Council - Special Meeting

We're done.

Check my watch clock for sure. All right, Councilwoman Skagg and Chief, we're ready to go? Okay. I'll let Councilwoman get up here, and then we'll get started. This is Clay's idea not to start till 8, so you can just give him a clap of the hands if you're not an early morning person. Anyway, this is workshops for September 17th. We have just two items on the agenda, so that's one reason for starting at 8. We feel like we can get through these fairly quickly. So I know it's not on the agenda, but I just, oh, it is on the agenda. Thank you. Invocation and prayer. Butch, spur of the moment, you don't have to sing this time. Okay. Unless you want to. Okay. And then the pledge. Let's stand, please.

Let's pray. Heavenly Father, we are so grateful for the opportunities that you give us to represent this great community, and we're so blessed to live in it. And we just ask that your presence is with us today. Help us to be mindful of all of the avenues and the things that need to be heard and decided upon, and help us to do it with great wisdom. And we look to you for that guidance. And so just be with each council person and the mayor and everyone involved here today. And I pray that your glory will shine in all of these things. And we give you the praise, honor, and glory in the precious name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Amen.

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, Butch.

Okay, Madam Clerk, look at who we have up here. This is great. Roll call, please. Thank you. Skog.

Skog. Yes. Jangula.

Here.

Bills. Yes. Reynolds. Here. Rodriguez. Here. Griffin.

Here. Hello. Okay, your voice is very profound this morning, so it's projecting. Thank you. So we will get started here, and we're going to start with our first new business item, which is a discussion item. It's proposed mobile food vendor license update. Mark, you're going to do this one? Okay. Okay.

All right, good morning, Mayor, members of the City Council. Mark Stoyer, Senior Director of Development Services, here to provide an update on mobile food vendors and a proposed new code.

Okay, so how did we get here?

So just a little quick recap. I know you've heard this a few times before. Let's go over it just really quickly once again. In 2023, Planning and Zoning brought forth an amendment to Title X, And that was essentially removing the temporary use permit from a requirement and adding requirements for a food truck court. So under the current code, you need a temporary use permit, a TUP, and a peddler's license from the city clerk's office. So the intent there was to simplify this and put everything into a one-stop shop. mobile food vendor license. The language for those Title 10 changes were approved by City Council, but an ordinance was never read into law. And the reason being is that they were waiting on the clerk's office to prepare a mobile food vendor license code and bring that forward to City Council, get it approved, and then read the ordinances together. 2024 the city clerk presented a new code section addressing mobile food vendors Providing for a one-stop shop single mobile food vendor license and that included a public hearing We didn't need to have a public hearing but we felt at that time that That would be good to get the feedback from the community on food trucks a large group of primarily food truck operators commented on that new code and the existing code and and were in great opposition to it. We also had a couple of restaurant brick-and-mortar establishments show up as well, and they were in support of the new code. And we also had some private property owners who actually leased their land-developed food trucks, and they were also opposed to the code at that time. So no vote was taken, and staff was directed to work with the food truck community for a more amenable code solution. So in April of 2026, we brought forth a workshop to discuss the current code enforcement challenges to amending that code and also what some of the neighboring cities were doing as well and seeked council direction. And that brings us to us this morning. We've been partially following the current code on a case by case basis to this point. We're not fully enforcing that code, but we were going out and reaching out to all the current mobile food vendors. making them get the TUP and also the peddler's license from the city clerk's office. So let's get right to the mobile food vendor code, the new code that's been put together. You know, this code is stringent. It does put a lot of requirements on mobile food trucks here in the city of Nampa. But the reason why it is is to assure that mobile food vendors are truly mobile and that they don't mimic or resemble outdoor eateries, right? Outdoor eatery, if you have a brick-and-mortar restaurant, for example, and you have outdoor seating with a a fence and tables and seats and a canopy and lights and all that, we don't want mobile food trucks, at least the way it's written right now, to mimic or resemble outdoor eateries. But it does provide an option to operate in a food truck court. So if you want these amenities, you want to be parked there overnight, you can be located in an approved mobile food truck court, and then you can enjoy these benefits. So before we go on to the actual requirements that are in the new code, I wanted to kind of show you some of the current operations that are going on in the city right now. So here we have a mobile, Food Truck Court. This is on 12th and the south end of town. You have the trailer there in front of you. He has an additional trailer off to the left to process their food. There's a canopy there to the left also with some seats and tables as well. And then we have signs in the landscape area right there in front there alongside the sidewalk. So this mobile food truck operation would not be allowed under the new code, and it doesn't follow the current code as well, right? We have signage next to the sidewalk. We have a canopy and tables, which kind of mimic outdoor eatery. And so we actually tried to enforce the tent and the tables, and we asked them to remove those, but they did not. They kind of found a workaround. They said, well, the tent and the tables, which are... black and yellow, just like their trailer, belonged to the church. And the church has gotten a permit from the fire department in order to have that canopy. And they did have a permit. So they said, we don't own that. So our people just go over there to eat their ice cream. And that was kind of a workaround to just leaving it there. So we didn't enforce that. Here we have a mobile food operation in the Chevron station on the east side of 12th. It is a mobile food truck. They do have tables and a canopy and ground cover off to the left and some signage out on the sidewalk. But if they were to eliminate that umbrella and those tables and the lights and the ground cover, then this would be a mobile food operation that would be allowed under the new code as long as they didn't park that truck there overnight. They would come in, they would serve their food, and then close up shop and then drive off. They could come back the next day if they chose. Here's another over by the battery shop over by the new El Pollo Loco. This establishment did pull a TUP permit out of Peddler's License. They worked with the city. They removed their table and the canopy that they had there. However, they do still have some signage out near the street, and they're on an unimproved lot. This lot is owned by the guy that owns the battery and alternator shop. but the lot itself is unimproved, it's on gravel, so this would not be allowed under the new code, and we'll talk a little bit more about that in a moment. So here we have kind of a peddler's cart, if you will. He brings that equipment and that trailer in front there parked. He comes there in the morning, he sets up his shop, his cart, and then you have some umbrellas there. I would say that for the most part, this would be allowed under the new code. He comes in, removes it at the end of the day. I would say only one umbrella might be allowed there, so he could be under that since he doesn't operate under the trailer. But for the most part, this would be allowed under the new code. Here we have another food truck that is truly mobile. These folks actually do come here in the morning, and they leave after they close up at night. The only thing is there, they have a canopy and table, so if you were to remove that and remove the sign out next to the sidewalk, they are truly mobile. This would be allowed under the new code and the current code as well. So here is here's a setup that was not allowed under the new code because it's in the public right-of-way This is over on Hawaii next to Starbucks and st. Alphonsus next to 12th What we did with these folks is we they came in and they wanted to pull a permit and they wanted to be Allowed to do this so we under a special event permit allowed them in the public right-of-way they Checked off what days they were going to come in and how many times a week, what operating hours they were going to have. And they basically went through a review with the city engineer for any traffic impacts. And we approved two special event permits for each one of these operations. And it's worked out quite well. They are truly mobile. They come in. And they leave, they set up a clean operation, and it's worked out really well over about the last four months or so. What we're doing in the new code is we're allowing a mobile food vendor license public right-of-way. And this would be allowed under the new code also as well and is truly mobile. Okay. So talking about the mobile food vendor license requirements, like I mentioned, they must either have a mobile food vendor private property license or a mobile food vendor public property license. They must have the necessary health department and fire district approval as applicable and must remain in compliance with applicable requirements of the code. So talking about some of the general creaky regulations in the code, restricted to just commercial and industrial zones, one mobile food vendor per lot, lot parcel must be occupied by a structure with a valid certificate of occupancy. So we're trying to keep food trucks from being on a gravel lot without any kind of improvements on the lot. And one way to assure that is that if there's a building with a certificate of occupancy, then most likely, in most cases, the lot will be improved with asphalt, curb and gutter and so forth. So that will be a requirement in the new code. You can operate in a residential zone if there's an HOA and the HOA approves it. There's general requirements in the code for traffic safety, cleanliness, waste disposal and location. Operating hours, and this is up for discussion, we have chosen 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. There are a lot of mobile food vendors that want to be open later than that. We'd like to keep the 9 a.m. in place, though, because this will assure that our code enforcement officers can go there in the morning and see if mobile food trucks have actually been there overnight. So that's the reason for starting at 9.

Mark, just a quick question on the 11 p.m. So do we have a noise ordinance for a certain time at night?

Yes, we do. 11 p.m. is. And so you're consistent with that? Yes. And so this all leads to no overnight parking and mobile food vending vehicles. And this is probably the largest restriction in the code. Some other key regulations, no sewer, water, or electrical connections. liability insurance requirement. And then again, so they don't resemble an outdoor eatery, we are not allowing tents, canopies, umbrellas, ground cover, table, chairs, benches, et cetera, within 300 feet of mobile food vendor vehicle. And this doesn't matter whether it's owned by the property owner or the food truck, nothing within 300 feet of the mobile food vending vehicle, food truck. No movable portable signs of any kind beyond the truck itself. Any signs must be attached to the mobile food vehicle and not to exceed a maximum height of 15 feet below the existing ground surface. And no restroom requirements. The reason being, again, if we're trying to target a truly mobile food vending vehicle that's truly mobile, there shouldn't be a need for restrooms. So no restroom requirements in this new code. And like I mentioned before, vendors that are operating in the public right-of-way, like on the side of the street, need a mobile food vendor public property license. They will need additional insurance requirements that name the city as an additional insured. And this covers sidewalk and street vending as well. Correction, revocation, appeal process, civil penalties is still under legal review and one of the reasons why I didn't actually include the new code in the packet. This will, when we come back in October, For approval of the new code, the entire code language will be in that packet for your review. So, some additional key regulations. If, like I mentioned before, if a mobile food truck wants to be more semi-permanent or permanent, that is, be there overnight, and have amenities such as tables and canopies and benches and so forth, restroom facilities, utility connections, site improvements, then they should come in and be located in a food truck court. So the next steps here were present Title V, Chapter 8 code language to City Council in October. If this is approved, then we will read the ordinances for the amended Title X from three years ago, and then also the new Title V. Then we would prepare and present a resolution to set the fees for City Council approval. In the new code, it makes references to the fees. The fees are actually not in the new code, but would be done so under a separate resolution for City Council's approval. Then we would prepare the mobile food vendor, private and public property license application materials, and we would work with the city clerk's office on that, and then set an effective date, a date that we would start enforcing the new code. That ends my presentation, and the team is here to answer any questions.

I have a couple of questions, Mark. First, does NAMPA have a legal food truck court? Other than the farmer's market, do we have a regular food court?

We do not.

Okay. And then I guess I just wonder why, I mean, I understand the permanence of the permanent canopies and that sort of thing, but the example you gave of the man with a couple of umbrellas, I mean, we've had 100-degree weather here and people are waiting for their food. If it's portable, why not a tent? What is the thinking behind that?

Because it's hard to kind of decipher exactly what we would allow and what we won't. There is discretion that's in the code and allows city staff to make certain decisions. In my opinion, if someone came in like that asking for a permit and they wanted to have an umbrella right in front of the truck or a stand-up A-frame with a menu on it, that would be allowed. But what we're trying to get away from is that picnic table with the canopy 10 feet away from the front of the food truck. So there's discretion there, and I believe that should be allowed.

And I have one more question. Out on Garrity, there's an area there near the airport where there's often food I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. And it's all gravel. Is that area in the city limits, or is that an enclave area there?

My staff can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe it is in the city limits, and that would not be allowed under the current code. Okay.

All right. Do you have any kind of teeth in that, too? Like, are you fining people? How do you plan to implement this to make this happen? Because obviously they get around it. or they blow it off and don't care.

So code enforcement is prepared to enforce this new code fully, including the overnight parking and folks that are on unimproved lots. We will have a process where we cite them, much like we do with other code enforcement issues in the city. There'll be a first notice, a second notice, and then a revocation of the permit. And then also the city attorney is looking at some civil penalties also as well if they don't comply. So we do intend to fully enforce this new code.

Also, sorry, so many questions. Has the city ever looked into a place for a more permanent food court to be established?

No, we have not. But the new code will allow us to do so.

Mark, if I may just follow up on the good questions. So as far as the city and Clay, maybe you can speak to this too. But Cody's not here. Is there... As far as like a Lakeview Park or somewhere like that, is there, would it be allowed to potentially have a food court where the city would lease, have a lease agreement? Amy's going to speak to that. Thanks. Or Roddy, you guys can arm wrestle if you want to, see who goes first, but go ahead.

I am just familiar with Orb Ramp Park. They created some little booth areas so that when they have this sound and sound bites event, that they were able to have the food courts in there. So they designed it, I believe, with that in mind. Is that right, Honey?

Yeah, that's correct. And I think it's really important that we distinguish between events and a food truck court. That's actually an event location. A food truck court could be managed by a city, but we would need to own the property and then lease, essentially, spaces for the food trucks. But a food truck court can also be a private organization that does this. And we've had interest in that in the past. So they purchase the property, they improve it, and then they rent out spaces for food trucks.

So if we put out that messaging, you know, private, I mean, just my personal opinion. I think that, to me, I don't like the city getting into a lot of different businesses and handling all that. to accommodate something like this, but if there's private entities and land that they think there can be a profit in that, I would encourage at least that messaging to be out there. Mayor?

Mayor, I just want to follow up. Sean shared in a work session on this topic and brought up what's been done in other jurisdictions, and the private sector builds and puts in the improvements and Organizes who's coming and going far as the food truck business side of it City needs to weigh into that I think the city's ordinances should be what is being presented and then our other ordinances Take care of somebody saying Proximity of certain venues that this would be a good move to do Not city shouldn't. Events, yes. I would concur.

Mayor.

Yes, Mayor.

Mark.

I'm sorry. We're going to let Councilwoman Jangle it and then you're on next with that projecting voice here. Just a minute.

Thank you. Mark, thank you for the update. Have you received any pushback from any existing vendors as far as not allowing any seating or covering?

Mayor, council member, there has been some pushback. We've been dealing the last two years basically allowing the food trucks as you see on a case-by-case basis, and each one of them is concerned with the new code that is before you. And we have told them, we've been transparent with them, that things are going to change, and when they do, we're going to fully enforce the new code. So, yeah, the answer is yes. Another clarification I want to make also is that this is designed to target mobile food trucks who are consistently in the city throughout the year. It's not to be confused with the farmer's market that has a special event permit and those food trucks operate under that special permit and would not operate under these.

Do their licenses have to be displayed?

Yes, they do.

And even on like the smaller little peddler ones where they... Okay. And then... We already answered the enclave properties, but if we do end up annexing, then those would fall underneath the city code at that time. Okay, and then lastly, what times do the neighboring municipalities have their food trucks end?

That's a great question. I know that Caldwell, I believe, allows them, it's after midnight, 1 a.m., I think, and I think Meridian is also maybe 2 a.m., but they're both after midnight.

And I would assume their cities also have noise ordinances as well that cut off at 11 or so.

Right. They're not the same as their noise ordinance. Allow them to be later to kind of cater to the partying crowd.

Okay. Thank you.

Are you going to follow? That's good. Thank you. Just a minute. Rodney's going to speak, Councilman, and then you're on.

All right, Mayor. Just to add just a little bit to what Mark said, what we found is mostly a lot of cities were operating the food truck courts, or excuse me, the food trucks operation hours were the same as the business that they were associated with. So a lot of times that was based on how late they were open. Sometimes that means that happens because of need for access to bathrooms, but other times it's just just so that it's operating at the same time. Councilman Griffin, you're on.

Thank you, and my comments likely won't come as a surprise. Rather than adding more restrictions to our code, I even think we need to scale back our current code, let alone this proposed. I think we need to separate public property from private property. If a food truck's operating in the public right-of-way, obviously we have a responsibility to protect traffic flow and access and visuals if people can't see the right-of-way. The only time I've seen, really in my mind, a real egregious... uh vendor was driving on carter over by uh the theater they were setting up every night right on the sidewalk blocking the whole sidewalk and i literally watched bikers go off the sidewalk onto the road and back up was their food good yes but it was an absolute uh disaster to have anybody set up right there. But when we cross on the privately owned, commercially zoned property, I think the presumption needs to really change and we need to shift our thinking. Just looking at Carrie Ann's, that was the very first example. Me and my family go there at least once a month, if not twice a month, because they have a great special buy one, get one free on Thursdays. And when you go there, I don't know which church it is. It's not the church of the Nazarene, but even on the maps, Carrie Ann's pops up more than the church does now because the church has allowed them to be there. And I think it's a great business that wants to open a brick and mortar in Tampa, but they're trying to establish themselves as something of value to the community. So if a property owner consents and the food truck complies with health or fire or traffic requirements, sanitation, I think those are areas where we can have some teeth. But beyond that, limiting seating, limiting canopies, I think we're just governments reaching too far. Those aren't inherently public safety problems if they're not in the public right away, if they're in somebody's business. parking lot. So I actually am going to be on the other side of this conversation of not how do we add to but scale back. And even looking at the July code, there's probably eight things that I would scale back and that's going to be the permanent that's going to be overnight removal, that's going to be the seating in the canopy prohibition, that's going to be the signage issue. So I'll stop there because I Might be in the minority on this one, but I am not in favor of how this is being proposed.

Quick question, then we'll further this discussion. Just from a time standpoint, Doug, how much time do you realistically feel like you're going to need? 10, 15 minutes. Okay, so we're good for at least another maybe 10 minutes here. Councilman President, then we'll go. The councilman on my left.

Thank you, Mayor. So in response to Councilman Griffin's comments, the affront for me and my experience is your comments are, yes, gee, why not just allow people to do things? If that be the case, then I'd sure like to see the building code thrown out. I'd like to see a few other codes thrown out. Because I'm tired as a purveyor of stuff to get hammered over and over by interpretation of a code. Why aren't we just all free for all? But we've learned food safety and other issues, why we have health departments who check, et cetera. But I think about the restaurant downtown that just recently opened. I'm sure they experience a great deal of grief and challenge to get that restaurant open. And I think every restaurant goes through that. And having they go through it and then they have somebody set up like what Blazenburgers has experienced for five, seven years to have a food truck set up permanently on the sidewalk and put their waste in the gutter and say, oh, well, that's good. We just need to allow that. That just doesn't That's just not consistent. So I can understand the free market idea and the innovation, but let's let the free market provide a place where these food vendors then can do what they do. And then that just means, okay, the private sector buys the land, gets the improvements put in, and leases out spaces to them. And people will enjoy their use. Then it's under a guided, consistent approach. PROGRAM.

NEW SPEAKER PEDROZA. NEW SPEAKER PEDROZA. NEW SPEAKER PEDROZA. NEW SPEAKER PEDROZA. NEW SPEAKER PEDROZA. NEW SPEAKER PEDROZA. NEW SPEAKER PEDROZA. NEW SPEAKER PEDROZA.

My comments, just kind of in line with Councilman Bill's comments, that these food trucks, I'm going to use the Thai food place, for example, next door to Fashion Floors there across from Idaho Tool on the boulevard. They have a deck built out there, a gazebo. I mean, it's like they're tied into the sewer. They're dumping into a clean-out. They have water hookup. It's permanent. And they have paid no impact fees, no building permit fees. They don't pay property taxes. And I have a problem with that where a lot of these business owners are paying upwards of $50,000 to $100,000 in permit fees, impact fees, and then jumping through all the hoops to meet the codes. which codes are there for public safety. That's the whole point of a code. They're all based on a what if, but they're there for public safety and we need those. That's why we have so many different code commissions and stuff to review these things. But I don't have a problem with food trucks on private property, but the hours and limitations of it should be as such to where we're not building permanent structures And we have our building zoning accordingly so we don't build a heavy industrial right next to your house. So those things are in place for a reason, and that's why the food trucks need to have this.

Councilman Reynolds, and then I think Councilman Rodriguez has comments. I just have a sense. Okay, Councilman Griffin.

Thank you.

Just to respond, and I'm not trying to die on this hill, but if we're proposing scalebacks on the building code requirements, Councilman Bills, I will be very supportive of that. I think that we have too many regulations. I think we have way too much government overreach. in our code. So please, if you feel that we are being inconsistent because of this, I will help you find areas of code that we can scale back and I'll bulldog it right there with you. And in an enforcement sense, If we're concerned about people dumping into the sewer pipes, we need enforcement. Because like I had said, this is a health safety sanitation issue. And it shouldn't just be the liability of the food truck, but the commercial property or the business that's allowing them to be there. If Carrie Ann's, I'm using them as an example, if Carrie Ann's on 12th is doing things that are creating a hazard in terms of sanitation or blocking line of sight in a right-of-way, Let's hold the business, the commercial business, the brick and mortar that they're allowing this food truck on accountable as well. Go after both because it should be the responsibility of the commercial business owner and the property owner for allowing them on to also be held accountable. And if we want to argue for free markets, then we should allow for a commercial business who has vacant space on their parking lot to utilize that space to be able to make ends meet. As this nonprofit church has done, I'm shocked. Actually, I applaud them for getting a permit for benches and canopies because it is utilized. It is a gathering place and it's benefiting our community by having those who want to be in the city as a brick and mortar. The Smoky Pickle is a great example of somebody that worked hard, paid a lot of money to get into a brick and mortar in downtown. And I'm grateful that they're here. I think there's a lot of ways of getting there. And it doesn't have to be a rundown dive. We can still hold people accountable in terms of sanitation and safety, but we should allow businesses to maximize their space. They are commercial property owners or property tax payers, and they're likely paying their commercial property taxes by the rents that they charge these food truck vendors for being on their property and taking on that risk and liability.

Thank you, Councilman Griffin. Councilman Rodriguez?

Thank you. As I listen to everybody speak, I actually formulated a couple of ideas here. A year ago, I went to all the Hispanic food trucks, and they were enjoying a great time, of course, because there's no regulations. And so now, if we're going to start doing this, the only impact I see is to our employees. Stricter regulations equal more impact on our code enforcement. So if we do that, it's going to take them away from all the other stuff that code enforcement does. Think about giving them some help. All the other regulations that sit here, I'm okay with. And I really am not going to argue about it because I think it's the best we can do. But there you go, Kent, trying to get you some help.

Kent, I'm going to, if you don't mind, if you may come up and then respond to Councilman Rodriguez regarding staffing challenges. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor and Council members. Kent Lovelace with... supervisor of code enforcement. Councilman Rodriguez, you are correct. As Mark and I spoke, I do have a concern about being able to do it. I feel that our team is strong enough that the first hour or two of the day, 8 to 9, 10 o'clock, depending if there's conversations that need to happen with vendors, we can manage it. As the city continues to grow... we might need to look into more staffing as things that require more inspections, more time spent, more detailed. But I think right now, I'd like to try it and then evaluate in a year. Thank you, sir.

We have five minutes before we'll go on to the next discussion item. So whoever's next?

Mayor, question for Kent really quick. Would it help you if we annexed in the enclave properties into the city? Would that help code enforcement?

It'd be more responsibility, but yet it would... The enclave properties... trip us up because there could be sitting right in the middle of town. So if it was a geographical boundary versus a parcel boundaries, it would make our job faster. But as different enclave properties are annexed in, it does equal more work. Thank you.

So quick follow-up with that, then we'll go.

So do we have any food trucks that we're currently aware that are on enclave properties?

One right across from Orr Brandt.

Okay, so we do.

I drive by it every day.

There is one. Okay, so those then, how they could get around this, then would be to negotiate with enclave property owners, correct? Okay.

So, Mayor, if we can, get that expedited onto our agenda to talk about that.

What aspect? Go ahead.

Go ahead.

We need to address as council and give direction to enclave properties and give planning and zoning direction if we're going to look at our boundary and look at all the enclaves. Enclaves are a real thread-the-needle approach of how people get by with not having to comply with things.

There's no question. So is that a discussion item for next month's forum? The council is looking for a nod. Yes. Okay.

Mayor.

Yes.

I just have a quick question, Mark. Just thinking about the smoky pickle and the food truck that has parked right outside of their doorway. Is there a way to restrict permits for that sort of thing where you're, I mean, unless the restaurant owner agrees that this is a good thing, How do you restrict that? I know down off of Karcher, there's a, it's like a bar restaurant kind of a thing, and there's a food truck right out in front of it. Is there a way to not allow permitting for that sort of thing, or what happened? How did that happen? Did the food truck have the permit before the restaurant opened, or was that just allowed after?

Honestly, I don't know those exact situations, and I don't know if Ken's familiar with those at all, but Again, the code will govern, and whatever the code says, if they're allowed to be on the public right-of-way in front of that restaurant. I do know in the public right-of-way, one of the requirements is that you have authorization for the adjacent business in order to be there. So that would be covered under the new code. I want to make a quick comment, too, before we wrap up, that Councilmember Rodriguez, you bring up a good point about the extra staff time. The resolution for the fees to be set for these mobile food trucks and the licenses that go with them will be a separate resolution, and that can be considered when you're setting those fees for those licenses that they cover some of the staff time to enforce.

So I think we're right in this mark. I thank you, my understanding, and this is not an action item, but as far as I understand, this will be brought forth in October for a vote from council.

First meeting in October is... On the 5th, October 5th, okay? for us to adopt and move this forward.

On that point, we need an analysis from the Canyon County Prosecutor's Office on it, so we will inform them of that time expectation for October 5th, but we do need their input where there is a misdemeanor criminal charge.

And this would be an action item, not a public hearing, correct?

Yeah, this would be for a code amendment because it's within Chapter 5. So just an action.

And Kent, thank you for you and your team, all that you do for the city of Napa. Appreciate it. Okay, we're going to move on to Doug. Doug, we have 19 and a half minutes.

Okay.

Okay. Wow, this one's nicer. It's a lot closer to my... I have to lean in as far.

I know, you just got shorter.

Yeah. No, no, no, no. Not yet. It's coming. Mayor and Council, this document that you have in front of you and on the screen is one that we've referenced several times, and it's built based on primarily data provided to us by Canyon County, and I've just modified the presentation portion a little bit. The intent here is to try and quantify what the impact of both House Bill 389 and House Bill 673 are on the amount of property tax we have or could have collected. So if we start at the very top of this screen with this very first line, the actual budget, this is what we've actually taken. Keep in mind when it says TY, that's tax year. The tax year is one year before the fiscal year. Tax year 22 is fiscal year 23 and so forth. Because they're a year behind us in how they measure things. So tax year 25 is fiscal year 26, the one we're in right now. So over the four years, we could have collected, we collected about $170 million in property taxes. That includes foregone. So this next line is without foregone. So you can see $170 million is what we collected. Without foregone, it was $166 million. The biggest chunk of that, if you recall, was a couple years ago when we approved the capital portion for the streets department. about $1.6 million, so that was about $2 million that year of that $1.4 million differential. Now, as I've looked at this, I've realized that I may have actually kind of understated the impact on 389. I want to skip down, because I've talked about this $6.9 million figure, and I'll come back to that. But if you look at the bottom of the screen, there's the two subtotals here, hypothetical budget, max budget with no 389. So can you kind of calculate what our max budget could have been if we took every bit of new construction, every bit of the 3%, and 389 was not part of the calculation? And the next line is the same type of a calculation, but then it factors in House Bill 673 on top of that. So when we look over time, we've collected $170 million in actuals. With House Bill 673 and 389, we could have collected $205 million. Now, there's good and bad there. The good portion is that it does have a cumulative impact annually where The residents aren't paying that, but this wasn't a tax increase. This was just the continuation of existing tax strategy. So that differential over four years cumulative is about $34 million. for 389 and 673, and it's about $33 million just for 389. So keep in mind that House Bill 389 started in tax year 22, and House Bill 673 came a year later in tax year 2023. So the net impact per year for House Bill 389 is about $5 million a year in collections we don't have. Otherwise, that's the amount of our override levy we're asking for. If you factor in the 673, the total is about $8.2 million. That means the 673 impact is an additional $3.1 million, $3.2 million, but it took place over one less year than 389. So it is as impactful, if not more impactful, than the 389 bill. So these are monies that we could have had in our coffers to meet the ongoing needs of public safety. It would really put us in a position where we wouldn't be having to ask the question, does growth pay for growth? And with this factored in, it does require us. And I have no problem with the process of looking at things and determining, does growth pay for growth? I think it's a very interesting financial calculation to me. But it puts us in a position where really we need to continue the process that finance is partnering with Mark and with Daniel and with Rodney. to determine an approach methodology whereby we can partner with both the developers, the building department, and finance to give council the best and most likely outcome for developments going forward so you can determine that. The 673 is going to be an interesting item we're factoring into that. We met with a in order to make the new tool. We're trying to come up I don't want to go into deep detail, but in order to make the new tool we're developing To remove biases we're bringing in just one third party to look at it and say okay Have we missed anything have we omitted up something should we add something in so we have an independent view on it? To make sure that what we're putting together as a final package gives you as counsel the best facts available, but the yes Mayor Brunner. Yes

Remind me what 673 is again. 673 is the ag bill.

So what it says is that... If you convert ag land to residential or commercial, it converts at the ag valuation as far as the city is concerned. So we all know that ag value is the lowest property valuation out there. It's great for the farmers when you're using it. They don't have to pay obscene property taxes on property they're not developing. But you might have ag land at a few thousand dollars an acre, whereas commercial property could be hundreds of thousands of dollars per acre. And that differential means that we receive less. When the individual that buys property that is taxed, they're taxed the same as everybody else. So that money comes into the system. It just doesn't make it to us.

Okay, thank you. Doug, just a quick follow-up on that. So when we met with our local legislators here two or three weeks ago, and I don't want to get anybody's hopes up, but I had somewhat of a sense, not so much on 389, but on 673, even from Representative Moyle, that there maybe needed to be some work done on that. Was that your sense? Yes.

I am hoping Rodney, I think it was Rodney, and Mark and I had a meeting with, what was the gentleman's name? I can't remember. He was from some outside agency that partnered with the state.

Yeah, I can't remember the name of the agency, but it's a research organization for the legislature.

Right, and the topic was all about 673.

So it is being at least discussed again.

I would have no idea. You'd have a better idea than I do on how they're talking about it, but I hope they do because I think a lot of our, Rodney can speak to it, but I think a lot of our annexation property that's coming in is ag land.

So Rodney, quick follow-up with you then. So whoever this individual or agency was, are they ones that we could potentially be communicating with as far as even to help write a bill and then we lobby for a legislator to carry it or multiple legislators? What would be your opinion to get some action on 673 is my question.

Mayor, the organization is the OPE. I don't even know what that stands for, but it's the research organization assigned to the legislature so that legislators can go to them. I don't know. They asked us for our feedback on... Any information that we felt needs to go back to the legislature. So I would assume that that is something that they would take to them. I think there's still lots of questions about this one. What does this exactly mean? Is it zoning? Is it land use designation in the county? Is it land use designation here in the city? I'm not really clear on that, so I think Doug is going to try to talk about that.

I sent this document to them, so the document you have, they have as well. I'll find them and follow up with them and see, because the only item of concern I had in my conversation is the individual we talked with was totally unfamiliar with the impact of 389 and 673. So this was new to them. So I want to follow up and make sure they understand the importance of it.

Okay, Clay, our Chief of Staff, then we'll go to the Council President. Mayor, Council, Claylong Chief of Staff, OPE is the Office of Performance Evaluation. And so that office is run by Legislative Services Office. So legislators have to give direction to them for them to research topics. They have a limited scope of how much and how frequent. So for it to go to that office, it's gotten enough consensus from a majority of folks that it's a topic worth exploring. As far as process for writing the legislation, that would be directed from a legislator to legislative services office, and then they produce it, whereas the citizens or at-large couldn't make that request. But I would also echo, it's a good indicator if OPE is looking into something that there's enough interest from legislators to draft and fix something.

So what does the city of Napa need to do to help this? come about?

I think it's continued conversation with legislators. As Doug has done with this work, it's pointing out what maybe some do not realize the impact. So I think those conversations that we continue to have is the best.

So there's been discussion, I think, and I was impressed with the legislators, at least at the end, because they said we need to do this more often. So I would also am advocating to include at least one or two of our county commissioners WHICH IS THIS AFFECTS THE COUNTY ALSO. SO HOPEFULLY I WAS SAYING THE 1ST OF NOVEMBER WE MAYBE NEED TO DO IT SOONER THAN LATER SO MAYBE EVEN IN OCTOBER WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT A DATE WHERE WE CAN INVITE OUR LEGISLATORS IN. OKAY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT. NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU.

I REALLY APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION TO THAT GROUP OF LEGISLATORS THAT CAME HERE AND SO As far as House Bill 673, the effect of it is one of two-fold. It either was to penalize cities for growing into the ag land, or it was to give commercial industrial properties a great tax break for putting up their buildings when they went forward. The effect is either, or both, so to speak. The motivation is unclear.

Well, if it was motivated to try and preserve ag land, I don't think it's doing what it's supposed to do. Because it doesn't affect the valuation of the seller. It doesn't affect the valuation of the buyer. It just affects how much tax collection we collect on it.

Correct. And so, therefore, it seems like it was put forward from a penalty or contributions come from the commercial sector. legislative side of life. And so whichever that took place, the effect is really inappropriate to give that kind of a break to the individual.

Well, and just to add on that just a little bit, before 389 passed, most of the city's joined together to compete analysis of the property tax impact. And we looked at this was Boise, Meridian, Nampa, Coswell, we all did this same evaluation. And we looked at the growth in the property taxes on residential compared to the growth in the property taxes on commercial. And the growth on the property tax residential was dramatically higher, probably 30% higher than the growth on the commercial because of legislation that took place in 2016. that actually saw, I use this example all the time, the Walmart down there on 12th and Greenhurst, their property taxes in 2016 were over $300,000, and now they're less than $200,000, probably about $160,000, $180,000. But our base didn't go down, so what happened to that decrease? It went into your homes and my home, and we all paid that on the residential side.

real shift from what the legislature in Idaho did 20, 30 years ago. The idea behind the homeowner's exemption was to give relief to the residential and to shift the tax to the commercial industrial. What's taken place in the last three to five years is the opposite.

Exactly.

The effect is, can't determine the motivation, but the effect is has to, we want to reduce budgets in the city, and we want the homeowners to have to pay more. Philosophy-wise, it's the opposite.

It should be the other way around, yeah.

Exactly. This is just really two bills that are just head-scratchers. Yeah.

And that's all the information I have on this, but at any time if the council wants to dig in more, please feel free to call me.

So my sarcasm, politicians are influenced by lobbyists and money?

Some are. And some have those motivations. Okay. Not all. Any name that starts with S we're okay with.

Yes, yes, yes, Councilman Griffin. We have about four minutes.

Just in terms of our fiscal impact tool that is being developed, are we going to be factoring in the highest potential loss that the city has been incurring or the lowest potential costs when we're calculating if growth is paying for itself? Doug's to respond. Thank you.

We're trying to capture guardrails that show the low to the high to create a midpoint, but it's almost impossible to get an exact number So we're looking at guardrails. What's the best case scenario? What's the worst case scenario and both will be presented?

But just uh Go ahead and follow up counseling driven with this new six million figure Has your opinion changed on whether growth is paying for itself?

Well, that's the intent of this tool. I think if 673 is out of the picture, then it's probably... I mean, keep in mind, the idea on this process is not to make money on the developments, right? The goal is to not to lose money and make sure that the growth development pays for the cost of the increase to the city. So if we define this as ending up in a very narrow range of maybe a subdivision over 10 years might generate a $50,000 positive or a $50,000 negative, you know, that's probably reasonable because we're not trying to make money off this. But if you factor in the 673, that's the next thing we're doing right now is trying to add in and determine when we present this, if a subdivision is converting from ag land, we need to factor in that impact on the analysis. In that case, 673 might actually say this one does not pencil because we're not going to get the money for it. But that's what you as counsel need to know. So the whole goal is I'm I know that I need a certain amount of growth to pay for bills, but I don't want that growth to come at a detriment to the financial stability of the city. So I'm trying to project myself as being neutral on this and just get the facts to help you make the right decision. That's my whole goal.

Thank you. Councilman Bills.

So keep in mind what Doug has given us is we haven't collected shy of $27 million over the last four years. So if we had 27 million in our budget over this last four years, could we have helped take care of some infrastructure issues?

Absolutely.

She's starting to get sarcastic, too. The thing about it is, you know, just on the commercial industrial side, that's the business community and the folks coming in. And so, again, I'm not trying to challenge motivation. I'm just looking at it from the standpoint the properties are being developed, the tractor supply coming into this valley, and the impact of that entity choosing this city to set up their distribution center and what they've put in but also the payroll the payroll that's going to take place in that facility and well and i i just i just look at it and say these these two bills uh have have had a great impact on things but not just napa I comment. No, it's everybody. Yeah. I mean, the mayor of Post Falls wrote about it.

But think of the announcements we saw yesterday coming from, my wife actually texted me about Schweitzer opening up an engineering facility out here with some 250 new employees, $150 million facility. Well, people are coming. Where are they going to live? You know, we're going to have growth. You can't avoid it. The question is, how do we manage it as effectively as possible?

Okay, council motion for adjournment.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you all.

Thank you, Mayor.