. I drove out there Saturday afternoon, and it was just like no one ever knew anything had happened. The traffic was just flowing like crazy. So I am so proud. And that's just an example of what your city staff, your employees and directors, and even these guys over here in the blue, and back here in the blue. And Elijah, our fire district, I mean, just wonderful doing day in and day out for you, the citizens, with this growing community. Okay, let's move on. Thank you. We have Pastor Johnny Moore here. He's with Eagle Christian Church, West Valley. And we are all going to stand, and he is going to give us an invocation and then the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you, sir, for being here.

Thank you, Mayor. Will you pray with me? Lord Jesus, I am grateful that you are an intimate God and that you know, your word says that you know when I stand up and when I go to bed. You know my thoughts even before I say them. So even as I'm about to ask for prayer, Lord, you already know what's on my heart, my mind, and I'm grateful. Thank you for your continued mercies, Lord, that you give each day. Thank you for being ever present in this great city. May we never take for granted the days we have breath and the life to tell of your goodness. Lord, I ask that you would put your hand of protection and continue to keep it there on our military, our EMS, our hospital staffs. They sacrifice so much to keep us safe and to keep us healthy. Lord, as our school year is about to kick off, Lord, I ask that you would lift up all the teachers, the admin, the support staffs, Lord. They have such an incredible position, Lord. educating our next generation. And at the same time in this crazy world, Lord, I pray that you would keep our campuses safe, that the children would know without a shadow of a doubt that they would know that it's a refuge and that they'd be able to look back and have fond memories of their education time, Lord, knowing that the people poured into them. Lastly, Lord, I come before you and ask for wisdom for the city council. as they make so many decisions that impact this community. Each time they gather, there are a number of topics and issues to cover. Tonight is no different. So please give each council member clarity and unity in the process. Lord, this is a heavy role to bear. May you give them moments of joy knowing that they are helping this community thrive. Lastly, I'm asking that your example, Lord, of a servant leadership would be at the forefront of each of these leaders' hearts and mind. Thank you, Lord Jesus, in your son's holy and precious name. Amen. Would you join me in the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

Thank you, Pastor. Okay, I believe we are now ready for roll call. So, Madam Clerk.

God. Present. Jangula. Here. Bills.

Here.

Reynolds. Here. Rodriguez. Here. Griffin. Here. All present.

Thank you, Council, for all being here. And here we go. No proclamations tonight, so we can skip that. We did have a public forum. And there was some question whether we were going to do that, but I felt like we really needed to continue with that aspect of hearing from our folks. Just to make sure you're clear that we're going to have five, five, that's our maximum, and it's three minutes. You need to for sure be a citizen of the city of Nampa, and it has to be a non-agenda item. So anything that's on the agenda, we are not speaking to. cut you off, if you so. It has to be a non-agenda item, and the clerk will call out the first name.

Our first speaker is Raymond Shepherd.

And your address, name and address again, though.

My name's actually Gil Aroucet. I'm with the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters. I just privileged to speak. Raymond Shepard wasn't able to attend and he lives out in Nampa. I just was wondering if I was able to speak on his behalf. I'll keep it very short and brief.

If you keep it real short, okay. It'll literally be less than a minute.

And you're saying what he would want you to say. A hundred percent. Okay.

Yes, sir.

As we work together as colleagues. As my colleague, Ray Shepard, he just wanted to come and Daryl Bruner, I appreciate you coming to our grand opening. I just wanted to extend an invitation for all the council staff. I left my card on your on your desk. I know a lot of you weren't able to attend.

Before you continue, we need one more time. Your name and address.

Gil Aroucet, 319 West House Street, Boise, Idaho. Okay. Considering moving to Nampa with all this hospitality, I get in the room.

Oh, you.

Thank you. Seriously, though. Yeah, I just, all I'm here for is just to extend an invite. My email and my contacts out there, as you know, in the Carpenters Union, we build, but not only do we build out in communities, we like to build relationships, and we'd like to build a relationship with the staff so that you guys know the investment that we have into building these strong communities retaining workers by training and giving skilled apprentices opportunities to have advancement in the careers by providing very good skilled training. Hopefully the mayor has spoke a little bit about our facility and I would like to extend that invite over to the city council staff. That's it. Thank you. And I opened up for questions if I welcome them.

We're not going to take any questions tonight, but thank you. And you do have an amazing facility and you're training a lot of our future workers, which appreciate. Thank you.

And also thanks for the privilege to speak. I appreciate it. You betcha.

Thanks. Okay, I just and I know there's a lot of things that maybe need applause, applause, but right now that's not going to be the protocol for tonight, so they're not going to be any yay or cheering. I like those things, but usually that's going to be happening at athletic facilities. So tonight there'll be no clapping or no cheering. Okay, thank you.

Our next speaker is Crystal Flippens.

Crystal not here.

Our next person is Christopher Perez.

Okay.

That is it, Mr. Mayor.

That's it? Okay. All right. We will move on then because it could be just a little lengthy night otherwise. So we're going to go ahead and do a motion and a second. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Are there any proposed amendments to the agenda before we have the motion and the second on the agenda?

Okay, so I move that we approve the agenda. Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any no further discussion, I'm assuming? Roll call, please. Oh, that's an all and aye. Everyone in favor, let's just say aye. Aye. We're going to get this together yet, folks. All right. CONSENT AGENDA. THERE AGAIN. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

SECOND.

OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OKAY. NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO SOME ACTION ITEMS.

STAFF COMMUNICATION.

FIRST OF ALL, WITH JOHN. THAT'S ACTION. Great, when Crystal gets here, there's a lot of action, right? Okay. Yes, sir.

Mayor, City Council, John Spencer, Director of Water Resources. Just a brief update and staff communication on the Garrity Water Main break that happened this last Tuesday that Mayor already referenced. So on Tuesday the 11th, a 16-inch domestic water line broke in Garrity, south of the interstate. leading to the closure of all southbound lanes on Garrity and affected off ramps as well. It impacted approximately 30,000 square feet of asphalt. The emergency response was swift and marked by exceptional teamwork. The Nampa Police Department arrived first on scene to divert traffic, closely followed by the Water Division to shut off the water and isolate the break The traffic division provided critical traffic control, while the water and streets divisions collaborated to facilitate asphalt removal. A contractor, L2 Excavation, was called in to assist with the repairs, arriving on site within an hour and a half. By 9 p.m., asphalt stripping was complete, and L2 began working on the water line repair. We couldn't have accomplished this without the invaluable assistance from the city of Caldwell, as we did not have enough 16 inch pipe on hand to complete the entire repair. Caldwell provided essential 16 inch PVC pipe, and both the contractor and Veolia stepped up to offer additional pipe support if needed. In total, crews replaced approximately 550 feet of pipe, about 1,600 tons of asphalt, which is equivalent to about 80 dump trucks, given the average size of a dump truck, and about 2,800 tons of base material, which is about 150 dump trucks. The Water Division also conducted thorough water quality testing of the surrounding area. and then today they flushed the portion of the pipe that was in repair and took additional samples and they will do that again tomorrow. The Idaho Transportation Department played a critical role in this effort, sending staff to help inspect and verify road closures. They coordinated the work through change orders to their existing projects and adjusted schedules on two different projects, interstate projects, to facilitate this repair. Idaho Materials and Construction managed road grading and paving, which required significant coordination with ITD due to the road closures and the repaving within their jurisdiction. Traffic staff worked diligently to optimize signal timing in the area, ensuring smooth traffic flow during the closures and throughout the weekend. IMC graded throughout Friday and paved on Friday night, while the Streets Division handled the striping and sweeping on Saturday morning, demonstrating the seamless collaboration among all involved. So I need to issue a heartfelt thank you to everyone who played a role in this response. The Nampa Police Department, Water and Irrigation Division, Traffic Division, Streets Division, Public Works Project Management, Procurement, Legal, Communications Team, Clerk's Office, Mayor's Office, ITD, City of Caldwell, L2 Excavation, Idaho Materials and Construction, Veolia, and City Council for their rapid and effective teamwork in declaring and managing the emergency. Together we exemplified the spirit of collaboration that makes our community resilient and capable. and I'm sure the question would be, how much is this going to cost? At this point in time, it's too early. We don't have all the invoices from contractors. They just finished up Saturday morning, so we will bring that forward to you. I'm confident it's within the amount that the emergency declaration was for and would be covered under that. Also, I'm sure the question is, why did this happen? I don't know that I have a specific answer to why, but I have some contributing factors as to why this happened. Ultimately some construction standards were not met in 2002 when this was constructed. So that is a concern. So the pipe was actually laid on top of some rock, big boulders, and typically you want to bed that in sand and that wasn't done. Vibrations can cause challenges. There was also some potential deflection issues. You can deflect pipe a certain amount there could have been some exceedances in those deflections of the pipe. So those are some of the contributing factors we believe may have caused this break to occur.

John, do you have any idea what that huge, huge boulder, a weight of approximately that big a boulder would have been? It was just amazing.

I'm not sure of the exact weight. It took two large loaders to lift it, to put it into the truck. And that was what was under some of the pipe, right? That is correct. The pipe was actually laying on top of one of those boulders.

Okay. Any other questions, council?

Mayor? Yes. John, was part of this project done during when Garrity was widened by ITD?

So I believe that Mayor Councilman Reynolds, I believe this was done during the Garrity interchange project. So this was done in 2002.

So would we have had oversight over that? waterline installation if ITD was handling the project?

Mayor, Councilman Reynolds, I believe we would have been allowed to be out there for the oversight on the pipe work itself. We don't have a tremendous amount of records about that project currently, but we do know that we did have inspectors out there for periods of time. I can't say they were out there for the duration of that installation.

Thank you. Let me just addendum that on a crystal. Do you have anything else to add? So anyway, crystal Craig, I still want you to stand because she's, she's a director of transportation and was out there and along with our water and so many other folks that are not here. But anyway, thank you so, so very much.

Thank you.

Okay. We have one more communication and Mr. Ashby, are you coming up Rodney for us? Director of PNZ. And this is going to be a planning and zoning staff communications, recent actions, summary, comprehensive plan steering and commit committee objective by Mr. Ashby.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. I'll first give you a quick report on Planning and Zoning Commission meeting this last week. The first one was for Adara, or excuse me, there were four final plats, Adara number two, Spring Hollow Ranch number six, Trestle Creek number one, and Reflections Edge number five, and those were all approved. The next is the public hearings. So the first one we had was an annexation and zoning. This is northwest of Cherry Lane and Canada Road across from kind of near CWI there, and this was for multi-family development that was recommended for approval, and this will come before you on September 21st. The next one is a conditional use permit for a kennel license for up to eight dogs, and this one was approved, and that one was at, sorry, southeast corner of East Washington Avenue and South Canyon Street. And then the final public hearing was for our zoning code text amendments, and this is for the starter home subdivisions and the accessory dwelling unit standards that was required by state law, and so we're updating our code to match what state law says now. And with that, I'd like to just quickly step into the comprehensive plan update. This is our final update, and we only have one main theme to cover in this presentation, and then we'll be done with the updates. So we'll move forward, that's Pathways to Opportunities is our last theme that we're gonna cover. And again, as we have in the past, we had a few comments from council, and so we're gonna try to address those as we go through this quick presentation. So Pathways to Opportunities, what does this mean? These two bullet points are what the steering committee came up with for describing what we mean. support education, workforce training, and economic development that create local jobs and small business opportunities, invest in schools, trade programs, and attainable housing to ensure future generations can thrive in Nampa. So when we talk about education, the obvious question is, do we have a role there? Is the city involved in investing in schools, trade programs, and affordable housing? That was a question that was asked. And so no, not directly. Career and technical education and post-secondary programs serve as a pipeline to develop jobs in our community, so we have a role of encouraging economic development. The way that the city can invest in education institutions is through our planning entitlement process, kind of holding hands as campuses expand or develop and hold their hands through that process if there's a conditional use permit needed or an annexation or a rezone. We also provide the transportation network connected to those facilities so that people can reach those destinations. And then the last one there, I just said public education and messaging can be coordinated so that the city and the educational institutions are on the same page. We're saying the same message. We want educated public, or excuse me, educated workers in our community and so that our businesses, our small businesses can thrive, and our big businesses. So then, just a reminder that this is a comprehensive plan, not just a city plan. So we're identifying goals that the city can be a part of, but maybe not even necessarily lead. So education is kind of one of those. Okay, draft objectives is education and workforce pathways, housing attainability and demographic stability, economic development and small business vitality, and then integrated land use, transportation and community connectivity. I'll cover the first one real quick. Strengthen integrated education and workforce systems to expand opportunity, retain youth, and align training with local industry needs. That's what the steering committee came up with. Housing attainability and demographic stability. So this question was asked, is the city involved in housing affordability and demographic stability? We changed the objective at your direction to not say affordability because that's a trigger word. We're not talking about necessarily affordable housing only. We're talking about attainability. Can our community attain housing that they need? The city is not in the business of property management of affordable housing. However, the city is obligated to safeguard Nampa citizens' health, safety, and welfare. This includes access to services, public safety, parks and open space, a well-functioning city government, protection from overcrowding, codes and rules that contribute to the quality of life, a range of access opportunities for housing, and other benefits of living in an incorporated city. So that kind of leads us to our next point there, housing attainability. Cultivate diverse, attainable housing options that attract and retain NAMPA residents while supporting long-term community vitality. And the picture here is just showing we need a range of housing types in our community, and it's important that we don't just focus on one, but we think about all of the options and the needs of our citizens. The next point there is provide opportunities for entry level housing and upward mobility. That was a strong point we heard from the public and from our steering committee. So this is an example of a small home on a small lot. We are seeing a significant demand for this type of housing in Nampa. Next is economic development and small business vitality. That's the objective. These are all interconnected, really. Support small businesses and entrepreneurs, leverage large employers, and improve access to jobs. Pretty straightforward. We'll jump to the last one, integrated land use, transportation, and community connectivity. Well, how do we do that? We create a well-connected, efficient urban system that links housing, jobs, education, and amenities. And that is all I have, unless you have questions for me, and then I can just show you our next steps. Essentially, we're working on our future land use map. We're evaluating our surveys right now. They're still out there. My team's going to two significant events this week, just asking for people to participate and get online, fill out the survey. trying to confirm the direction that we've already shared with you and what the steering committee came up with. So do you have any questions for me?

Council? Thank you. Rodney, thank you for your time in the last several council as far as educating all of us.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Yes. Just one question, not on the comp plan, but previous public hearings. I drive Flamingo to get home and that a Dura project still has public hearing notices for a March date. I think I've missed it by now, but is there a timeline when those are needing to be taken down throughout the city?

We do have those in our code. The challenge is we have the applicant doing those signs now. And so if you see those, if you'll send me a note, I will contact the developer and make sure that those get taken down.

Thank you. You won't give Councilman Griffin permission just to pull it? I will not touch that.

No, it's legal setting. I'm sure there's plenty of people that would like to trespass me, so I won't even dare jump on that field.

Thank you. All right. Okay. We're ready to go. Now we're ready for some action and it's a new business and we'll start with five one and, and we get to have a crystal Craig come up here and for a couple items. So I'll start reading this crystal. By one action item authorized mayor to sign state local agreement and resolution between idle transportation apartment in the city of Napa for Northside Boulevard to Karcher Road key number 2, 3, 7, 3, 1 in the amount of 9 million 424,000 $71.76 and authorized city match estimated at 5 million 161,000 $84. And that's pending approval in the FY27 budget, which we will be doing here shortly. Mayor?

Crystal Craig, yes. I don't know if you have a presentation. I'm about to give you a motion, but I just wanted to confirm those dollars are coming from impact fees or how much of those dollars in that $5 million will be coming from impact fees?

Mayor, Councilman Griffin, this is an impact fee funded project. The rest will be grant funded through the freight program.

Thank you. Mayor, I'm hearing that she can't hear. Paul, are we... Okay, go ahead and repeat it one more time, Chris, because I know your voice projects.

Also, for the record, Crystal Craig, Director of Transportation, Mayor, Councilman Griffin, this is an impact fee funded project. The remaining money is coming out of a federal freight grant that we received through the Idaho Transportation Department.

Thank you.

Mayor, I move to approve this action item.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Discussion? No discussion that I'm seeing, so we'll go ahead. And on this one, we will do roll call.

Pingula. Yes. Bills. Yes. Reynolds. Yes. Rodriguez. Yes. Skog. Yes. Griffin. Yes. All in favor, motion carries.

Okay, 5-2, and Crystal will also be presenting. Action item, authorize mayor to sign the state local agreement and resolution between the Idaho Transportation Department and the city of Nampa for the construction of the ore pathway. Second. You're making a motion? She made it. I seconded.

Okay. All right.

All right. Discussion, sir. No discussion?

Discussion.

Discussion, sir. Crystal, the $5 million that's going to take to fix this or to revamp this ore pathway, where is the $5 million coming from? And the second question would be, why now when we are in definite need of funds?

Councilman Rodriguez, are you on 5-2?

Yes, sir.

Where are you getting the $5 million, sir?

on five one. Oh, that's, I just, nevermind. I'm good. Okay. 1.6. I got it. Thank you. My glasses.

Okay. So are any other questions for a crystal? Okay. Roll call please.

God bills.

Yes.

Reynolds. Yes. Rodriguez. Yes. Griffin. Yes. Yes. All in favor. Motion carries.

Okay. Five, three, And then we have all our, so you're going to come up chief. Okay. Action item authorized mayor to sign a resolution to call a levy election for $5 million permanent levy override to recruit and retain police officers and public safety personnel and improve public safety facilities. Okay.

Any further discussion? Discussion, sir. Yes, sir. Chief. There's been a lot of controversy about the levy. And I think the community needs to hear why and how, how important it is for our community to understand this levy.

Okay, Mayor, Council Member Rodriguez, with your permission, I'd just like to read an opening statement there. It'll be quick, maybe two minutes.

We're good.

I think that'll cover your answers there.

Madam Clerk, it's timing, go ahead.

Okay, we'll get going. So thank you for allowing me to speak to you this evening. The Nampa Police Department is asking the City Council's approval for a permanent $5 million annual property tax levy that would be exclusively dedicated to the Nampa Police Department funds and would be used for the hiring of additional police officers constructing a training facility, and retaining our current staff. As you're aware, Nampa Police Department has previously been a leader in the state of Idaho and is considered a destination department by many seeking careers in law enforcement. That being said, we find ourselves at a crossroads where our staffing levels are suffering, recruitment is dropping, and retention of staff is a real concern. We have already started to see our current staff applying for or leaving for neighboring agencies. Our internal culture is no longer getting us through. Officers are seeking better pay, better benefits, and different career opportunities. My goal tonight is not to panic anyone, but to let everyone know that the situation that we are in is real and we are starting to run short on time to have it fixed. We have already started to transfer officers out of our specialized units by bringing them back to the patrol division so that we are able to respond to in-progress calls. We no longer have the luxury to appropriately staff our specialized units like our traffic team, our detective divisions, or our narcotics unit due to low staffing levels in patrol. To this point, Napa has been a safe city where our department consistently feels the support of our community has for its police department, and we want it to stay that way. It would be irresponsible for me as chief not to let you know of the concerns that I'm starting to see without bringing you a solution. That's why we're asking for approval for a public safety levy to be on the November ballot so that it can be brought in front of the citizens for a vote. That pretty much covers it. Was there any other questions that I could answer for you, Councilman?

You're at a dangerous level of calling officers back to work. Absolutely. Because you have to. It's also state law. But now you have one list. Now you have two lists that you're making up the officers needed to fulfill our request, right?

Are you talking overtime lists?

Yes, overtime lists.

Yes, we do have a mandatory overtime list, and I think it's important that you understand, I'm only talking about the patrol division right now. We're understaffed in the patrol division. That's where I have to have the police officers to respond to the 911 calls. That's where we're pulling officers out of our detective units, our narcotics units, our traffic team, because I have to bolster patrol. That's the backbone, obviously, of the police department. So those specialty units are, I would say, roughly 50% of where they should be or where they have been in the past because I'm having to pull those numbers back into our patrol division.

And this is after each officer works a 12-hour shift as it is?

10-hour shift.

10-hour shift, and they're called back.

I believe last I heard it was, I think, a mandatory overtime roster. It would be every 14 days. You would be at the top or the bottom, and you'd be at the top within 14 days. So roughly every two weeks, you're mandated to overtime shift. Okay.

Thank you. Yes, Sir. There's a question on the wording for the actual forum on the ballot. You had mentioned that last line and to improve public safety facilities. Do you think that will be difficult to sell? Having potentially that phrasing in there rather than solely dedicating it to police officers and public safety personnel because facilities could take up a significant portion of that 5 million annually. I think it's necessary, I'm not doubting that. I'm just trying to think how we fine tune this for a sure vote in November.

Sure, and yes, I hope it's a sure vote, but I wanna be very transparent with the community. I mean, if we get this levy through, I'm gonna need some sort of facility to train these new hires. Um, we, we're in a spot right now at our police department where we've, uh, we're bringing between 10 and probably 13 officers through every four or five months through an academy. Currently we share a Meridian and Nampa and occasionally a garden city officers go through the academy together. We're capped, uh, usually around 10 is what they would like Nampa, uh, to do in Meridian about 10. Just with what I've got coming up with retirements, with officers leaving for other agencies, and for growth, we're going to be way, way over 10 every academy. Right now, what's limited to me is my training staff. I only have so many field training officers to do that. And quite frankly, with Meridian, they're getting big enough as well. They have a dedicated facility, and we piggyback off of them. I would say 80% of our academy is over at Meridian right now, at Meridian Police Department, and Nampa for growth for the future. I mean, at some point, if I don't ask for it now, I'm going to be coming back in a couple years saying I need to get this. So, again, I just want to be very transparent with people, not to panic people, but just to let them know we're running low on staffing. You know, it's up to you guys, you know, up to the citizens. You as a council have done everything you can. You've asked for your – you've taken your 3%. You've taken your – you're foregone. I mean everything statutorily you guys can do and it's still just not enough for us. So it really comes down to what type of police department and what kind of public safety, you know, do you want? I can keep cutting these specialty units to keep patrol, but then there's going to be less follow up for detectives. I'm sure you get a lot of complaints as I do for the traffic right now. I have seven people assigned to the traffic division in Napa working seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Simple math is 50% of the time there's not somebody out there stopping people for the red lights. and one officer per shift to do a city of our footprint. That's just not enough. It's only two more than we had when we started our traffic unit in 1977.

Do you have any anticipation of how much of those dollars will be allocated to each portion, actual staff, and then the public safety facilities.

We have broken it down and I don't, I would probably defer to the finance director because I don't have the exact, but each year there's a certain percent. I believe it was broke down the first year would be eight police officers. It would be a certain percent for pay increases. And again, I'm not trying to look, you know, get rich. I'm trying to keep up with our staffing. with some of the levies that have happened with agencies east of us and some of the growth and the tax base. I fully understand they have a different tax base than we do, but when you're going over there starting at $10 or $15 an hour more, then you're making it the city of Napa. Quite frankly, I'm going to be getting the people that are going to be applying for Napa that didn't, you know, make the cut over there. And we're not a department that takes second fiddle right now.

We aren't. Doug, do you have an answer? I know Clay, otherwise our chief of staff would have an, do you have the answer for a councilman?

So the year one levy of $5 million, the impact for eight officers is about, uh, a little less than $1.6 million to hire eight new officers. There's wage increases of about $1.1 million, and then about $2.3 million is left over for capital investment in police infrastructure needs, training centers, and so forth. Whenever you're going to hire 24 officers over four years, you are going to have some capital needs. And the intent is to, in the first years, use some of this capital, some of the levy override to pay for capital. And then in years two through four, divert that back to additional, and eight additional staff in year two, four more in year three, and four more in year four. And that will use up most of the rest of the cash over the five years.

And that's patrol and corporals is that's my understanding. It'd be a 16 patrolman and eight corporals. Uh, we'd have a, and again, this is just the patrol division. I want the, you know, the council to understand that we're still going to be coming to you saying, you know, I'm going to need some officers for the, these other other units. But it, it bridges the gap from where we're at right now because we're treading water and it seems like every year we're getting a cinder block throwing on us and we're sinking a little bit further. I just don't want any year from now, you're going to be holding me responsible saying why is crime up? Why are people not coming here? So this, this is the, this is the solution that I could come up with for you. Thank you.

Thank you. To clarify then, and this will likely be for legal, could we not still accomplish the public safety facilities goal without adding that language in there? Could we be able to add training facilities under the recruit and retain additional offers officers and public safety personnel? The reason I asked that question is the more that we add into this ballot language, The more ambiguity that is added leaves room for confusion or clarification that I'm even asking right now. I get nervous that somebody says, oh, they're going to buy another building, another nice headquarters, and that could potentially have its own baggage come along with it. Could we not strike those six words and still be able to accomplish the goal?

Mayor? The question really is up for council and with the police staff. What you want to put on there is really up for you for the public's view. Legally, you do need to have language in there that you can defend, right? And as Chief Huff mentioned, transparency is crucial in these ballot measures. They have to indicate if they're for operations or facilities. Could you make an argument that lifting it out could apply, possibly? BUT THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE AN EDUCATION PIECE FOR THE NEXT MONTH OR TWO THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. THAT THE CITY CAN EDUCATE AND INFORM THE PUBLIC. AND THERE'LL BE MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO CLARIFY WHAT THAT WOULD BE USED FOR. SO REALLY IT'S UP TO YOU AND THE WHOLE COUNCIL HOW YOU WANT TO PUT IT IN THERE. AS DRAFTED RIGHT HERE, I THINK THE POLICE CHIEF INDICATED THERE WOULD BE A NEED TO HAVE FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE ADDED RECRUITED OFFICERS.

CAN I ADD, MAYOR, COUNCIL? YES. A LITTLE CLARITY. I understand very clearly Councillor Sebastian's question. In a very blunt fashion, if we were to take just year one and just do enough just for that year one to give the $2.6 million in raises and hire eight additional staff, that would be a nice little Band-Aid for that year. It doesn't provide any funding for years two through four where we want to hire the additional eight and the additional four and four in years three and four. So you could cut that out and say, well, we don't need that. I don't think they're planning on, to my knowledge, planning on building a brand new building, but no. But I think it's up to the city and council to really determine what level of service we want to retain. But the $5 million at the end of the day by year four is 100% used for labor and benefits of the police staff. And in the early years, there's a little bit extra because as we want to hire and bring the staff on, you have to stage this so you don't have too much going on at once. And so you do have a little bit left over for the capital. That could be used in whatever way the city council chose as whether police or not.

Let me do this clarification here because I think we're getting into the weeds a little bit. Correct me if I'm wrong. But this is just to authorize a levy election. As far as the wording, the text, or whatever, that still could be discussed, correct?

Mayor, this is an important point to clarify. Thank you. What you're approving tonight is what will be handed to the county clerk. Okay, so it has to have the exact... at this point in time. Yeah, and we have done the preliminary work to coordinate with them in advance of what we anticipate being passed tonight. We've presented that to the county clerk and county assessor along with the finance team. Now, if you want to change some of the messaging here, this is the time and place to figure out that language.

So, Councilman Griffin, you heard further discussion. I don't disagree with the dollar amount. I don't disagree with the use of the dollars for facilities or additional precinct in the north or anything along those lines. I don't disagree. The concern that I potentially have is actually only one word, facilities. Because I would read this as I like the recruitment, I like the retaining, additional officers is great, public safety, personnel is awesome. Facilities are we going to be using all this money just to be bolstering our facilities and I just in the November election when a significant portion of the people that are going to be voting will never read or known about this at all. So it is. What is going to pass from a regular job voter leaving his shift at five o'clock in the afternoon to go do his civic duty and vote reading this for the first time saying I can get on board with that or I can't. I think facilities could potentially knock somebody out of the can camp.

Chief of Staff Clay Long is coming up. He's been totally involved with this from the beginning. So thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mayor Councilman. I think number one was to be transparent on what the dollars would be spent for. So the intent is a training facility. Hopefully it's the least expensive one we can come up with that meets the needs. But it's also intended that those would be one-time funds. So it wouldn't be the ongoing operations of that facility. It would be the residual from not being able to hire all 24 staff at once. So that's how we would come up with that amount to go towards the facility. The education is going to be the onus of the city and the police department as one of those departments to educate the citizens of what is coming forward to them as an ask, what it includes. That would include the amount per rooftop from an average amount of a home value, all those pieces. Our goal is on the front end to tell people this is exactly what we're spending it on and then to do reports on how it's been spent to remain. Understand the concern that that could be one, but I think the onus will be on us to educate and make sure folks understand that the facility would be one-time dollars, not ongoing expenses.

We're splitting hairs. I agree, I agree, I agree. I think at just this point, my ask would be we remove the single word facilities and to improve public safety. Because even if it is one time funding for a facility, I would read this as $5 million a year is going to a facility, not just one time, because we didn't want to add and jumble this up. That one word would give me pause at a ballot box. I'm trying to think about average Joe voter. It might not matter to council. I'm just throwing that out there as the potential. If we can accomplish it without the word facility and still build a facility, we still should tell people we're going to build a facility.

We have a motion and a second. If there needs to be an amended motion, I'll let the... Dale, did you make that motion? So that's up to you whether you want to amend it. Otherwise, if there's no further discussion, we'll have roll call.

Mr. Mayor, I don't want to amend that. Where it says in the resolution... It says to improve public safety facilities. And I believe that transparency is key here in the education that we put out with this levy. People need to know what and why and where our training dollars are going currently to Meridian and that we have to do our own academy here. So I think it's paramount. Roll call, please.

Yes. Dills?

Yes.

Rodriguez? Yes. Griffin?

Yes.

Gingula? Yes. Reynolds? Yes. All in favor, motion carries.

And maybe it was stated, but just so your understanding as citizens, when you are talking about this, maybe to your neighbors and fellow, it will take a 60% yes vote. It's not a 50 plus one, so this is very crucial. And we're not allowed to lobby for it, but you are the folks that can educate and do the lobbying if you think this needs to happen. All right, we're going to go to 5-4.

Go ahead, sir. Mayor and legal counsel, stating why we're asking for a levy, is that lobbying?

A lot of it is somewhat subjective, but what you do is educate. You inform. You say, this is for $5 million. There is X number of cops deficiency, as chief has noted. That's informational. When you start crossing the line is we should do it, or it'd be in your best interest. And it's a tough line for any elected official. Believe me, you're not the only ones that are in this camp. but just be as purely neutral and informative and educational in any discussions that you might have, especially in official public settings like this using city property. That's the actually statutory guidance on it.

So follow-up question. Please. So stating the change in funding formula by the legislature, is that lobbying?

That would seem to me you're asking for an opinion of another law it's not so much advocating for this but rather an opinion of why we got here. The line crosses when you start saying no you're wrong this is right when it comes to an opinion facts are what you want to present facts about deficiencies budgets lack of personnel. response times, things of that nature. That's where you want to be sticking at as an elected official underneath the election ballot laws that exist. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Clarify?

I believe so. What you need? Yep. Mayor? Yes. And what is the punishment if a certain council member were to lobby on social media for the passage of a certain levy override? Not anything specific, but what would happen to said council member?

That council member can retain their own attorney.

There's lots of handcuffs in this room.

No, that is one that to my knowledge hasn't been tested yet as much with any case law precedents, but that is the legal guidance that's given to us and would always advise to stick to that with good faith. Thank you.

Okay. So we, We have the result. I was starting to say 5-4, so let's move on. Authorize mayor to sign resolution requiring the revenue from the permanent levy measure, if approved, to be allocated for specific purposes. So moved. Second. Okay. Let's just do a roll call. Okay.

Skog? Yes. Chingula? Yes. Mills?

Yes.

Rodriguez? Yes. Griffin? Yes. Reynolds? Yes. All in favor, motion carries. Thank you.

Okay, we're moving well here. We will not be starting public hearings until six, so we're going to get through the rest of our business, and that's unfinished business. So this is 7-1, council. And then our Madam Clerk will be reading it. But action item, first reading of ordinance for annexation and zoning to BC Community Business, RMH, multifamily residential, RS4, single family residential, IP, industrial park, zoning districts, and development agreement for District 16. Addressed as 4188 Cherry Lane, 0 Eustick Road, 5059 Eustick Road, 5033 Eustick Eustick Road, 17873 Star Road, 0 Eustick Road, 0 Cherry Lane, 0 Cherry Lane, 5465 Eustick Road, 0 Eustick Road, 0 Eustick Road, 0 Cherry Lane for Idaho Holdings LLC representing multiple owners. Madam Clerk. And this is under the suspension of rules. Thank you.

And on to the City of Napa, Idaho, determining that certain lands commonly known as 4188 Cherry Lane, 0 Eustick Road, 5059 Eustick Road, 5033 Eustick Road, 17873 Star Road, 0 Eustick Road, 0 Cherry Lane, 0 Cherry Lane, 5465 Eustick Road, 0 Eustick Road, 0 Eustick Road, 0 Cherry Lane. Parcels number R30357, R3037201, R30369, R3037, R3036901, R3035501200, R3035901, R30357010A0, R30372, R30354, R3035401, R3035701, located in the southwest, 1 4th, Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, totaling 442.795 acres more or less. They contiguous to the limits of the city of Napa, Canyon County, state of Idaho, and that said land should be annexed into the city of Napa and be zoned RS4 single family residential on 172.074 acres more or less. An IP industrial park on 136.66 acres more or less. and RMH Multiple Family Residential on 90.891 acres, more or less, and BC Community Business on 43.167 acres, more or less, declaring said lands by proper legal description as described below to be a part of the City of Nampa, determining that said annexation and zoning has the consent of landowners, it is contiguous to the city limits, and it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. directing the City Engineer and the Planning and Zoning Director to add said properties to the official zoning maps of the City of Napa and to designate said properties as RS4 Single Family Residential and IP Industrial Park and RMH Multiple Family Residential and BC Community Business as set forth herein in the official zoning map and other area maps of the City. providing for conditions of approval, providing for recordation, subject to the terms at certain development agreement between the applicant and the city, providing for severability, providing an effective date, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof in conflict herewith, and directing the city clerk to file a certified copy of the ordinance and the map of the area to be annexed with Canyon County State of Idaho and the Idaho State Tax Commission pursuant to Idaho Code Section 63-215.

Mayor moved to approve under suspension of rules. Second. Roll call.

Gogg? Yes. Gingula? Yes. Bills? Yes. Rodriguez? Yes. Reynolds? Yes. Griffin? Yes. All in favor? Motion carries.

We have two more of these. How many are still awake? All right. Here we go. This is also a request to pass under suspension of rule 7-2, action item, first reading of ordinance for vacation of a 20 foot by 21.97 foot by 29.71 foot 219.7 square feet portion of a public utility easement addressed as 15715 or 0 Idaho Center Boulevard for a Kendall Hyundai of Napa representing Graycon LLC under suspension of rules.

Announce that the City of Napa Canyon County, Idaho, vacating a portion of a water main easement located on the property generally described as 15715 and 0 Idaho Center Boulevard. Parcel R3107910100, located in the northeast one-fourth of the northeast one-fourth of Section 13, Township 3 North, Range 2 West, Boise Meridian. said vacation of a water main easement, a total of 219.7 square feet, more or less, more particularly described below in Nampa, Canyon County, Idaho, and directing the city engineer to alter the use and area map and other applicable maps accordingly, providing for an effective date, providing for severability, and repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, and parts thereof in conflict herewith. May I make a motion to pass under suspension of rules? Second.

Okay, roll call, please.

Fogg. Yes. Fills.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds. Yes. Chikula. Yes. All in favor, motion carries.

This is the final one. This is 7-3 action item, first reading of ordinance for annexation and zoning to RS-22, single-family residential zoning district for Iza Ridge Estates, subdivision addressed as 8230 and 8054, Ustick Road, for Robert Lightfelt. and their suspension of rules. Thank you. I knew that would look. Okay.

And Orins of the City of Napa, Idaho, determined that certain lands commonly known as 8230 and 8054 Eustick Road, parcels number R3436601000 and R34360011, 6601100, located in the southeast 1 4th of section 34, Township 4 North, Range 2 West, Boise Meridian, totaling 8.939 acres more or less. They contiguous to the limits of the City of Napa, Canyon County, State of Idaho. And that said land should be annexed into the City of Napa and be zoned RS-22 single family residential on 8.939 acres more or less. Declaring said lands by proper legal description as described below to be a part of the City of Napa. Determining that said annexation and zoning has the consent of landowners, it is contiguous to the city limits, and it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Directing the city engineer and the planning and zoning director to add said properties to the official zoning maps of the city of Nampa and to designate said properties as RS-22 single family residential as set forth herein on the official zoning map and other area maps of the city. providing for conditions of approval, providing for recordation, providing a severability, providing an effective date, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof in conflict herewith, and directing the city clerk to file a certified copy of the ordinance and the map of the area to be annexed with Canyon County State of Idaho and the Idaho State Tax Commission pursuant to Idaho Code Section 63-215.

Mr. Mayor, I move this pass on suspension of rules. Second. Roll call, please.

Boggs. Yes. Bills.

Yes.

Rodriguez. Yes. Griffin.

Yes.

Chingula. Yes. Reynolds. Yes. All in favor? Motion carries.

Legally, we are not going to be able to start our public hearings for another three minutes, correct? Is there something else we need to do first? You bet. I'm going to do this one here. Okay. So while I'll do it and do a short announcement while, while we're waiting, go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. You're good. Go. I don't need a vote on this one. Anyone else? Okay. Okay. Anyone, uh, I'm just going to read this. Anyone wishing to speak on a public hearing item is strongly encouraged to sign up in advance at the city clerk's front office. That's by the front doors. to assist in the management of the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order they are signed up. So just you're aware, we will have, also, I'm gonna go ahead and if I need to read this again, I will, but protocol for, for speaking. When the budget hearing takes place, when that public hearing, which is our final one, Madam Clerk will have you, the speaker, and we'll also ask for three other individuals to be standing behind them. The other thing that I'm going to ask is that if someone before you speaks on the same issues that you are concerned about. I'm mainly concerned talking about the budget public hearing, which will, like I said, be number four. I would like for you to not repeat that, but I do want you to be able to stand. You're gonna be able to give your name and so on, but also that you agree with the previous speaker or speakers. I am really asking you from a respect standpoint and from a time standpoint that we don't repeat over and over. And there's several of you, I appreciate this so much, because there's such a passion in the city of Nampa, you've already sent letters to us. Council and myself have seen all those letters. So if you've already sent a letter, then hopefully I think most of you will feel that that was enough. I guarantee you that those, and the numbers are amazing on some of these issues. So I thank you for that also. And so anyway, I just want to make sure that you're kind of aware. I'll probably repeat a few of these things. It's going to be three minutes is going to be a max. Also, if you're going to be stating your name and your address when you do come up. And if there's anyone that's not in the city limits of Napa, you totally have the right to speak. But from a respect standpoint, I would hope that you would allow folks who live in the city of Nampa to speak. Now, Madam Clerk's going to have to have the order, so you would have to let us know if you would allow someone else to go before you if you do not live in the city limits. But that's the other thing that I would ask for courtesy's sake. And we have, as soon as we get council back, we'll get going again. Yes, short break. We'll reconvene by 6.05. Oh, you got it. Yeah, as soon as Mark leaves here.

.

But, Mark, you're going to explain this when you're up front. Okay, so let's go ahead and get moving. Okay, thanks, Mark. Ask him when he's up there. Linda. Linda. Sit down.

What's that?

Yeah, I know. You guys can do it. Okay, all right. Go do it. All right, we're going to settle in here again. I know it's tough. Don't you just love it how you get to the relationships we have in Nampa in discussion? But as you can tell by my gray hair, I don't stay up late at night, so we're going to keep moving here. So here we go. We're going to start with the first public hearing, and I'm going to read that. It's an action item, variance of NCC 10-10-5.a for a reduced front yard setback. NCC 10-22.3b to allow vehicle maneuvering in a front yard setback and NCC 10-33-4.c.3.c to allow a reduction in landscape buffer requirements to allow the landscaping to be installed in the area between the property and the edge of payment to provide space for the required parking for an existing in-home daycare in an RD two-family duplex residential zoning district addressed as 3424 East Greenhurst Road for Migdy Sanchez representing Dionisia Navarro. I should have Victor do this for me. Magic Stars Child Care. Do we have the applicant here? Okay, come on up, sir, and if you would just give your name and also your address.

Hi, my name is Sean Lorenz. My business address is 2661 West Janelle Street, Meridian, Idaho, 83646. And I'm the architect of record in representing the owners of Magic Star Child Care. We are requesting your approval of this variance due to the unique site constraints of this existing property. The intent of our request is not to eliminate the city's landscape requirement, but rather to provide the minimum relief necessary to create a safe and functional site while maintaining the intent of those requirements. The existing building, limited site area, new parking requirements, and vehicle circulation significantly restrict the amount of usable space available along the Greenhurst frontage. We've explored several design options to focus access from Lexus Way to relieve those constraints. However, Lexus Way is privately owned and access from that roadway was denied. As a result, the site must function from and to Greenhurst Road. Although the required landscape buffer cannot be located entirely within the private property as prescribed by code, landscaping will still be provided along the Greenhurst frontage, including within the right of way. From the public street, the project will continue to provide visual landscape separation that the buffer requirement is intended to achieve. Ultimately, we believe this request This request represents the minimum relief necessary to address the physical limitations of the existing site while improving parking, circulation, pedestrian safety, and the appearance of the Greenhurst frontage. Thank you for your consideration, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Council questions? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Councilman Bills. So based on the information that's in our packet, it appears we have similar slide information that construction has taken place?

That is, sorry, I cut you off, go ahead.

Construction's already in progress or already completed?

Councilman Bills, can I address that in my staff report?

Okay. Are there any other questions? You're gonna tell us why we're in this situation?

Well, I'll explain where they're at in the process, yes.

So are there any other questions for the applicant before Christy comes up and answers that question for us? Okay, thank you, sir. You will also bring you back up later if there's any further questions, okay?

Thank you very much, council members.

Christy Watkins. Going to answer Councilman Bill's question and educate us even further.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. My name is Christy Watkins. I'm the Principal Planner for the City of Nampa. The request before you is for a variance for setbacks in the landscape buffer. So just to be clear.

Hey, let's hang on a minute. Paul, are we going to be okay? Okay. All right, let us know when you're ready to go. Yep, ready. Okay.

In March of 2026, they were issued a residential building permit for an addition onto the home that is currently there. They have a conditional use permit for an in-home daycare in an RD zone for up to 12 children currently. That still maintains residential status. Everything they have right now, permit-wise, is residential. This is the first step in getting a conversion to a commercial daycare which they will, if they're approved tonight, need to move on to get a CUP for a commercial daycare, and then they will need a commercial building permit to be able to implement all of these improvements. But they're starting with the variance so they know if they can continue to move forward through those steps.

Okay. The building, is it built to commercial standards, or is it a residential building?

Councilman.

About Romex wiring versus conduit.

Councilman Bills, the building permit that is issued right now is a residential grade building permit, but they will need to get a commercial building permit to convert it.

Okay, so what's our building department say? What's going to happen? What's the end game? That's what I'm seeing is I... I'm seeing a wreck coming forward. We're already being asked tonight for the variance because things have changed since the program began. And I feel like we're going to see this again, asking for exceptions to the code.

Councilman Bills, I'm not sure you can give exceptions to the building code. They're still going to have to meet the international building code for any building improvements that they make commercially.

Okay.

This is all we're going to be asking you for for the site improvements.

Okay, so the site improvements are going to allow it to operate as a commercial daycare.

For planning and zoning purposes, yes.

But the building is not built for commercial usage.

Not today, but they will have to upgrade it.

I guess I'm confused. I guess I need some direction why we would be going down this pathway of approving... a building that's been remodeled and had an addition put to it. That then is a residential constructed building. And we're now going to make the parking lot with the exceptions, the variance granted to now say this can operate as a commercial center, a commercial building. It seems like there's a conflict coming. I don't know if John's still available some way I need,

There are steps that they have to go through. Getting the variance to these requirements lets them do the site layout for the building permit that they will need to get.

Chris, are you okay with John coming up? Absolutely, yes.

Good afternoon again.

No, no, this John. I'm sorry. We're done with the break Johns, but we're here. Okay.

Thank you, Mayor, Council Members, John Nielsen, Director of Building Safety. So when we receive the plans, right now, it's a single family dwelling. They applied for an addition. We look at it that way. You know, look at the plans, get it approved, give them a building permit for the addition. Now, if they're planning to go this route, as Christy said, they're working on the variance, and then when they go into it, then we'll go to the IBC.

Okay.

The international, the building code, the commercial building code. Okay.

So is that code gonna allow commercial use of a residential structure? A residential built structure?

So if everything gets approved, Mayor, Councilmember Bills, they will be required to bring it up to the standards in the building code as a commercial property. But right now as it sits, it's residential. So we had no reason to deny a building permit.

I understand because you thought they were remodeling a residential building.

As far as our department, yes.

And right now that's all they're doing from what we know. Okay. We'll ask the applicant another question then.

John, you're up.

John. So again, I'm the architect of record.

Just a minute. Madam Clerk is...

Legal, legal, need to wait? Yeah, you'll have time for rebuttal. Right now we've done your presentation, staff has given theirs, and we'll turn the time over for public.

Okay, so you have another question probably from Council President Bills once you come back up again. That's mine. Okay, understood. Lack of protocol, okay. Okay, any other, so Christy, you have a presentation to make.

I do, thank you. Okay, so... This property is zoned RD. It is zoned RD to the north, where there is a fourplex development on Lexie's Way, which is a private drive. To the east, it is enclaved and in Canyon County with a large lot residential lot. To the south, it is enclaved in Canyon County with large residential lots and RS6 single-family residential buildings. To the west is also enclaved Canyon County large lot residential. It is on a .26 acre lot, which is 11,325 square feet. These are your typical applicable regulations for the variance with the five criteria that you must find to be met. So we are asking tonight for vehicle maneuvering in the front and side setbacks. The front setback is 20 feet and the side setback along Lexi's Way is five feet, and that is where the parking has been designed. They're also asking for the 20-foot landscape buffer to be outside of the property line rather than inside the property line to give enough room for the parking spaces that they're required to have and maneuvering room. So this is the site plan. In the front, building and parking setbacks shall be 20 feet with no maneuvering within that setback area per city code. the landscape buffer shall also be 20 feet inside the property line per city code. So the variance request for that portion is the area within the right of way provides a six foot three inch and an eight foot, sorry, an eight foot landscaped area with a 10 foot sidewalk running through it. The area inside the property line provides six 90 degree parking spaces and maneuvering area instead of the required 20 foot landscape buffer. The parking has to be designed this way because the applicant has tried multiple times to work with the management company for Lexi's Way on the west side of their property, and the HOA board will not grant access onto this private drive due to the increased use and maintenance costs. The other variance that they're requesting is for the side setback, maneuvering within the side setback. Right now they have a zero foot setback from the property line and within that area contains asphalt to provide a three foot 88 path of travel to the public way. For correspondence from the building department they have required a building permit for the conversion to a commercial daycare should this be approved. The engineering department we went through as he stated multiple iterations of this site plan. So the engineering department continued to address their comments until we came up with the latest rendition. They will not allow two direct access points onto East Greenhurst Road. So what we have now is one in and one out location off of Greenhurst, and this layout is currently acceptable as of the 812 depiction, which is what you're seeing up here. So the subject property is currently a residence with building permits to construct a 500 square foot addition onto the existing structure. The owners have obtained a conditional use permit for an in-home daycare for up to 12 children, but would like to expand it to a commercial facility to accommodate more children and are seeking to meet the requirements for parking and landscaping. Applicable code requirements are intended to bring each property into compliance during projects that involve significant change or improvements to a property. However, in this case, strict adherence to the existing setback and landscape buffer requirements would limit the ability to provide adequate parking per Nampa City Code for off-street parking and limits their ability to provide the appropriate landscape buffer on this 0.26 acres of land. The requested variance represents the minimum relief necessary to accommodate on-site parking. So there are five criteria for a variance that you shall find to be met. All the facts for those criteria are outlined in your staff report and on the screen as you'll see here. After weighing all of the variance facts, it's clear that the need for a variance stems from the project scope to create a commercial daycare facility from an existing residential home. The literal interpretation of the city regulations for this type of conversion would result in the inability to meet city of Nampa parking and landscaping requirements. The site is 0.26 acres and does not provide enough area to accommodate onsite parking required for a daycare facility. Landscaping already exists within the right-of-way behind the curb, gutter, and sidewalk, so has the intended appearance on the Greenhurst frontage until such time that Greenhurst is widened. Conversions like this are common in the RD zoning district and provide for services that the community needs within residential neighborhoods. Parking off-site at this location would create a dangerous situation and cause congestion on Greenhurst Road. Therefore, it is important to provide adequate parking and code-compliant parking spaces and maneuvering space on-site. These are the recommended conditions of approval that are outlined in your staff report, and these are the potential motions. I'll stand for any questions.

Council, questions? Okay, thank you, Christy. This is time for public testimony then. Madam Clerk?

Mr. Mayor, there is no one that didn't advance sign up for this item.

Is there anyone who did not sign up that would like to speak to this issue? Okay, if not, now we'll have you come back up and answer Councilman Bill's question and any other comments you would like to make, sir.

DO I ADDRESS NOW? TO COUNCILMAN BILL'S CONCERNS, IN TERMS OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, WE WILL NOT COME BACK. THERE ARE NO VARIANCES THAT YOU CAN DO FOR INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE. IT IS STRICT WITHIN ITSELF AND THERE IS NO ADJUSTMENTS TO IT. IT'S STRICT WITHIN ITSELF. YOU HAVE TO COMPLY OR THE PROJECT WILL NOT BE APPROVED. IN TERMS OF THIS VARIANCE, PLANNING AND ZONING CODES ARE I say it very loosely, subjective, and hence why we're here with the variance to ask for a subjective opinion on the zoning code. But in terms of if we'll be back here once this is approved or denied, in terms of development and turning this residential project to commercial, we will not be back. The structure itself, there's really no difference between commercial and residential. It really comes down to terms of fire life safety, and those are gonna be the largest differences between residential and commercial. And if approved, and we are allowed to move forward with changing this building into commercial, everything will be brought up to standards in terms of commercial code. in terms of ADA compliance, and in terms of fire life safety, which are the most important factors. Thank you.

Questions, sir?

Here. Okay, so... Will the facility require a fire sprinkler system?

It may. It may not. Fire sprinkler systems... I don't know the code off the top of my head, but they can be avoided based on fire ratings and egress path of travel. But it could be something that we couldn't state. That would be discussion with the owners and I. And once I dig into the code, because we are not at that phase in the project and we've been trying to deal with this variance, I haven't done too much code research into if a fire sprinkler will be required. But that mainly has to do with corridors and path of travel. So as long as that corridor and that path of travel for egress is within, I believe, a two-hour fire rating, sprinklers aren't required. But again, I will do my due diligence if we proceed into that.

I'm going to interrupt just a minute. Do we need Fire Marshal Effinger to discuss this? Or do you not need that?

Well, I'm trying to. He's here if you want him to. Well, you're the architect. You're changing from a residential to a commercial building. I'm making an assumption that this residential building and the addition thereof has Romex wiring in it. I'm also making the assumption there's half-inch sheetrock. Correct. Is there going to be changes to that? Because I'm not sure that meets code. But we have a building official and we got a fire official.

So the half, sorry to cut you off. So the half inch sheetrock, that can be updated. Half inch sheetrock in general provides about 20 minute fire rating. We can take that off and very easily apply five eighths inch, one hour type X drywall where required. There is a party wall between the existing residence and the converted in-home daycare to the commercial. That will require two-hour fire writing, so that will be upgraded. But again, all of these upgrades and updates need to be done without question, so we won't be back asking for variance. It will be a part of the building permit, and the permit will not be approved without bringing the building up to code. So your questions about Romex and drywall... Yeah, it will all be brought up to code. As the building code is, you can't argument the building code. It has to be done.

Okay. Any further questions for our applicant? Not seeing any, so I think we will have a, you can go ahead and sit down, sir. Thank you very much. And so we'll have a motion to close public hearing, please.

Second.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Okay. Now it's council discussion and eventually a motion.

I'm waiting. Mayor, I make a motion to deny the variance request. Is there a second?

Okay. That motion is not carried. Is there another motion? Mayor, I move to approve the project as shown on the screen.

Second.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second discussion. Mayor, I think it just, Councilman Bill's comments are well heard. I hope the building department heard. There's at least a concerned citizen, let alone a concerned council member, about the quality of a potential commercial site. So please just have a close look at codes being met throughout the process.

Okay, we have a motion and a second, and we had discussion. Roll call, please.

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

Yes.

Five in favor, one opposed. Motion carries.

Okay, we're moving on to our second public hearing. I'll read this. Zoning map amendment from B.C. Community Business to B.N. Neighborhood Business and R.D. Two-Family Duplex Residential Zoning Districts. Development agreement modification and subdivision preliminary plat approval for Springshores Commons. addressed as Zero Cherry Lane for Trilogy Development representing Endurance Holdings LLC. Original concept, five single-family detached units, 63 single-family attached units, one commercial lot, and seven common area lots. If you folks from the daycare, if you wanna stay, you totally can, but you also can, if you wanna leave, you certainly may. That's not impolite, okay? And our lady applicant is here. Good to see you again. I am.

Hello. Good evening, everyone. For the record, my name is Sabrina Durchey, and I'm here on behalf of the applicant. My business address is 5179 South Boven Avenue, Boise, Idaho, 83716. And I am honored and privileged to be here before you this evening. I'm super happy that these people are not here for my application. And I'm excited to share our Spring Shore application to you all. So, Springshore Commons was designed around a simple but important idea, creating a neighborhood that feels casual, natural, attainable, and connected. The overall vision is just not to provide homes, but to create a community where open space is meaningful, walkable, and usable in everyday life. Our design theme draws from a natural, relaxed landscape character with soft pathways gathering areas, shade seating, play opportunities, housing options, and a more attainable price point. We're striving to create a community that is casual and fun, but also relaxing, inviting, and engaging for residents. Now, I'd like to welcome you to our proposed entry monument at the corner of 11th and Cherry Lane. With the future roundabout in mind, we wanted this corner to really make a strong first impression and serve as a beautiful visual gateway into our development. The sign is designed to catch your eye while still maintaining a soft but welcoming appearance. The surrounding landscape reinforces the overall project theme with layered plantings, natural materials, boulders, ornamental grasses, and flowering trees. Now taking a look at the overall development, the site has been intentionally designed to provide an appropriate transition within the surrounding area. It transitions toward the existing residential neighborhood to the west and continues the established spring shore development pattern to the north, while really introducing an attainable housing option that is largely dominated by traditional single family homes in the area. The neighborhood commercial component will also provide convenient services close to where residents live. Overall, the project balances compatibility, housing choices, open space, and neighborhood serving commercial uses. Within Spring Shores, we're requesting a rezone, a development agreement modification, and a preliminary plat. We have one commercial lot, 68 single family lots, and seven common lots. Our gross density will be 5.42 units per acre with our diverse residential lot sizes ranging from 2,600 square feet up to 10,000 square feet. The subject site was annexed and zoned under an original Springshore subdivision back in 2006, where the site has an existing development agreement that we're requesting to modify. You can see in the red circle our portion that is before you this evening. So let's take a look at the comp plan. Spring Shores is designated as residential mixed use in the City of Nampa's comprehensive plan. This designation envisions well-designed, connected communities that provide long-term value to residents in the broader area. The vision is delivered through a thoughtful mix of housing, walkable connectivity, access to jobs and services, and well-designed gathering spaces supported by quality architecture and landscaping. Springshore Commons embodies all of these long-term planning goals. The site is strategically located just minutes from Interstate 84, providing convenient access to the broader region. It is also positioned near the growing commercial industrial corridors along Franklin, Highway 16, and Star Road, areas that continue to emerge as important employment and economic hubs within the City of Nampa. With the comprehensive plan in mind, we're requesting an RD and BN zoning to support a thoughtful mix of residential and neighborhood serving uses. The RD district provides greater housing variety and more attainable options while remaining compatible with the surrounding residential area. The BN district complements the residential component by allowing small scale commercial services that provide convenience for both new and existing residents. Now let's take a little closer look at the BN zone within the Spring Shore Commons located along Cherry Lane. This district supports small scale neighborhood serving commercial uses that are compatible with the surrounding residential community. Together the proposed zoning creates a balanced mix of housing, services, connectivity, and open space consistent with your residential mixed use designation. And to better understand how our application fits in within the area, it's really helpful to take a look at the context in detail. To the north is the existing Springshore subdivision, a 225 lot single family residential subdivision. Three phases have already been completed, which really established residential development immediately adjacent to the site. To the east the property is bordered by additional unincorporated county parcels with Coyote Springs subdivision located further east. To the south and southeast the area includes established neighborhood serving uses and residential development. This includes Optimist Park, Birch Elementary School, Brookdale Estates, one through six, developed back in 2009, and Sherwood Forest, phases one through four, developed in 1999. To the southwest and west, there are additional unincorporated county parcels, along with Franklin Village subdivision, which was developed over nine phases, and most recent phase was recorded back in 2022. Taken together, the surrounding context demonstrates that Spring Shore Commons is thoughtfully positioned within an area already characterized by residential neighborhoods, a school, a park, and supporting infrastructure. We understand are sensitive to the city of Nampa's concerns that development must pay for itself. So based on the analysis of the current building permit impact fees, and just considering our 68 residential homes, the estimated total impact fees generated for the project will be over $900,000. We're also sensitive that transition is needed to the county lots to the West. Therefore, we are buffering single-family residential lots that provide a thoughtful transition and compatibility to our neighbors. These spacious residences will be on larger lots up to 10,000 square feet, allowing for generous front and rear yards and providing great opportunities for three-car garages. So we strive to provide housing diversity within every community we design, including options for more attainable price points. The homes here on this slide represent our townhome product, which offer residents a low-maintenance, worry-free lifestyle. As Christy noted during her planning and zoning hearing, this type of housing represents the missing middle that is needed for the City of Napa. In addition to adding housing diversity to this area, these townhomes are expected to provide a more attainable home ownership with three bedroom homes, approximately 1,500 square feet, anticipated to start at $280,000. Additional overflow parking has been incorporated within the development to accommodate special events and peak parking demand, as shown on this slide. Two strategically located parking lots are distributed across our community. Usable open space is a top priority, providing the foundation for our community's amenities, pathways, and interconnectivity. Spring Shores provides 2.32 acres of qualified open space at 18.5%.

I'LL GIVE YOU ANOTHER 30 SECONDS. OKAY. THANK YOU.

PATHWAY CONNECTIVITY AND WALKABILITY IS ALSO A PRIORITY WITHIN SPRING SHORE COMMONS AS SEEN IN OUR PATHWAY EXHIBIT. PURPLE DEPICTS OUR DETACHED COMMUNITY SIDEWALKS. ORANGE DEPICTS OUR 5-FOOT MICRO PATHWAYS. AND GREEN DEPICTS OUR ARTERIAL SIDEWALKS ALONG 11TH AND TRERRY LANE. So as mentioned on the previous slide, pathways and walkability are priority within Spring Shores. The intent is not only to provide sidewalk and pedestrian routes, but really to create a connected internal pathway system that encourages residents to move throughout the site and enjoy the open space as part of their daily lives. This slide highlights the central gathering area, which is the primary open space feature within Spring Shore Commons. In this area, we intentionally designed the homes without rear yard fencing along the central green. The goal was to allow the open space to feel like a natural extension of the residents' back patios, rather than a separate or isolated common area. This creates opportunities for residents to engage with their neighbors, enjoy the landscape open space, and the use of the casual gatherings outdoor seating, and small hosted events. The combination of pathways, benches, lawn areas, shade trees, and landscaping create an inviting community space that encourages connection with everyday use. This play and gathering area offers artificial turf, seating, landscaping, lighting, which I requested, to create an inviting space for residents to gather, play, and connect. And the goal really is to provide an amenity that feels both functional and fun, a space residents will enjoy using as part of everyday neighborhood experience. And then finally, along our northern boundary, a fenced dog park complements the central gathering area space by providing residents with a convenient and secure place for their pets to roam, play, and socialize. This pet-friendly amenity supports an active and connected community while also providing an attractive buffer for the existing neighbors to the north. And quickly, in summary, Spring Shore Common provides a thoughtful transition between the surrounding neighborhoods and thoughtful future commercial uses and much needed attainable housing. I'd like to thank staff for their help with assistance. We're in full agreement with the staff report. And I have to let you know, I received unanimous approval from your Planning and Zoning Commission. So on that great note, I'd like to thank you all for your time. your thoughtful consideration and respectfully request approval. And I'll stand for any questions. Thank you.

Councilman, any questions, please? Mayor. Well, I let the lady go first.

Sabrina, I bet you can guess what I'm going to comment on, but you nailed the green space. So thank you.

Oh, you're so welcome. Well, that was just a comment, not a question. Okay. All right. Councilman Griffin.

None of these homes are going to be rentals, correct? The intent is the townhouses will be all sold to owners to own the townhouses and own the single-family residences.

Mayor, Commissioner Griffin. Yeah, Councilmember Griffin, excuse me. That is correct. I did confirm that they will be sold, and I did verify the price point last month just to make sure it was current. So, yes.

Thank you. So the 280 I heard, that was for what type of?

Yes, for the attached townhome. That's the starting point. So they're all four units. They'll probably be the middle units starting at that point, and then probably the end.

Do you know the approximate square footage on those?

They told me around 1,500 square feet, and they're three-bedroom.

I'm just glad to hear something's under 300,000. I know.

It's super exciting.

With consideration of the central gathering capacity, AREA, EXCUSE ME, ARE THERE GOING TO BE ANY RESTRICTIONS OR REQUIREMENTS TO HAVE ANIMALS WITHIN THOSE SPACES, DOGS? MY CONCERN IS THEY OPEN UP THE BACK DOOR AND THE DOG RUNS, USES THE BATHROOM IN A CENTRAL GATHERING AREA AND MAYBE SOME TENANTS WILL PICK THEM UP. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE, IS THIS MORE OF A HOA CCNR ISSUE OR ARE WE GOING TO HAVE OFFICERS FREQUENTLY IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE THERE'S OFF-LEASH ANIMALS?

Well, Mayor, Councilmember, I would hope that we wouldn't have to use the place for dog incidents. I would think that their time would be much more valuable. But it would probably be an HOA managed by the HOA. And that is also ridden the reasons why we have the dog park there. So I'm hoping that the other, um, town homes on the perimeter will have backyard. So I'm, I'm hoping that people will understand the dynamics and that if they have dogs that they need to have run, use the dog park or maybe buy a town home that has its own private backyard.

Have you had any other neighborhoods with a similar layout?

Hmm.

So this would be the first of its kind.

This is, this is. And we've been kind of pushing the ideas because I want everything to be innovative and fresh and new. And so we're kind of pushing the realm a little bit on this. And the HOA might hate it and they might tell me, Sabrina, don't ever do that again. But until we try, we just, we can't, we don't, we won't be able to get the feedback.

Well, it reminds me of cottage clusters where they're facing inward towards the central area. So I Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. This is the first for me and it sounds like the first for CBH as well. So thank you, that's all my questions for now. Great questions. Any other questions?

I have a comment. Yes. You would be surprised at how many people talk to us about dog parks. So it really can be an issue, small dogs, large dogs, whatever. But I just wanna make the comment, Sabrina, that you could sell property in the Sierra Desert to a penguin You are amazing at your job. Thank you so much. And I appreciate your presentations.

I put a lot of heart and soul in all my projects, so I really appreciate that comment.

Thank you, Councilwoman. And thank you, because I know you requested a little more time, and I didn't give it to you all, but you hit it right on the button.

I scaled back. Thank you. I understand you have a full night tonight, so thank you so much.

Okay, Christy, you get a second time up here. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. Christy Watkins, Principal Planner for the City of Nampa. As stated, the request before you this evening is a development agreement modification, a rezone, and a preliminary plat. In May of 2006, this property was annexed and zoned to BC with Ordinance 3568 that contains a development agreement. In August of 2019, a development agreement modification to allow for a public storage facility was denied. The reasons for denial were listed as compatibility with adjacent uses, proximity to the intersection, and compliance with the Nampa Comprehensive Plan future land use designations. In July of 2026, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this request. So she described the surrounding areas, so I won't go into that. The future land use map is residential mixed use with 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre, which requires at least 5% commercial, which they have provided in the BN zone. A full traffic impact study is not triggered for this development. A turn lane warrant analysis was completed and shows the need for a westbound right turn lane on Cherry and Lindsay Creek. They will be required to install a 10-foot side path along Cherry Lane, and 11th Avenue North will require full improvements, which is a side path curb and gutter. There are utilities available to this property, and there is capacity to do so. The project will be required to construct those utilities to and through the property at the time of development. So the development agreement modification. According to code, we require a modification process when it exceeds the number of buildable lots that were originally requested or the items determined to be substantial changes according to the planning and zoning director. So he told us we had to. The proposed changes are provide new conditions of approval for this specific development and layout and change the concept plan from 16 commercial lots to five single-family detached units. excuse me, five single detached units, 63 single family attached units, and one commercial lot and seven common lots. This is the new concept versus the previous concept. This would be considered infill development because it reduces the consumption of land and resources. It fully utilizes existing facilities and services rather than extending costly services to outlying areas. It increases the housing supply. It renews the investment in the city. It provides energy and environmental savings. And infill development can limit sprawl. So the lot size is within the RD zone. For single-family lots, it's 6,000 to 10,000 square feet. They have proposed 9,181 to 10,000 square feet. For a three-unit townhouse, it's 9,000 to 15,000 square feet. They have proposed 9,479 for the base lot that would be divided into three units. For a four unit townhouse, it's 12,000 to 18,000 square feet. They have proposed 12,000 to 14,540 square feet as a base lot that would be divided into four units. Lot compatibility is not required in an RD zoning district, but they have provided single family lots on the west side that are larger, which are the 9,181 square feet to 10,000 square foot lots to buffer those county lots. The proposed density is 5.42 dwelling units per acre, and the commercial area is proposed at 6%. They're only required to have five, so they've gone a little bit bigger. They are required to have 15% open space. This project provides 2.32 acres, which is 18.5% qualified open space. There are three criteria needed to be met when determining the appropriateness of a zoning request. The proposed map amendment is or would be in harmony with the city's currently adopted comprehensive plan. The proposed map amendment is or would provide a proposed set of uses that would be reasonably compatible with the existing adjoining property uses. And the proposed zoning map amendment is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary because it will make use of existing public services and provide frontage improvements. So the correspondence that was received, we did get a letter from Mark Bottles Real Estate. They have an interest in commercial property and they said they are supportive of the proposal because it is appropriately placed in a neighborhood business area, with a neighborhood business area at the corner, while designating the larger balance of the property for residential development. Due to the location of the roundabout and the resulting access configuration, the property does not have an adequate access to support commercial development. The proposed zoning also better reflects the size of the property and the neighboring properties. Co-compliance stated that they have an open case for weeds. The engineering department offered general comments regarding right of way, frontage improvements, utility locations, side path installation, and their conditions of approval. And the fire district stated that this is located 1.4 miles from fire station number three with an approximate response time of three minutes. These are your conditions of approval as listed in your stock report. And these are your potential motions. I'll stand for any questions.

Mayor.

Questions, council?

Mayor?

Yes.

Christie, thank you. What is the timeline on that roundabout that's going in on that corner?

That's probably a Daniel question, huh?

Mayor, Councilman Jangula, that is not one that is within the current five-year plan. So we would be outside of that before we have a time for that specific intersection improvement.

Thanks, Daniel. So their road improvements, would that go in at the same time?

So they will do the road improvements that are logical. And if there are road improvements that they would be required to do that would potentially conflict with that future roundabout, we would work with them on a payment in lieu of construction for those road improvements once we get down to final design if they receive approval.

Thank you. Follow up for Christy. Christy, has staff been made aware of what they would like to put in for their commercial in that area?

Councilwoman Jangula, in the BN zone, I don't know if you remember the conversation that we had with the uses that are allowed in the BN zone versus the BC zone, they chose the BN zone for that particular reason. So neighborhood style businesses, a little coffee shop, a dentist, a chiropractor, a real estate office, something like that, but very neighborhood oriented.

Thank you.

Any further questions for Christy? All right, very good. Then we're going to have public testimony. I understand we do have a few people signed up, so I'll let Madam Clerk call out their names. Remember, you need to give your name and address, and you'll have three minutes.

Mr. Mayor, our first speaker is Marty Hooper.

Do you get an extra 30 seconds? I'll sneeze for you. Yeah, I'm going to go.

Thank you. Mayor, Councilman, my name is Marty Hooper. I reside at 1500 South McDermott Road, Napa, Idaho, 83687. And the presenter did such a great job, I really do not need to say anything other than please approve this. I'm old, I'm white haired, and I could really use attainable housing. I live in an RV. I have five great grandchildren that are very feral. They cannot come see me in a 34-foot RV. So I would love to have a place that I could have my family gather. And with that, great job presenting. Thank you.

She's one of the best. I agree with you. Okay, next please.

Our next speaker is Margie Potter.

I think Margie's at every council meeting, I tell you. What a passionate citizen for you folks. Okay, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor. so I'll be a little longer than Marty.

Not much though.

You still have to give your name and address. Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. Margie Potter, 1811 North Cobbleway, and I've lived in Nampa for 36 years. And I'm here tonight to support Spring Shores Commons because Nampa desperately needs the kind of housing this project offers. Not another large apartment complex and not only expensive homes on one acre lots, but the missing middle in between. This issue became very personal for me recently because of a changing life circumstance. I came very close to having to sell my home, and I spent years paying for it. Even with the equity I would have received from the sale, I could not find another home in Nampa that I could realistically afford on one income. Fortunately, I was able to work out an agreement that allowed me to keep my home, but many people are not that fortunate. Divorce happens, spouses die, families lose an income, young adults work hard and save, but continue living with their parents into their 20s and 30s. Because the cost of a starter home keeps rising faster than they can save for a down payment. These are not people asking for luxury. They are the people who work at our grocery stores and mechanic shops. They are receptionists in our doctor's offices, first responders, nonprofit employees, and small business workers. They contribute to Nampa every day, but increasingly they cannot afford to live here. We often say Nampa should be a community where people can live, work, play, and worship. That becomes impossible when the people who work here must move farther away to find housing and eventually find jobs closer to where they can afford to live. There is a place in our community for apartments and there's place for large lot homes, but those cannot be our only choices. I do not personally know many local working families who can afford a new home on a one acre lot. We need smaller single-family homes and townhomes that give people a realistic path to ownership. Housing works like a ladder. When some can move from an apartment into a townhome or modest starter home, that apartment becomes available for someone else. But when the middle rungs are missing, everyone gets stuck. Spring Shorts Commons helps restore those missing rungs. It provides 68 single family and townhomes lots in a range of sizes near existing schools and infrastructure along with a small neighborhood commercial area. It offers variety ownership opportunities and a chance for ordinary working people to put down roots in Nampa. Please do not let fear of change prevent us from meeting a very real need. I respectfully ask you to approve the Spring Shorts Commons. Thank you for your time and for your service to our community. One last thing. I think you have Nancy Tuttle on there, and she couldn't be here. So I have her testimony, and I am about ready to hit send to email it to everybody. Mr. Tim and Rodney Ashby, if that's okay. I just wanted to make sure it was okay first, or should I wait?

Mr. Mayor, can you read it into the record?

I can read it, but I have to grab my phone, but I just didn't know if I should double dip. That's why I was asking.

If we can, Margie, you can go ahead and get your phone. If we can move on to the next public testimony, then we'll have it come back.

That would be Jenny Stice.

Hello, I'm Jenny Stice. I live at 7478 Alpine Drive, Napa, Idaho, 83687. I live right on that road right before this proposed zoning change. It's Latigo is the one that you would turn off on Cherry right before you hit 11th. So I live down there at the end of that lane. And I really appreciate this rezoning from a commercial business to more residential as it fits the space much better since we have multiple family homes. There's not a ton of commercial space there. And the only concerns really is just that cherry road. And I heard that there's going to be a roundabout there with 11th it sounds like because the traffic already is quite busy on that road and the road is very bumpy too. especially if you ever drive trailer down there um but i think the i love their idea of having those bigger unit lots on the back side that's up against my neighborhood the latigo drive um i think that fits very well with what's already there and um having the bigger units there flows really well into what is there before. And then the rest going that way will fit with the new developments that are back there. So just as someone who lives right next to it, I think that sounds really good. It's just the traffic concerns of making sure that the road can handle that, especially with the developments across the street as well happening. So I would ask that you guys take this all into consideration and I appreciate this time. Thank you.

Thanks. Thanks, Jenny. Margie, you're back on. Is she?

I'm changing hats now.

And you have her address there too?

Yes, I do. I have everything here. Also, she says, good evening, Mayor Bruner and council members. Nancy Tuttle, 4945 West CUNA Road, CUNA, Idaho. My name is Nancy Tuttle. I live on the very outskirts of Nampa, but technically I'm neither a Canyon County nor a Native County resident, and I am not currently a Nampa or a CUNA resident. However, the community I serve is Nampa, and it has been my community for many years. Nampa is my home. I used to live in town, and I used to have the privilege of voting for council members such as yourselves. I have worked in Nampa for more than 10 years with a nonprofit serving this community, and honestly, I would love to be called a Nampa resident again. I didn't move away because I stopped wanting to be here. I got priced out. Over the years, I have also had the opportunity to advocate before this council several times. I have asked for CDBG funding for a non-profit. I have advocated for people of Nampa, and most of all, I have fought for attainable housing for the Nampa workforce. So this issue is not only personal to me, but it is also something I have advocated professionally for many years. I hope someday I will be able to own a home in Nampa, but even being able to rent a small single-family home at a reasonable price would make a significant difference. When most of your income goes towards housing every month, it becomes very difficult to save enough to eventually buy a home. That is why I believe we need to look at housing differently. Not everybody needs the same kind of home, and not everybody who needs affordable housing wants to live in an apartment. Some people want a townhome, some want a smaller single family home, and some may need to rent for several years before they are ready to buy. We need enough choices so people can find housing that works for where they are in life. I'm also helping care for my elderly mother, so where I live and how easy I can get around are very important to me. I've personally relied on public transportation, and I understand how important it is for housing to be connected to the places people need to go. Reliable access to transportation, well, I'm not going to even go over that because that sounds like... testifying for something else. But when I look at Spring Shores, that is one of the things I appreciate about the project. It provides different housing choices along with walking paths, open space, and opportunity for services nearby. We talk about wanting people to work in Nampa, support our nonprofits, serve our community, and be part of this city, but those people also need a realistic opportunity to afford to live here. I have spent more than 10 years working here and served its residents, and I call Nampa home. I would like the opportunity to call it home again and someday be able to buy a home here. I hope you will prove spring shores and continue looking for

thoughtful ways to make room in nampa for the people who work here serve here and want to call this community home thank you nancy tuttle thank you for reading that for nancy margie i believe that's all it's signed up is there anyone else that wishes to speak on this uh hearing i'm looking around real quickly i'm not seeing it i'm not seeing anyone so we will go ahead and uh Do you have anything more to say, Sabrina? Okay, you don't. I like that. Okay. I'd make a motion to close public. Yeah, I just had a motion to close public hearing. Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay. All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Okay. Ready for discussion or I'm really ready for a motion. Mayor? Yes.

I move to approve the project as stated on the screen. Second.

Mayor?

Yes.

I'd like to make a statement. I happen to live in one of these subdivisions that was mentioned on the screen. And as much as I like Sabrina, I will tell you that from 11th Avenue to the Idaho Center Boulevard, two or three times a day is solid parking lot on Cherry Lane. And we are only able to get in and out of our subdivision by the grace of whoever is in line into our area because the traffic is so bad on Cherry Lane. and Cherry Lane is a horrible road. So I am very concerned about, and that's not, I know Crystal has it on her radar, it's gonna get fixed, I know. And I'm very grateful for that. But for five years before the roundabout goes in, I'm stuck in my subdivision waiting for somebody to be kind and let me out. So I'm not a vote for this one.

Mayor? Yes. I'm sitting conflicted once again with this project. Sabrina, you are exceptional, by the way. I think we all can say that. It's difficult to throw criticism because it's not at you, it's at the situation that the city of Nampa is facing currently. In previous council meetings, I've discussed mitigation fees needing to be a discussion, a full fiscal impact analysis needing to be done before we're able to move forward with more projects. And this project is no different for me in that opinion. The project is good. The price point's amazing and it shocks me, frankly. So that's why I'm conflicted. Because, and after reaching out to other council members and every other city in the valley, there's only one that really does it and it's EGLE. EGLE does a fiscal impact analysis on their projects to know what it's costing the city of Nampa to build these projects, how much it's costing them, Infrastructure across the board, whether it be streets, water, wastewater, et cetera. The impacts it'll actually have on traffic. So it's not only a traffic study, but it's the full impact of an area. Even at 63 units, I think it's warranted and it's necessary for us to know that. The impact fees are generous and I'm grateful for the nearly million dollars that that'll be generated from this. So a portion of that has been completed and done. But until we are able to receive the full picture of what it takes to build a Nampa and the costs it is to build a Nampa on the current taxpayer, I have a difficult time approving any project moving forward.

Okay. Any further discussion please? Mayor Bruner. Yes.

Yes. Thank you. I think the real issue here is, is are we above growth? Are we financing our growth? And the answer is yes, we are financing. And I think it's a density issue with me in this, in this subdivision, but not only this subdivision, but the North side of Nampa, that is an issue with me, services, water, irrigation, and police. That is a real issue. You just heard that we need a levy to employ more, more, uh, personnel for police. We can't even do that now. Traffic is an issue. And I want to see a traffic impact study on almost every one of these proposals, these projects, because it really does affect our neighbors to the north and throughout the city. So I'm not in favor of this at this time. Thank you.

Hey, legal, am I allowed to bring any other person up to discuss this in the audience? Yes. We've closed public hearing at this point. That's what I thought.

Would it be a staff member or somebody from the public? It'd be a staff person. That'd be okay. I can do a staff person? Yes.

Crystal, would you mind? I'm going to put you on the spot. Would you mind coming up to the mic, please? Daniel, I may need you also. Have comments? Okay. Okay, when I hear, it could be from any citizen, but I'm hearing from a councilwoman that she can't get out on her road. And I realize the growth, and this is a wonderful project. And so what, I personally, I think the other folks in most of them out here too, I need some answers. How are we gonna get to as far as if we're gonna keep putting in more subdivisions and so on. And this is one I would really like to see. How are we going to be able to, you know, as far as accommodate our current residents that are having those challenges. So I'm putting you on the spot.

Absolutely. For the record, Crystal Craig, Director of Transportation. Mayor, thank you for those comments and the opportunity to do some humble bragging about what the city is actually doing for this. Right now we are seeing artificially inflated traffic on Cherry because of the construction that's happening on U-Stick. With State Highway 16 coming in as quickly as it did, it is changing the face of transportation. for the entire Treasure Valley as well as for what Nampa is experiencing. It is projected to increase traffic on Eustick Road by 632%, which is an insurmountable number. So thankfully, Council has dedicated funding to start the widening of that project already. We received a $10 million strategic initiatives grant to start the widening on that. When that is completed, or even as it's widening, as State Highway 16 opens up in 27, traffic on Cherry will decrease. There's not going to be an off ramp onto Cherry. People are going to be getting off at Franklin, and they're going to be getting off at Ustick. So we've already widened Franklin Boulevard, or sorry, Franklin Road, the east-west one, not the north-south. And we're in the process of widening Eustick as well from the east, moving towards the west, so closest to State Highway 16. So Councilwoman Skagg, it's coming. Traffic will get better. Pavement condition is a current problem on Cherry, and we recognize that. There is a planned improvement that is a grant-funded project for maintenance, which we It's the first and only one that I think we have received since I've been here for about four years. We're planning to redo Cherry in between Franklin and 11th. So in front of this section in FY27. And then we're going to be doing some minor improvements at Cherry and 11th and do that 11th to Canada section in FY29 also through a grant. So there'll be some new pavements so the residents there can get in and out, at least without jarring your teeth around a little bit as a, used to grow, it opens up, and we'll get the traffic up there.

Councilwoman Skog, freedom may be coming.

I want it now.

We all want it now. I think I can't.

We all do.

Council President, did you have any questions for Crystal?

Well, not for Crystal. Okay, comment to legal. Thank you very much. So... I'VE HEARD THE COMMENTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS THAT THEY WILL NO LONGER BE SUPPORTING FUTURE PROJECTS BEFORE CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE OF NOT HAVING A FISCAL IMPACT STUDY. WHAT I NEED TO KNOW IS, DOES THAT MEAN THOSE ARE PREDETERMINED DECISIONS AND NOT WEIGHED OUT BASED ON THE APPLICATION AND THE PUBLIC HEARING? Are we treading into an area of law or confusion on the subject matter?

Mayor, do you want me to address that?

Please, if you would, please.

I understand the question very clearly as to intent That's for each council member to weigh in on what that opinion is. I'll tell you what the legal framework is in Idaho. Land use law and policy is, land use law is that you don't come in with a preconceived bias. That's an argument that somebody could make as an applicant that you didn't even hear me out. Like there was no chance, no opportunity. They can make that argument. Doesn't mean it's valid at all. They can make an argument for that. The nature of the application is really important here. This is, for this particular one, there is a rezone, there's a preliminary plat, there's a DA. They all kind of are subject to different standards. A rezone under land use law is kind of a hybrid. It has some legislative elements where you can bring in your policies, your land use vision, what you think is right for the city you represent. The preliminary plat is cut and dry. That is, you have certain standards, you must meet it. And the DA, as you know, is for negotiation, So yes, some policy can weigh in on a rezone like this, but there is evidence here in the record before you. A decision here can be challenged under LUPA, what's called a judicial review. It's an eligible type of application. And so the nature of the application is crucial. If this were a CUP, that would be one instance where it's cut and dry, that's quasi-judicial. There's no preconceived notion, you're locked into the record. Here it is a hybrid. That's how Idaho law is. It's a little squishy, but we do want, I would always advise tread carefully and come in and hear the application as is, because ultimately the applicant controls how they want to, uh, challenge a decision, right? If you put conditions on it that they know agree with are too onerous, they could challenge it. Or if there's a denial, just be prepared. Can you defend that legally? Um, But I understand the question here and to get direction. We do have a discussion this Thursday further about this with some of the growth impact and options that are available. That will be a continued discussion. But for here and now tonight, you are in a rezone world where there can be some policy that comes into your decision as well as what's been here presented on the record. And again, always would reiterate, take the application as it comes and give it a fair on a shake in your role here. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, Councilman.

I have a comment. Last time we discussed mitigation fees when Mayor Kling was still here, we had several robust discussions on that issue. And it was legal advised us at that time that they were not legal for us to do mitigation fees. So we're going to have another discussion about that on Thursday morning. If you guys are bored and want something interesting, I have you show up.

7 a.m., by the way.

But anyway, we also discussed at length about growth paying for growth. And to my knowledge and recollection, at that time, our chief financial officer determined that with sales tax, growth was paying for growth. I haven't heard anything to the contrary. So I'm curious about the numbers that other council members may have that growth isn't paying for growth. I haven't seen those. I would be, I would love to see those numbers and, um, or a CFO can weigh in on that as we go along. But do you, uh, do you want to hear from the CFO?

I would love to hear that.

Okay.

Thank you. Doug Racine. I wasn't expecting all these extras. I will, I will make a comment and, uh, I'm not gonna, but I did have, uh, a meeting with the fellow mayors about three weeks ago, Boise, CUNA, Caldwell, Meridian, and at least from a mayor's standpoint, they're looking at every, every growth is going to happen, but not one of them said growth was paying for growth from a mayor's standpoint. So I did not, I'm too new. I'm just mainly listening and learning. That's what I'm going to continue to do. So here we're going to learn from Doug.

Mayor, Councilor Reynolds. We've, Finance, in partnership with Planning and Zoning and Engineering, have been spending the last month and a half, two months, building a tool to help us analyze direct city impacts in terms of revenues and costs for each subdivision. We'll be presenting that template Thursday morning. It's set up to present a range, meaning it's very, if you know anything about financial forecasts, the further out you go, the more murky, cloudy they become. So we're limiting this to a 10-year cycle, which even that, after five years, is a bit of a stretch. But we will present the cost to the city. We're not going to... pick up things like school districts and other things, but this is the city direct costs. And what we're seeing preliminarily is it's a close thing when you factor in the impact fees, assuming you spend them in 10 years and you spend them back out. A lot of what we're seeing is there is a slight favorability in positive income coming into the city. But what we're gonna present is a range, meaning if the worst case scenario happens and the property valuations are the low end and our costs are the high end, what does that look like? And then we'll compare that to the best case scenario. If the property valuations are high and our city costs are lower, what does that look like? So you'll get a range of here's the low of what it could be and here's the high of where it could be. And the truth will be somewhere in the middle. And we can apply that to whatever we need to force the city to evaluate. But I believe it was primarily intended to be aimed at new annexations coming into the city of, say, more than 100 units. if needed, if requested, we could consider looking at additional presentations. And on top of that, we're doing a second analysis. It's not quite ready yet, but this is, the first analysis is more of a cash flow, how much cash is coming in and how much cash is going out. It takes today's value of money, it doesn't take into consideration the time value of money or the inflation impact. So we're preparing another one that's a net present value, an NPV type of a calculation that looks at the entirety of this city. What does the subdivision do? And that one we don't have quite ready yet, but that's coming. So we're going to have two sets of analyses for you. One that looks at just the cash flow, and one that looks at the net present value of the impact of the city today, discounted for the value of time. So stage one will happen Thursday, and the next one will be a month or so down the road. But it will help you, give you an idea of what the cash flow impact is to the city.

And Doug, I can't, can't thank you enough. There may be for just a further discussion, but, uh, citizens out here, this man and his analysis is saving us hundreds of thousands of dollars because you can't believe what a consultant would cost to try to figure the figures that he's doing. So I applaud him. Any other questions?

Yes. So as part of your metrics, um, Are we gonna have some economic impact data along with that as far as what it does for our economic impact?

What it will do, it will forecast revenues in terms of sales taxes, property taxes. It will forecast costs. It will... with coordination of engineering, determine where we have intersection impacts, i.e. additional street costs. It will factor in increased costs for police staffing and General Gov staffing. It will factor in the street costs of the chip seal that goes around, and then we'll have a column for a blank cost if we have something unique about a particular subdivision that would add additional funds into the system. And it will also be something we can kind of do live with you. If there are assumptions you want to be, let's say the growth assumption is 6%, you want it to be 4%. What does that look like in terms of the dollar values? It's something we have that capacity, and we're building it so we can kind of do it live on the spot with you and adjust some of the parameters. And that's the economic data we'll have.

Councilman Griffin. Thank you very much. I'll address one, and it's not direct at you, Doug, so you're fine for now. My comment would be, my statement seemed as if it was a blanket statement. I will continue to keep open-minded with applications and see what is within the record. Within this application, I did not see any fiscal impact analysis. SO THAT'S WHAT GIVES ME PAUSE. I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY STAFF OR THE COUNCIL WOULD CONSIDER, SIMILAR TO THE CITY OF EAGLE, THAT WE REQUIRE APPLICANTS, PART OF THEIR APPLICATION PROCESS, TO CONDUCT A FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS. THE CITY COULD DO A FULL HOLISTIC ONE FOR THE CITY OF NAMPA, BUT IT'S NOT REFINED DOWN TO PROJECT BY PROJECT. BUT APPLICANTS DO HAVE THAT ABILITY, AND IT'S BEEN SHOWN IN THE CITY OF EAGLE THAT THEY CAN pay and do that. So we have that data and numbers as well.

So this template is actually being designed that developers could use it.

Thank you. And I think that will be great and it will be helpful for me. For this application specifically, now focusing on the law, I'm concerned that 10-2-3.C.3 would not be met here in terms of interest of the public and reasonably necessary. Is this reasonably necessary at this time considering the factors of of traffic and infrastructure and needs of the city, I would say no. So for the record, that would be part of my region in 10-2-3.D.1, I feel has not also been met in terms of harmony with the goals and policies for this area specifically. So those would be my conclusions, not a bias and not any preconceived notions after hearing the proposed presentation.

Thank you, sir. Okay, a long time ago, we had a motion and a second. Are we ready to do a roll call? Okay, let's do it.

Skog? No. Gingula? I'm dedicating my vote to Marty Cooper and her grandkids, yes. Rodriguez?

No.

Griffin?

No.

Bills?

Yes.

Reynolds? Yes. Mr. Mayor, it's a tie.

I get to break the tie. Thank you, folks. I'm gonna from what crystal Craig came up here and gave me hope here. I realize it's not instant. Hope But I think it's gonna happen and for this attainable housing, which I think councilman Griffin also mentioned he was in shock and So I will be a yes Okay, we ready for a next one, huh Here we go. Sure. Sure. You bet. That'll be good. All right. We're doing a, this is a, this is six. Am I hearing myself? No one wants to hear me twice. My wife especially doesn't want to hear me talk.

We don't want to know what's going on in your head.

Okay, are we handing? Okay, council, are we ready to move on to 6-3?

Yes.

Okay, I'm just... Councilman Griffin? Councilman Griffin? Attention, please. Okay, thank you. I have no control over you, I know, so... Okay, action item, fiscal year 27, foregone property tax public hearing. And I believe this is going to be Mr. Racine again and also Mrs. Howard. Okay, thank you.

Mayor, councilors, this hearing is for the recovery of foregone property taxes. It is included in the budget, which we'll discuss in the next action item, next public hearing. The 1% use of foregone for the fiscal year 2027 amounts to $501,225,000, of which 100% is dedicated directly to public safety and their use of meeting their needs to the public and the city. And with that, I put it to you for the open for questions or other issues.

Mayor, I don't have a question, but just a comment.

I'm very much in favor of this just because we just got done talking about putting a levy on. And from a fiscally conservative standpoint, in my opinion, I feel like as council, we need to utilize all of the taxing capabilities that we have before we ask the public to create another taxing mechanism. So for me, I'm definitely in favor of this, knowing what we have coming forward in the levy. Thank you.

I think it's worthy of note, I should have added, that the rationale for this is not that we haven't looked other ways to fund this. We have in multiple ways. But some of the actions of our sister cities have put us in a position where we either take action or we risk losing the very well-developed police department process that we have now. And this is one step that will help that.

Okay, any other questions for Doug or... COMMENT, MAYOR? YES, YES, SIR. SO THE LEGISLATURE CHANGED THE TAX CODE FOR CITIES ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS, AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT HAS LIMITED THE COLLECTION OF PROPERTY TAX TO HELP FUND CITY. AND SO EACH CITY ACROSS THE STATE OF IDAHO IS EXPERIENCING CHALLENGES, AND NAMPA IS DEFINITELY AS WELL. So consequently, you know, we began discussions with our finance director several months ago asking for, we had a workshop on the foregone issue. We had a workshop on where we're headed financially, how we're going to handle the expenses in light of the cutbacks that are afforded to cities to operate. So consequently, From my side, Doug and his team, Leslie and others in the finance department have been working diligently the last several months to educate us and to provide information for us to understand what lies ahead. And I think this is one tool that the legislature has left in and therefore I BELIEVE WE NEED TO MAKE USE OF THIS TOOL. AND IT'S DIFFICULT BECAUSE WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE GOING BACK IN TIME AND GRABBING SOMETHING, BUT YET THIS IS A MECHANISM THAT'S BEEN IN IOWA CODE FOR SOME TIME. THE LEGISLATURE'S LEFT IT ALONE. IT SEEMS THE COMMENTS, THE SCUTTLEBUTT COMMENTS ARE THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD SOON SEE US USE UP FOREGONE THAN OTHER MEANS THAT THEY'VE TAKEN AWAY FROM US. I'm in favor of this, of taking the foregone, and I see the need greatly for us, as I've expressed in other times, but I wanted to clarify on this issue.

I would add that when they were originally crafting these two bills, a couple instances myself and Mayor Kling, then Mayor Kling, went to testify at the state legislature about our feelings on it, and the direct response to us about the passage of the two bills in question was, then you are directed to use foregone and look at an override if you need those additional funds. That was a direct response. I didn't want to not pass the bill. They wanted to force us down the path of using the foregone. That was their direct response to me.

Mr. Mayor? Yes, sir. Just a comment. Much like Councilwoman Jangula, I feel like this is a tool that we've been given that we need to take advantage of. And I feel strongly that we should do everything we can do as a council before we go ask the public for any more dollars. And so I had said publicly before that I would not vote for the police levy if we did not get the foregone. for the police. And so at our budget hearing, we did vote for that to go toward public safety. And that's why I could vote for the levy override as well. Unfortunately, we need both of them to make this work. And it's a position that the legislature has put us in. So when you guys go to the polls, please remember that who you're voting for.

Mayor Bruner. Yes. Yes. So I just want a clarification here, Doug. it says the purpose for the levy of the foregone taxes is for 1% 501,522 for general maintenance and operations on the second one or on the next line. It says, whereas the purpose for the levy of foregone taxes is to fund public safety. So, okay, that's, What do you got here?

That's kind of like a boilerplate language we put in. That's the typical language of this. The intent is 100%, and the actual application in the budget is 100% public safety. It hasn't gone anywhere else and won't go anywhere else.

Okay, that's what I would clarify.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. Any other questions for Doug or comments, please?

I have a comment. Please, Mayor. Yes. I want to challenge us as a council that instead of complaining about what we don't have in our budget from the legislature, that we be stewards of what we do have and not just take taxes because A tax is a tax is a tax. It is not a given. And to say that this is given to us is wrong. We are taking a tax, which is different than a levy because a levy is your choice as citizens that you want to give money for a specific thing, rather than me coming to you and saying, look, it's not very much, but I want your credit card because I think we need to put this money here. And at the same time, we want to spend money that we should be pulling back. Our job as legislators is safety and making sure you have good police, that you have good infrastructure, and that we are being good stewards of the money that we have, not the money that we can take. And so I would rather you as a council look at areas like we have been trying to pull back money that we are not responsible for and use that money for safety, for our police, for budgeting properly. Thank you.

Okay. Mr. Mayor. Yes. So I just want to respond a little bit to not, I take it however Chicago wants, I guess. But we're not complaining. We're just stating facts. And the facts are the facts that we're in a bind and the legislature put us there. And then we're $6.5 million back on new income from construction that we don't have. That makes up the $5 million levy for the police. And then foregone was also given to us by a vote of the people. They voted the legislature in there. The legislature voted for us to have it. So it is a tool that was given to us by the vote of the people.

Okay, I think we could have this debate all night, so I think we'll probably hold on that. So we're going to go ahead, and do you have any other remarks? No. Otherwise, we have public testimony. Is there anyone signed up, Madam Clerk?

No, Mr. Mayor.

Is there anyone interested? I do see a hand in the back. Okay, come on up with your name and address, please.

I wasn't prepared to speak during this public comment. My name is Tyler Kane. I live in, I'm a Caney County resident. I live in 216th Street, Wilder. You guys are asking for $500,000 whatever thousand dollars for public safety. But since 2022, the city has spent $6 million on a real time crime center, which is a room where police are just watching people drive around town. Okay.

Are you, are you speaking? Are you've installed? Yeah. Are you speaking to this issue? Speaking to this issue? Exactly.

Because you're, you're asking for another 600 or five, almost $600,000. Sorry. $501,000 is what you're asking for. Um, but you've spent, like I said, um, almost $6 million since 2022 on a real-time crime center to watch people drive around town. Of that, you're asking for $627,335 this year just to spend on a real-time crime center. And this comment pertains exactly to this. It pertains to the budget.

It's public safety. This is public safety. I'm cutting you off, okay, because you're not addressing the issue. I am.

This is public safety. This is a public safety issue. I'm explaining where you guys could get the money from.

You're not. That's it. When you're later, you may be able to address. Thank you. Okay. Here we go. Yeah, you want to speak, okay? Okay. Name and address, please.

Jill Hallows, 603 West Crimson Loop, Nampa. I just wondered if we do this foregone, if Doug could tell us what it would cost per housetop, per rooftop, per taxpayer for that, and in addition with the levy, if he has any figures that would help us as citizens kind of know what we're looking at. Thank you.

You're getting called on a few times tonight, and it's not going to stop, Doug.

That's absolutely fine. I don't have the exact number in front of me, but I can calculate very quickly. The foregone will probably cost an average taxable value home of $450,000, maybe $9 a year. give or take, it's in that plus or minus a dollar. On the levy that was brought up earlier, the $5 million levy would cost $130.39, I believe, for the average home of $450,000 taxable value. So you have a $575,000 home, you take off the $125,000 exemption, you get a $450,000 taxable value. That would be about $130 annually per home of that value.

Mayor? Yes. I have it written down from budget hearing. So for the foregone increase, it'll be $2.83 per 100,000.

Right, yeah. Which is, yeah, very close to the $9 I was estimating. All right.

All right. You want to just have a, I guess there's no front chairs. I was just going to have you sit up front somewhere. Okay, there is one. I couldn't see it. All right. So now, is there anyone else that wishes to speak on this issue, on the issue? No one else? Okay. We just need a motion to close public hearing, please.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any discussion and motion, please.

Mayor, I make a motion to approve use of foregone taxes.

Second. We have a motion and we have a second. Are we done with discussion? Roll call, please.

Gog. No. Gingula. Yes. Bills.

Yes.

Griffin. No. Reynolds.

Yes.

Rodriguez. Yes. All in favor to oppose? Motion carries.

Okay. We will have a 10-minute break. Oh, I'm sorry. Approve. APPROVED FOR THE USE OF WHAT WE NEED TO DO. OKAY. I DIDN'T SEE THE PRINT DOWN HERE AND IT'S LARGE PRINT SO THERE'S NO EXCUSE. AUTHORIZED MAYOR TO SIGN RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENT TO RECOVER THE CITY'S FORGONE PROPERTY TAX BALANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $501,000, I'M SORRY, $501,225 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027. Okay, roll call, please.

Skog. No. Chingula. Yes. Bills. Yes. Griffin. No. Rodriguez. Yes. Reynolds. Yes. Form favor to oppose motion carries.

Let's make this a seven minute, so we'll reconvene in quarter tail eight. Okay? Fifteen minutes till eight. We just... Okay, I'm calling out council people. Councilman Rodriguez, let's go. Okay, we'll see, we'll see. Thank you. Okay, all right. Where are they? You want to route?

Wait, what did he do?

Well, we will. I have a quorum here, so I'm just going to start. Hopefully they'll come. All right. We're reconvening. I actually gave you 13 minutes, so attention, please.

Okay, yeah, that's all right.

There it is.

All right, everyone stop having so much fun, right? It's 10 to eight. Okay, I will do that. Thank you. And Councilman Jangla is just running up here. She normally just leaps the counter, so this is good. Guess what? This is our last item on the agenda. I'm sure it'll be a quick one. And I'll send out a little reminder right before we start taking public testimony. I'll probably repeat some of what I already said. But let's go ahead and get started here. And we're going to start with a staff presentation. This is on fiscal year 2027 budget hearing. And we'll have Doug Racine. Leslie, are we gonna hear from you at all or just have your name on the packet here?

Leslie has done all this. I'm just the face.

I'm kind of getting a little tired of hearing from you.

So the council knows I did tell her next year this is hers.

By the way, I've had a request that council members please talk into your mics a little closer. I probably need that reminder too so everyone can hear. Okay. Yes, sir.

Mayor and council, I have been the chief financial officer here since 2019, early 2019. Every year, I would beg for community involvement Next year, I'm going to ask a little more softly. So let's go ahead. This is the process we're going to go through because we're expecting a lot of commentary. I'm going to give a very brief, very brief recap of the budget up front. We know there are two or three issues we want to address in more depth. That's the library, the VRT, and the... Cost for our pet care services the West Valley health care. So after I very briefly introduced the budget and kind of tell you what's in there We'll go right to having Jared Tolman the director of the library to come up and explain how he would accomplish the savings that the council has asked him to and then after that we will go to have Mark Stoyer come up and along with VRT talk about VRT and And after that, we'll move on to the Valley pet care services for the city. And after they're all done, I will come back and recap the budget if any changes are made, and then we can go from there.

Doug, may I interrupt? I think there's maybe one other issue. There may be more, but one other issue that's going to be brought up. I believe there will be public testimony, and that will be regarding our cameras. And I would like Lieutenant Shepard to also be included in that.

Right, so on that issue... You tell me, maybe you already have that arranged. No, but if it's public testimony, it kind of takes place after my first round of budgetary because it's not a dollar value. Then the public testimony, then you can bring me back up for questions.

Then I can bring Lieutenant Shepard back up? Okay, thank you.

Okay, so the budget for FY27... The total budget as it stands right now is $293,449,759. On July 15th, we held a workshop. In that workshop, council directed the following changes to that original budget. We pulled out VRT for a total of $874,000, of which $471,000 was in general government and $402,000 was in streets. We took those monies, we put them into a contingency account. The budget dollars stayed the same, but the contingency account is one that finance controls the will of the council. We also made other changes. We pulled out the budget for AIC of $50,000, the Idaho Association of Cities. We pulled out an economic incentive of 150,000, travel and training from the city council budget was removed of $7,500, and parking lot from the library budget was removed of $12,000. All of these totals have been placed into one or other contingency across the city. So should we change budgets tonight? We cannot go up from the July 15th workshop. We can go back up to that original budget because we didn't really reduce it. We just moved the buckets. And at the end of the process, we will determine what our final budget is based on council's approvals and tonight's hearings. So with that being said, I think we should probably turn it over to Jared Tolman and have him come up and talk about his, is he here?

Yes, he's coming.

And I believe the savings projected were about, what, $183,000, that was the request? $183,000. $185,000. So I will let you go from there.

Mayor and council, thank you so much. So at the beginning of the budget cycle, it was kind of communicated to the library that as part of the request that we were bringing to council that we need to keep our budget, not exceed that budget, and so we did do that. diligently within our budget to identify savings to be able to move them to where we saw costs going up so that we could present to the council a zero increase budget. We've sent that in and as the COLAs were then adjusted to that we did see a $175,000 increase. Those are funds that I cannot control nor do I have and so the The budget you have here does highlight those areas that we saw an increase. We saw it in our staff COLAs between the staff and Percy and the insurance. We saw it in the IT. We saw it in our Insurance, which is iCrimp, we saw in facilities. The IT and facilities alone is over 100,000 of that increase. The other 50,000 is more of that COLA cost that library staff increased. So as you can see from the budget, we have gone through and cut significantly a lot of things to get to the requested amount that council did ask of us. And so if you bring your attention down to the bottom in the salaries, we looked at cutting a little over $93,000. We did that in reducing some full-time positions to a part-time position and changing some other vacant positions that we had to bring up those savings. What that does mean then is those responsibilities have to be allocated other places, which then has a cascading effects. It means that staff aren't able to be on the desk as much. And so we looked at having to reduce hours. So on a Friday, we looked at that is our lowest impact area. So if we were to cut hours, that's the day to do it. So we looked at cutting by two hours on Friday. As well as the programs, obviously we don't have as many reoccurring programs beyond story time, and so different programs would have to be cut throughout the year, and we would probably base that solely on the attendance. So the lowest attended programs, those would be the items that we'd cut. We looked at the collection, cutting that, that's cut by $20,000. So depending on what you're purchasing, whether that's an adult book or a children's book, really changes that dollar amount. So that change could be anywhere from 600 less items to over 1,500 less items, depending on what you're purchasing. And then in our operations, we looked at cutting it by over 71,000. That does leave us without the ability that if this past year our sound system broke, and that is a safety procedure, right? If there's an Amber Alert in the library, we need to be able to communicate to our staff and to the individuals that there's an Amber Alert maintain that we're keeping that child safe and they're not walking out the door with some stranger, right? And so options like that that break down, we would not have the funding to kind of find within our budget to resolve and take care of. So the cuts to the operation does leave us in a very minimal state that if anything goes wrong, we don't have that. We do know, for example, that the FCC is looking into the grant funding that we bring in for the internet. If they choose to cut that, that means that we will not be able to provide internet. There's no savings within the operations that we could then move and put towards that. All of this brings us to that total of 185,000. I will point out that the 12,000 still is in this, because we had to calculate that out of it. So that's why it's a little higher than the 175,000. This all comes in a time where, for the last two years, we've seen 11% increase in people utilizing the library. They're looking at trying to save, see where they can save in this economic hardship, utilize their taxpayer dollars, and utilize the resources of the library. And so that is how we got down to that number, if there's any questions on it.

Mayor? Yes, Councilman. Director Jarrett, can you explain to me why the FCC is investigating the library and potentially pulling funds for Wi-Fi?

They're not looking at the library specifically, they're looking at the grant that funds libraries across the country and the public schools for internet. The grant that they're specifically looking in provides about 90% of the overall cost to cities and public schools so that they can provide internet to those communities.

That's not dependent on anything that council does tonight. It's not contingent on maintaining a certain.

No, but if it were to happen, we have no funding to then move around to try and cover that.

Thank you. Any other questions? Yes.

Thank you for this breakdown. It's helpful. Can you, can you summarize it for me and just tell me what the impacts of the community are, what will be taken out that will impact citizens?

So it would be cutting programs that citizens have come to expect. It's cutting the amount of books that then come into the library. It's cutting access to the library, so hours of operation.

I got the two hours off on Friday. Which programs specifically will be in cut?

It really depends on the attendance to those programs. We'd go back and look at the attendance, and the lowest attended programs would be the ones that were cut, and they change throughout the year. So instead of giving you a long list of them, just understand that we'd look at attendance to them.

Can you explain the cutting of the books?

Yeah, so when you cut 20,000 out of collection, that just means you're not purchasing as many books. And so the cut could be anywhere from 600 to 1,500 books coming into the library. Mayor.

That makes sense, thank you.

Excuse me. Yes, Councilwoman.

Could you let me know, when you say cutting books, are you also including video games? Yes, that would be part of it. And how many video games do you have in the library?

I don't know that right off the top of my head. It is one of our smaller collections though. Very small, like just a drop in the bucket.

Okay, and then as far as the internet service, do you provide laptops or different computers for people to go in and use the internet and play games, whatever they want to do online?

So we do have computers in the library as well as wifi. That's all through that internet. People come in, they connect. The largest thing that we see from people coming in and utilizing computers at the library are checking their email, paying bills, printing off things that they need for different things. That is the majority. There's a small percentage of maybe you have a kid periodically come in and jump on and play a game. Normally their parent is there watching with them and says, okay, it's time to get off and take some home. And some of the value of that is that's a good incentive to then say, if we're gonna do this, we're also gonna check out a few books. So now that you're influencing them with that literacy aspect. Sure.

Yeah, and I'm all for the books. I don't like being represented that I want to get rid of the library or hurt the library in any way because I'm an avid reader. In fact, my name is on the sidewalk. We were providers for the building of it. But I am concerned about, I just wanted to know how the number of video games weighed out with comparison to being checked out from books. So just to be very careful with that because as far as I'm concerned, that's not education.

And I would say that 99% of all of our youth and adults that come in are obviously with an adult and so that adult is making that decision and we would encourage that those kind of decisions do stay with the caregiver or the parent on what am I okay with for my children.

Thank you for making that clear.

Yes, sir. Just to confirm that part of this cutback, if it were to get approved, does not affect or impact our LINCS agreement or our LINCS contract. We're still going to maintain that. We're still able to request circulation from other libraries if there's not an item. If we scale back our collection purchases, we still have the ability to potentially utilize the LINCS system.

Yeah, so LINCS's consortium still stays in. In... Just last year, we had over 95,000 items requested through that. If we were to cut that, we would probably see an increase to our operations by up to 70 to 80,000 off of what we currently pay. So if we pay around, I think, 58, 59,000, that cost would jump to 70 to 80 if we had to spend to cover the catalog and things that we then share with the rest of the consortium. So it is a cost savings.

Thank you, Mayor. Another follow-up. Do you have or does Leslie have any idea what the least utilized, I know it changes seasonally, the least utilized programs are that you are looking at cutting just for the sake of the public? I've received plenty of correspondence talking about story time, of which my wife attends on Wednesdays. So is story time on the chopping block? Should I go back to my district and say yes, it is, or is there basket weaving that might have lower attendance than children's story time?

I'm gonna call on Laura Abbott to come up and speak who oversees all of our programs and would have a better idea of specifically which ones are most likely.

Thank you. I know I have no power, but I did make the request. No kids or youth programs cut, okay?

Hello, I'm Laura Abbott, Public Services Manager at the Nampa Library. Thanks, Laura.

Speak real close to that mic.

Okay, is that better? Okay, I'm a little short. Yes, our children's programs are very well attended. I would say story time is not in jeopardy. we often have 80 plus people attending a single story time. We would look at other programs, not teen, but probably more of the adult programs that are less attended. Yeah, less attended. We have some programs that maybe take two staff members. We have some programs that maybe are higher in cost. So we would look at all that and make a determination. And it depends on the time of year that the program is. So it's hard to say which program.

Just off the top of your head, not that it is getting cut or isn't getting cut, what's a program that has two staffers? Or what's a high-cost program?

A high cost program is typically maybe an adult art program where we're buying art supplies. We often limit it to a certain number of patrons. We can't have unlimited come. So I think our art programs are more of the higher cost. Let's see, an example of a two-person program is our book club and trivia program. It takes two staff to run one to kind of run a book, more discussion, and one to run kind of like the trivia based on the monthly theme.

Would that program specifically potentially be able to have a volunteer group come together and still maintain that program. It just won't be staff focused or staff time dedicated.

Yeah, potentially. And we are looking into using more volunteers. We have a fit and fall proof program that staff have traditionally run. And we have amazing people in this community. And we have people who are being certified by Southwest District Health in order to teach this exercise program more for the senior population. I met with our Easter Seals volunteer and he will be presenting a really good quality writer's workshop. So we are looking into using more volunteers for our programs.

Thank you so much.

You're welcome. Have you ever attended story time?

I have not, but my wife does. I work during the day, but that 12 o'clock story time is a real hoot for her and my kids.

Yeah, we would love to have you.

I can't wait for retirement years, and I will attend. I've got a mortgage to pay for.

Maybe we can put on a Saturday one.

Yes.

So I have a few questions and start with a comment. This is the first time I've seen this document, so I'm a little confused. wondering why we just now see this. Council hasn't had a chance to look at this thing. This makes no sense to me why we wouldn't have time to study this out. But just looking at it from five minutes ago, I'll go through this, Jared, real quick. So on the proposed, the original proposed and the new proposed budget, library collection, 20,000 or 15,000 it says, but 20,000 it shows on the line item. Um, clothing allowance, $2,000. I just got struck. Is that correct?

Sorry.

The clothing allowance.

Yeah. So, um, this was something that I inherited as I came in. There was a clothing allowance that we do for our staff to put for uniforms. Right.

And then, um, repair and maintenance buildings, 3000 repair and maintenance equipment, a thousand dollars. I'm confused by that because, uh, this year all we've heard about is deferred maintenance and funding deferred maintenance and then we cut it out of our budget, makes no sense. So I'm not saying that you cut this, I'm just making comments here. Travel lodging conferences, travel meals, travel transportation, it's been zeroed out. Dues and membership, zeroed out. Parade America, zeroed out. Program materials and supplies, zeroed out. Bookmobile library collection, zeroed out. bookmobile program supplies zeroed out on the proposed. Uh, so this might be a question for Doug or for clay. Um, travel and training to me is important for all of our employees, including the library employees. Uh, what's in the mayor's office budget for travel and training. Um, Where I'm going with this is our council budget also got cut of $7,500. We use that for travel and training. We have in the past, if there was money left over, it was sitting in general fund. But if we're gonna go through there and we're gonna cut these travel and training and the things that go with that and the conferences about being a library. I don't go to the library a lot, my wife does, but I think it's a very important thing for us to have this. And like every other department in the city, They all have these line items. So if we're going to go through here and we're going to cut the library budget, why are we not going to cut their budgets as well for travel and training? That's my question for the chief of staff and for.

And Clay is coming up then probably to that, maybe to that, to that question, you may need to repeat and a previous question. Thank you.

Mayor and Council, for the record, Clay Long, Chief of Staff. To answer your first question on the mayor's office for training, we have 3,000 allocated or budgeted for the FY27, 5,000 for conferences, and 2,500 for travel lodging. For the other items that you brought up, I'll take the blame for why you didn't get this ahead of time. I met with Jared and the team. The library board approved this. It was my understanding we were bringing it back tonight to go over it with you guys, so that's why it wasn't in your packet ahead of time. For the items that were cut, one of the things that we talked about when we met with staff was trying to identify non-ongoing costs, so non-salaries, that could be looked at from other revenue sources that the library has, whether that be the foundations or Friends of the Library, including collections. So this was the response back from the council direction on working to maintain the FY26 budget. on the items you mentioned for the facility side of things on maintenance, that would be budgeted in the facility side if it's capital or deferred maintenance for the library, not within the budget itself for this one.

Questions, Councilman? Mayor. Let's see if Dale has any more before.

So the, Do other departments have a clothing allowance?

Many departments do, some do not. So what we've tried to do, and this was a discussion we had earlier, for a uniform specific, if there's a uniform they do, but some other departments that may not be fully funded from GenGov as well may have those, as opposed to those that would be supported by tax dollars.

Okay, just a last comment, Mayor. I'm not in favor of cutting the budget that was presented to us on the budget hearing day. It was a good budget that was given to us. I was assured that by our staff member, Leslie, it was a good budget. I don't understand if we're going to go in there and pick a budget apart on our budget, on our public hearing day, why we're picking apart one budget in particular over other budgets. So I don't really like this, getting this last minute. That's the first time it's ever happened. This is my fifth year on council. I'm a little shocked by this. And so I will not be in support of cutting their budget.

Okay, Councilwoman Jangla, and then we'll go to Councilman Rodriguez.

Clay, did you say that the library board's already approved this?

The library board approved this last Friday? Last Friday.

Okay, so then I'm confused what conversations or what meetings have happened since we were here during budget workshop and now? What conversations were had to get to this number?

So we put together three different budgets for the board. One cutting more staff, not touching the collection. for cutting more of the collection and almost no staff. As we worked through that with city representatives like Leslie and Clay, it came down to this one to present to the board. So we brought that to the board for them to review, to talk about. and they understood what council's request was. They understand that you do set the budget, there's not much they can do in that regard, so they took the budget that was presented to them and approved that to then come here tonight.

So, because you're the only, and that's fine, thank you for that, but you're the only budget section that has, it's doing this. So I'm just curious, did it come forward because it was council's request at the budget workshop? Is that the reason why?

That's correct. So at the council workshop, there was a motion made to cut the 185 to start with. Before the mayor cast his deciding vote, my recommendation was that we allow staff to go back and look at that instead of changing it to 2006 without discussion. So that's the work that's taken place. And then the commitment was that we would come back for this meeting with an updated amount that was reflective of that 2006 budget.

Okay. Thank you for the clarification.

Any clarification? I did break that tie vote. YES TO THE BUDGET, BUT THERE WAS GOING TO BE DISCUSSION ON HOW WE COULD FURTHER CUT. SO YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN RODRIGUEZ, PLEASE.

FOR DOUG AND CLAY AT THE SAME TIME, IF YOU WOULD, I ALSO DO NOT AGREE WITH CUTTING OF THE FUNDS FOR THE LIBRARY. HOWEVER, KNOWING THAT THE is if we need to cut $185,000, then we need to cut it. But if we can't, if we don't have to, then let's do not an alternative, which is in the upcoming 2027 amended budget, would we use from their fund balance? I don't want to do that. policy, but could we submit some kind of funds back to the library so they won't lose any kind of progress? So Clay, you want to handle that first?

So technically, Mayor, Councillor Rodriguez, the library has a little over $2 million in fund balance. We typically hang on to that fund balance for the library because if they needed a substantial repair to the building, that's probably what we would look to first to pay for that. Technically, you could take that fund balance, use it to fill this gap. That's within the council's authority to do so. But I think that the question is really, is it that critical of a cap that you need to A, refund it from something else, or B, will it degrade the city services so much that you want to fund it from the fund balance? That's council's decision to make. I know personally, my belief is that the library has had a a consistently tight budget. They don't have a lot of the excess or, not excess is wrong, they don't have growth opportunities in their budget. And when I allocate property, new property taxes to the it's based on covering essentially just the increase in wages and benefits and little else. So if they have other cost increases, they have to find ways to deal with that foundation or whatnot. So it's an option, but that's you or the council that can make that decision on how we fund it and what we do with it. I would not recommend pulling it from fund balance. We've had a replacement air conditioning system at the U Nichols Public Safety Building that was nearly a million dollars. That was one repair. So I would hesitate to use fund balance unless it was an emergent situation.

Yes, sir. So I guess one of the questions is, in this sense, two employees were cut. The ones that resigned and retired or whatever. And so now that only leaves about, what, $70,000 or so in the budget from

Well, the cut in labor was about $93,000, if I recall. It's $93,000.

So with $92,000 coming from the fund balance, any interest from that?

Yes, they get interest every year. Sorry to interrupt.

Councilman, can you turn on your microphone? I've got word that they can't hear you, and they want to.

Oh, sorry.

Councilman did not start over, though. Oh, gosh.

I even forgot what I said a minute ago. Yes.

Take 4% on 2 million and that will give you the average interest they're receiving.

Okay, and then, wow, that sounds a lot better, doesn't it? Yeah. But doesn't that make sense to continue the direction of the library that we wouldn't have to do that? We could use the interest and not even touch?

I don't know if you're asking the best person. I, too, am a bookaholic. I love everything books, and I have a hard time personally, not finance director, just personally wanting to make those cuts. If you talk about it financially, there are some times when you need to make those cuts, but they don't have a... Anything you cut out of the library will probably impact something.

Exactly I've got two comments and then a very quick observation or two questions and then an observation on the salary cutbacks this year or in previous years how many FTEs full-time employees have we had vacant for a long period of time and

We normally don't have vacancies very long. We either fill within and then it trickles down through or it just takes a month or however long it takes HR to process it. But we normally fill those pretty quickly.

So are the salary cutbacks from a current position that is filled or unfilled at this point?

They are from two positions that are currently unfilled. They just happened to happen as all of this was happening, so we utilized looking at them.

No one's getting fired over this at this point. It's a position that does not have somebody filling it. Can the board, the chairwoman Leslie, increase the out of city resident card fees to help recoup some of these dollars more than they may have already done in the last month or potentially next year to recoup a difference of the funds.

So because of the conversations that we've had that council has asked on this, we've talked with the other city or the other municipality libraries and their directors as per council's requests, kind of see could they increase theirs. From that discussion, we learned some things that we definitely want to adjust in our own. And so we are waiting for the budget to get set, recalculate what those are, and then come back to council with here are the new proposed amounts.

Do you have a ballpark or preliminary number?

So the proposed right now, before we go back and change it, depending on what the new budget is, I think it bumps it up to 78. Yeah, $78 to get a non-resident fee.

So if we have our 2,556 county residents renew, how much will we make from that increase?

We were calculated to increase by 14,000. Thank you.

And the comment that I wanted to make, after all that hard work that we had in July, and most of you, if not all of you, weren't there for it in July, we allocated $1,093,874 to be able to move to deferred maintenance. In that time, the Garrity pipeline exploded and it cost the city $2 million. So for all the work that we did as council members to try and ship away at the problems that we're having in the city, that all goes away like that. Now we have a contingency fund. I'm not saying that we're not able to pay our bills, but all that work and we can't even cover half the cost of one pipe going out in the city. That's one pipe. And in the last few months, and this isn't, sorry, Jared, it just happens to be on the topic. This is the budget entirely. This isn't for specifically this. We've had, three separate instances of pipes exploding in the city having to cover the cost because we have deferred maintenance issues. Now, whether Garrity's deferred maintenance strictly or not, you heard today a lot of factors went into that. But we aren't even covering the cost of that by 50%, even with the scale backs from every department. And that's why these conversations are happening. I would love to not cut any budget at all. It's uncomfortable for all of us as council members to cut our own budget or to cut anybody else's budget. I actually agree with councilman Reynolds that I think we should have across the board, scale backs on uniforms and scale backs. I don't think it should just be library. We have to be able to focus on the priorities of the city. And right now that's our infrastructure because it's failing left, right, and center. And all of you are aware of it now. And that's the difficulty that I think we're going to face tonight and next week and the week thereafter. And KTVB 7 is going to have a job for the rest of forever in the city of Nampa because we have deferred maintenance going out left, right, and center.

Thank you for promoting Kate at Channel 7. And Channel 2 is here.

We got Channel 6. Keith's in the back. No.

All right. I think only Channel 6 is actually located in Nampa. So anyway, here we go. Doug, you're back on. Leslie, you're still in this. Just holding the bench, huh?

Yes, sir. Okay. Just briefly to address some of the concerns the council's having on cutting costs. A former life of mine, I spent 20 years at a company where we specialized in cost cutting. and we focused on cost cutting. We lived for cost cutting, and in the end it didn't necessarily save the particular company. It's important, it's critical. You have to watch your costs. We watched the budget very closely this year. We reduced the degree of increase substantially. And there are some budgets probably that if the city deems their service is not of high enough value, you may have to follow the path of choosing what is the most and highest need to serve the city. If we go through all the uniforms and all the other pieces, you will save a degree of money which would help. Every degree helps. have an opportunity to, what I call, focus on cost avoidance. You avoid cost increases by controlling the costs. And to a large extent, we've been doing that for years. Councilor Sebastian is right, there is a significant amount of deferred maintenance. but I would encourage the council to be thoughtful and meditative and planning on it and address it in a prioritized fashion. This may or may not be the best venue for doing that at the council table, but it still needs to be paid attention to and addressed. That being, how do we control the growth of costs? I've done analysis. Our costs are growing faster than our revenues. And that's an issue we're going to have to address, and we address it every year. But for the moment now, let's move on with the rest of the budget.

Mayor, if I could, just one question. Just one simple. You promise? Promise. Okay. You said we have to be thoughtful in where we cut and the budgets that we propose. Is the budget that Jared's proposing tonight a thoughtful proposal? budget, in your opinion, because you've worked with them in preparing it.

In my opinion, the $185,000 proposed to cut probably does not deliver sustained savings to the library. They will cut an FTE, it will come back, and next year they'll need something more. If you want to make substantial cuts, you've got to find cuts that are sustainable, long-term, and efficient. Those cuts are one-off cuts that anybody could go through a budget for one year and cut out nearly everything in the budget that's operational and just go bare bones. It's not fun, it's not pleasant, but when you get tight, as sometimes we all are in our personal budgets, sometimes you have to do that. But the cuts we need to make, not the cuts, the focus we need to make going forward needs to be thoughtful and sustained on how we take the limited resources we have and apply them to the best effect. We are beginning to do that with this discussion now. I've been trying to bring it to you. The five-year capital plan that we brought forward last year that you have now, you can see what our five-year capital needs are. You didn't see that before. You need to know where we're going and what our needs are and then compare that to the resources we have and determine what is our priority. We know that infrastructure is a key priority. Cutting $185,000 is a drop in the hat compared to the recent parity break. So while it can help one thing, it's not going to fix the infrastructure problem. We need to be whole scale creative you can't, as the expression was in The Form of Life, you can't cut your way to prosperity. You can save critical money, and Councilman Reynolds talked about travel and training. I'll, generally I would, When I look at travel training, that's my first go-to for cuts, because almost anything can be survived one year if you don't do it. But if you look at, let's take finance department. I have maybe 12, $13,000 of training, maybe a little more, I don't recall exactly. But a lot of that training goes to my payroll department. There are payroll regulations that change yearly. There are requirements, new tax tables, new requirements. Look at the change. Every time we have a new president, we get new tax tables, new changes. If I don't keep up on those laws, we're going to have a problem with the city and the IRS will happily come and try and tax us and penalize us. So certain training elements are critical. Certain are not. And that's the same with every expense. One year, you could cut almost anything you wanted to. You might pay a short-term price, and you'd have to come back and figure out how to add it back into the future, but we're not in that mode right now where the financial world ends tomorrow. We have a horizon where we can begin to make critical long-term planning. So that's the problem we have as a council is because the state legislature and the government focuses on one-year budget, we tend not to allow ourselves that long-term view. And we need to stretch our view to a long-term perspective to compare what we have with what's coming in and figure out how we best meet the needs. And that's more work.

Doug, that's great advice. I think it's probably maybe even worth a workshop later on. Are we ready to move on to the next subject?

So next, thank you for pulling back on track, Mayor. We are now going to have Mark Storer come up and talk about VRT along with possibly some VRT support.

Mayor Brunner. I just, I wonder if we should pause at the moment and since we're talking about the library, would it be appropriate just to make a vote on it right now? We haven't had the public, we haven't had the public. Oh, that's right, that's right.

So here's the, I'm sorry, yeah. I was actually, I know we're not supposed to text any in the council, but I texted our city attorney about that issue, about how we address these from a technical standpoint. And I think that the best solution is to go through these processes and then what was your first solution to recommend the budget broken down by segments?

Yeah, there's two options that really are here. It's whatever one you want to do. First one would be you'd move to approve the budget as presented, subject to certain amendments. And that will play out as you see tonight. The other one would be you do sub motions, kind of like we do in July, or you approve kind of the uncontested matters, you know, just a blanket. and then you hold off those last ones till the end, and then at the end you package it all up.

So one of those two is the best option. It might be the sub-motions because I need direction from council, but you have to work in the public testimony.

Council, very quickly, do you have a preference on that, whether it's sub? Sub-motions. As a whole, sub-motions? Probably sub-motions. I've seen a lot of nods. Okay, next topic, please.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the City Council, Mark Stoyer, Senior Director of Development Services. I want to get this up on the screen here. I have a slide to share.

Take it out of the way from the light there. There we go. Thanks, Paul.

Thank you, Paul. What I wanted to do is present the council with a summary, if you will, of the VRT budget requests that have been presented to the city by Valley Regional Transit over the last three months or so. I'm going to start with the original budget request from VRT, which included maintaining fixed routes 40 and 42, as well as the on-demand service. And that came in at $863,000 approximately, basically in line with what we paid this current fiscal year in 2026. Elaine Clegg, CEO, who's with us tonight, presented that option to the city council at a special workshop about two or three months ago. And after presenting that she was directed by the city council to come back to the, to the council at a future date and present a more cost effective solution. She did just that at the budget workshop in July, she came back with a one fixed route 42. That's the local fixed route going up through downtown up 16th to 84, and also maintaining the on-demand service, which was an enhanced on-demand service. And that came in and, uh, just over $498,000. Um, and as you know, the city council at that time, uh, decided to eliminate all funding to Valley regional transit for services here in the city of Nampa. Since then, staff has worked with VRT and Elaine and her staff to come up with further reduced cost options on the lower part of the screen in front of you. The first is just maintaining on demand, so no fixed route 40 or 42, and this would be just over $302,000. I do want to make a note that beyond access and access, access would be eliminated. And those two services are transit services for our seniors and our disabled community. So basically the demand would stay the same for those services, but the services available to them would be reduced by 50%, 50%. So putting 50 pounds of potatoes in a 25 pound bag. And then we have fixed route 42, no on-demand, one fixed route at $283,000. This would maintain access and beyond access, so the senior and disabled transit services would be maintained. Also with this fixed route option, the federal grant for that pedestrian project that we talked about previously would also be retained. With just the on-demand service, that would not be retained. So those are the options for your consideration tonight. Elaine's here to answer any questions and I would be happy to answer questions for you as well. Council.

Mark. Mayor. Mark, can you explain that last new option to us again? You said it still entails senior services.

So the fixed route 42 would keep the beyond access and access as they are now today. Now those, those those options would be, would be strained because there's no on-demand, because some of those folks also use on-demand and so forth. But yes, the full beyond access and access would be retained.

Thank you. Mayor?

Yes.