Nampa leaders and fire district agree to finish annexation transition; staff to draft lease language and 10‑year notice
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
Nampa officials and the Nampa Fire District spent a workshop Wednesday reviewing the final steps left from the district's 2021 annexation, focusing on a plan to replace the district's administrative offices, the effect of the urban renewal tax increment on both budgets and a 10‑year notice for the district's training facility.
Nampa officials and the Nampa Fire District spent a workshop Wednesday reviewing the final steps left from the district's 2021 annexation, focusing on a plan to replace the district's administrative offices, the effect of the urban renewal tax increment on both budgets and a 10‑year notice for the district's training facility.
Chief Kirk Carpenter said the district cannot afford to buy or lease appropriate administrative space with only the $880,000 the city has identified from police‑growth impact fees and the district's reserves. "There is nowhere in the city of Nampa at $880,000 that would purchase administrative space for our admin," Carpenter said. He told council the district has about $2,000,000 in its own impact fees earmarked for administration but that those funds can only be applied to square footage above 7,200, a constraint built into the way the district's CIP was coded.
The meeting produced three staff directions rather than formal votes. Council members and district trustees agreed the city should give a 10‑year notice for the training facility lease so both parties have a known horizon to plan. Council also asked city staff and the fire district to draft and present a lease/tenure agreement to the council that would protect the fire station at the airport and clarify a purchase path; the council instructed the staff team to return with specific contract language the council can consider. Finally, councilmembers and the district agreed to reconvene the previously formed working group (members of council, district trustees and staff) to bring a final, written package back to the council.
Why it matters: the district says paying lease costs out of limited reserves or reducing capital purchases to pay rent would delay stations and equipment purchases. Carpenter told the group replacing the training facility by saving alone is not feasible—estimates for a replacement were in the tens of millions—and a bond or levy would be required.
Discussion highlights and constraints
- Funding and the $880,000: City staff explained the $880,000 figure is the amount identified as available from the police‑growth impact fee bucket after adjustments for remodels and occupied square footage; it was developed from independent comp valuations and the council's previous CIP direction. Councilman David Bills and other council members asked staff to produce the calculations in detail for taxpayer transparency.
- Impact fee use limits: Carpenter and staff said the district can only apply its impact fees to administrative square footage above the 7,200 sq ft used in the CIP; the district is targeting 10,000–15,000 sq ft for a sustainable administrative building. Carpenter: "At a minimum, we would need 10,000 square feet to fit the size of team we have right now." The district reported roughly $2,000,000 in impact fees earmarked for administration.
- Market and cost realities: Fire staff said recent market searches show few viable existing buildings under about $2,000,000 without major rehabilitation; an example cited earlier in discussions (the Horton building) would have required approximately $3.4 million after remodels. Carpenter and others said many downtown or older multi‑tenant options lack parking or truck access and therefore are not operationally suitable.
- Urban renewal and sunset effects: Megan Conrad and city staff explained technical effects of the revenue allocation (TIF) area and new state law (House Bill 389). Conrad summarized: "At termination of a revenue allocation area ... the dollar doesn't flow" back the same way; rather, the mechanics change and districts' budget capacity is affected by how new value is placed on the tax rolls. City counsel advised staff would analyze whether urban renewal funds or a purchase/lease structure could legally participate in a remodel or acquisition without triggering voter approval requirements under Idaho Code (see authorities below).
Next steps and deliverables
- Staff direction: city staff (Clay and finance staff) and fire district staff will draft lease/tenure language for the airport station and prepare a package for council consideration that confirms the 10‑year notice for the training facility and presents financing options for administrative space, including impact‑fee use calculations and a market summary.
- Working group reconvened: the council and fire district agreed to reconvene the prior working group of council members, trustees and staff to review the draft language, firm up the numbers and return a final recommendation to the full council.
What was not decided
No formal council vote was taken at this workshop. Council members expressed differing views about whether the city should add discretionary funds beyond the identified $880,000; staff were asked to explore options and report back. Several council members stressed the city needs guardrails and written agreements so future leadership changes do not erode the intent of prior negotiations.
Quotes
"We are at a point where we gotta figure out what to do," Chief Kirk Carpenter said, summarizing the district's position that buying or building an administrative facility requires more resources than the identified amount provides.
"It is we, collectively, how do we meet the needs of our citizens?" Mayor Klink said, urging collaboration between council and the fire district.
"At termination of a revenue allocation area ... the dollar doesn't flow," Megan Conrad said when explaining how revenue allocation area (TIF) termination and recent state law changes affect taxing‑district budget capacity.
Ending
Council members and district trustees closed the workshop by directing staff to draft the specific lease and tenure language, produce the complete impact‑fee and valuation calculations that underlie the $880,000 figure, and reconvene the working group to return a final package to the council for consideration on a future meeting agenda. No formal ordinance, bond or other final financing action was taken at the workshop.
