Remarks by Sebastian Griffin
124 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 5 of 5
“I love that lawyerly answer. Moving forward, I think it would be worth having them in the actual development agreement rather than conditions of approval because I want a binding agreement. Something that's notarized, something that's signed and recorded might be of value.”
“Move to approve under suspension of rules. Okay, roll call.”
“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…”
“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…”
“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.”
“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?”
“Gotcha. I need clarification to help clarify the constituency. One of the lines in the budget book, though, it says to forecast general government revenues increasing about... All expenses increase about... Okay, 1.9 million...”
“Yep. Got it. The city forecast general government revenues increasing about 8.6% while expenses increase about 9.7% creating an estimated 1.9 million annual gap by 2030. How do we, what do we associate that shortfall? We can say three 89, but what is causing our expenses to outweigh our revenues?”
“Mayor if I could for a follow up. Yes. What is causing the actuals to be higher What are the costs associated to? That's what I'm trying. It all makes sense. I'm just trying to associate what is... That's what I'm saying.”
“Okay, short. I had seven things to talk about, but I'll only focus on one.”
“Late Mayor Hagerbom had mentioned 389 often, but also talked about House Bill 673 that was passed in 2021, which is the change in land designation. And he attributed it as a double discount. And he Frequently stated that 389 has an impact. Sure, it's 10%. But the land designation issue was closer to 15% to 22%. Is that factored into this model? Currently, no. I would appreciate it if it were.”
“Yes, councilman. A funding mechanism that wasn't agreed upon between the city and the county regarding impact fee shares. Both the county's failure to adopt the MidStar impact fee threatens the efficiency. plan capital improvements as a whole, jeopardizing the city of Middleton, adequate facilities, et cetera. Development is generating transportation demand, while a regional financial mechanism necessary to construct adequate roads does not necessarily do that, not funding mechanisms.”
“So it's kind of some leverage, it sounds like.”
“I want to touch on that after. CUNA does a school mitigation fee.”
“How are they doing that? And why aren't they getting sued?”
“It is tough, and as the mayor, it is high risk. When it bleeds into operational, is it as high risk when it's focused on capital?”
“because I personally would find it very difficult unless the words were others, give us this fee or you're being denied. I'd be amazed to hear that spoken. How is another neighboring city getting away with it as voluntary? to the city. We had a couple in the first three rows that I personally sat in their offices and said, would you help us here or there or somewhere else? And they have. So I look at this, as you previously discussed, oh, if you deny a project and they sue you, scorched earth, it burns up relationships. That analysis is pretty accurate. I think it is a mutual benefit to…”
“Since we've been able to gather developers in a room all together with us, you heard a lot of state legislature this, base law that. A lot of this stems because our hands have been tied as council members. Denials or requests or development agreements or anything of the sorts come up. I think most of us I Think all of us want to be good partners with you all Same way goes for Future elections if something's frustrating you I hope you'll stand with us to see some of these legislative changes happen and so we can combat issues like 389 and 673. Because when we end up doing our impact analysis,…”
“Mayor, just a heads up that we do not have audio coming through from the podium mic.”
“Thank you. I personally am having hesitation with the ordinance as a whole. However, I won't cut into it too deeply, but one specific area that I really don't like is 6-5-16, talking about commercial e-scooter programs. If a private entity or business is wanting to take on the liability of running an operation, I think that should be up to them and that the city should not have any sort of partnership or any sort of requirement of allowing them to do so. I might be the only one on that position, but that was one that stick out loudly to me. And I would like to see that removed. I have a…”
“Sorry to jump in, but I recommend if we're going to do this new version, let's eliminate some red tape for the free market and start cutting back. If we're going to add two, we can at least cut back from. I don't think the city of Nampa should have any say who operates a business. in the sense of bicycles. It's one thing to be running a hookah lounge in a neighborhood. It's another thing to allow people to use bicycles in the city of Napa or scooters or so on as a for-profit business. And you did a great job on this ordinance. I hope my comments don't feel ATTACKING WHAT YOUR WORK DID. YOU…”
“I'm just curious in the same vein that Councilman Bills was going down. Would you be opposed to turning lots 16 and 17 into a 1.6 acre lot? I know it's bigger than the other lots. However, it might not be too standout. It might be a premium lot in the neighborhood. I'm not sure. Obviously, more lots is... more profitability. But I'm just curious, rather than going below that one acre threshold, maybe meeting at that one and a half, two acre lot there.”
“Thank you. And just for a comment, I appreciate you bringing an acreage development back to Nampa. So thank you.”
“It's okay. It's difficult not being there in person. I understand. Thank you. Hey, I try. A lot better than a cowboy hat. I'm... having a significant amount of difficulty with this decision because I'm balancing two important issues in my mind It's exactly what I would want to see on the west side of Midway Road. Estates, large acre lots, bigger properties. We know that growth does not pay for itself on larger acre lots, but I've never argued that point of, oh, it pays for itself. I argue the point that Those individuals would probably classify or be classified as affluent individuals, and…”