My responsibility starts with the people Nampa already serves. Most development proposals raise three concerns for me: density, infrastructure, and funding. I want investment that strengthens our community, a budget we can justify, and a realistic plan to maintain the roads, pipes, and public services we depend on.
BUDGETS / START WITH THE DETAILS
Review what we actually use.
Before asking residents for more, I want to compare budgets with actual spending, question allocations that go unused year after year, and examine whether the same work can be done more efficiently. An unspent balance deserves an explanation: it may be committed to a project or a necessary reserve, rather than money available to redirect.
I oppose treating tax increases as the default answer. My priority is to scrutinize discretionary spending and fight for a credible plan to repair aging infrastructure while protecting essential services.
DEVELOPMENT / LOOK AT THE WHOLE COST
Investment that improves Nampa.
I support thoughtful projects that bring useful improvements and investment to an area. I ask whether roads, water, sewer, and public safety can handle the added demand—and who will pay for construction, operations, and maintenance over time.
Density needs context: the location, design, traffic, existing capacity, and enforceable improvements all matter. I want growth that works for surrounding neighborhoods, without leaving current residents to absorb avoidable costs or declining service.
FAIRNESS / CLEAR EXPECTATIONS
Developers deserve a fair process.
Developers are not the enemy. They build homes, create jobs, and invest in our community. They deserve clear rules, timely consideration, and decisions grounded in the applicable standards and evidence.
Residents deserve that same fairness. I want to work with applicants, staff, and legislators on a funding model that better matches growth with its costs. An approval should have a sound basis; so should a denial.
These are my current priorities and approach. Below, the recorded vote, outcome, supporting sources, and additional context are kept distinct so you can evaluate each decision for yourself.
That requires looking at state policy as well as individual projects. More development does not automatically give the City enough additional revenue to cover every new service obligation.
What HB 389 changed
The 2021 legislation changed how growth-related property-tax budget increases are calculated. The Idaho State Tax Commission describes the use of a preliminary levy rate, recognition of 90% of qualifying new-construction and annexation value, and an 8% budget-growth cap with exceptions. These are limits on taxing-district budget capacity, not an 8% cap on an individual homeowner’s bill.
The 2022 legislation removed increases in land value from a change in use from the new-construction roll used to expand taxing-district budgets. That distinction matters when land becomes development: the tax base and the City’s permitted budget growth are different calculations.
This does not mean a completed subdivision is permanently taxed as farmland.
Nampa’s FY2026 proposed budget attributed a combined annual property-tax revenue reduction of $5.8 million to HB 389 and HB 673. That is the City’s estimate in that budget document—not a new audit or a claim that every household’s bill rose by that amount.
My concern is the gap between new service demands and the funding available to meet them. Current residents can face the consequences through pressure on services, deferred maintenance, or proposals for additional revenue. I want to address that gap while still demanding disciplined spending and protecting taxpayers.
Historical explanation of the 2021 and 2022 legislation and the cited City estimate. Later legislation, exceptions, assessments, and local budget decisions also affect revenue. Development impact fees serve specific growth-related capital needs; they are not an unrestricted funding source for all existing maintenance or ongoing operations.
Minutes and reporting show the tradeoffs behind these decisions. Where a source records a discussion by the Council as a whole, it is identified that way.
JULY 15, 2026 / OFFICIAL MINUTES
Look at spending history.
The minutes discuss unused Council travel allocations and how frequently economic-development incentive funds were used. I moved to remove the $7,500 travel allocation and the $150,000 incentive allocation.
I seconded a proposal to reduce personal-equipment lines to the prior year’s levels. After staff clarified that these lines included safety equipment for new employees, including police, I voted against that reduction. The minutes record both steps.
BoiseDev reported my emphasis on public safety and replacing aging water and sewer pipes during transit discussions. It also reported my willingness to discuss a voter-approved infrastructure levy. My position requires weighing real needs, alternatives, and who makes the funding decision.
In coverage of Highline Subdivision, BoiseDev reported that I called for serious consideration of applications, encouraged infill rather than continued outward expansion, and suggested a growth-policy workshop. The article also described changes the applicant made to amenities after Council feedback.
In April 2025, reporting documented my request to explore mitigation fees following a discussion of growth-related service costs. The Council did not add such a fee to East Ranch. Later reporting described legal advice that led the City to stop pursuing the proposed fee approach. Asking whether growth pays its way must be followed by finding a lawful, workable solution.
I seconded and supported the motion to deny Lonestar’s annexation, RS4/RMH/BC zoning and master-planned-community request.
My explanation
My concern was whether the proposed density of development could be responsibly supported before existing infrastructure issues were resolved. I want projects that improve the area and address their impacts, with a clear account of what current residents would be expected to fund. This explanation is my account. The minutes also record arguments for advance planning, mixed uses and future commercial services, alongside concerns about traffic, density, public safety and infrastructure timing.
Outcome: Denial passed 4–2; Skaug, Jangula, Rodriguez and I voted yes. Bills and Reynolds voted no.
Applications ANN-00358-2026 and MPC-00006-2026. The minutes establish the motion and roll call; the personal explanation was supplied by Sebastian. Minutes supplied in the November 2 packet; their approval has not been independently verified.
I voted against tabling the non-exclusive public right-of-way license agreement for fiber installation.
Scope and context
The motion sent the agreement for legal review of possible clarifying language about damage claims. Council discussed complaints about installations, insurance and bonding. This was a vote on postponement, not approval of the license. The roll call is on page 6.
Outcome: Tabling passed 4–2; Skaug and I voted no.
I supported three separate purchases for the Cure in Place Pipe program: an $850,828.07 UV-curing truck, a $461,030.18 inspection truck, and a $180,350 cutter.
Scope and context
These are three authorizations totaling $1,492,208.25, not one combined motion. I seconded the inspection-truck purchase. Finance answered Council questions about funding and required budget amendments; each item was marked pending FY27 budget-amendment approval. See pages 9–10.
I voted to authorize the Mayor to sign the Clearwater Landscape and Irrigation agreement for a new West Park irrigation system, not to exceed $585,010.
Scope and context
The agenda description lists approvals in the FY25, FY26 and FY27 budgets and a pending FY27 budget amendment. This record concerns the installation agreement, not a new tax.
I supported authorization for the Mayor to sign the real-property exchange agreement with the Nampa Development Corporation for the Block 2 redevelopment project.
Scope and context
This was approval of a specific property-exchange agreement. The minutes do not describe a general grant of taxing authority or establish a dollar value for the exchange.
I seconded and supported the agreement for Northshore Estates to connect to City water and sewer and agree to annexation.
Scope and context
Engineering answered Council questions about building permits. The motion approved the hookup and annexation agreement; it was not a separate final-plat vote.
I moved to authorize an application to the Nampa Auditorium District for additional funding for the Civic Center auditorium remodel and upgrade.
Scope and context
The discussion addressed the original funding and fund balance. This authorized a funding application, not receipt of an award or an increase in taxes.
I moved approval of the Fine property annexation and RS8.5 zoning at 4302 E Locust Lane, with the staff-report conditions and findings.
Scope and context
The stated purpose was connection to the City sewer system. Discussion included existing residences and the condition concerning abandonment of the current well. Application ANN-00372-2026.
I voted against approval of Emberwood’s RS4 annexation and zoning and preliminary plat at 5712 Homedale Road.
Scope and context
The proposal included 46 detached residential lots and 12 common lots on about 8.98 acres. Discussion covered density, access, schools and police capacity. The applicant described it as infill; the Mayor opposed last-minute changes to a request that followed code. The motion and roll call are on page 14. Applications ANN-00367-2026 and SPP-00182-2026.
Outcome: Council tied 3–3; Mayor Bruner voted yes, and approval passed 4–3.
I moved approval of the comprehensive-plan map amendment, annexation and IL/BC zoning with a development agreement at 4300 E Victory Road and 0 N Picard Lane.
Scope and context
This reconsidered an earlier denial. The motion covered 15 acres of light-industrial zoning and 2.6 acres of community-business zoning, plus the map amendment. Testimony supported business uses near the airport; concerns included Mason Creek, airport compatibility and oversight of individually owned units. Applications CMA-00067-2026 and ANN-00352-2026. The motion did not expressly approve a preliminary plat.
I seconded and supported passage of Ordinance 4954 for RA zoning at 0 Midway Road and RS7 zoning at 0 Iowa Avenue.
Scope and context
Although the agenda called this a first reading, Council passed the ordinance under suspension of the reading rules. This was annexation and zoning legislation, not final-plat approval. Application ANN-00354-2026; ordinance text begins on page 19.
I voted to pass Ordinance 4955 for Highline Estates annexation, RS4/RS6 and BC zoning, and the development agreement.
Scope and context
Council adopted the ordinance under suspension of the reading rules. The ordinance concerns approximately 108.286 acres at 0 N Franklin Boulevard, with residential and community-business zoning. It is a later ordinance action, not a new count of the earlier application. Application ANN-00344-2025; ordinance text begins on page 20.
Outcome: Passed 4–2; Skaug and Rodriguez voted no.
I moved authorization of a sole-source notice for a three-year TeamDynamix contract, not to exceed $208,607.80, with signing and a $76,500 first-year payment after the 14-day notice period.
Scope and context
This was a substantive action at the special workshop. The October 5 request had been withdrawn for the sole-source process. The same workshop discussed enclave annexations but took no action on them.
I voted against authorizing the Mayor to sign the $283,193 Valley Regional Transit funding agreement.
Scope and context
This implemented funding already approved in the FY27 budget. It is separate from the August departmental funding vote and the overall budget adoption.
Outcome: Council tied 3–3; Mayor Bruner voted yes, and the agreement passed 4–3.
I seconded and supported authorization to generate purchase orders for vehicles and equipment approved in the FY27 capital budget, excluding Golf.
Scope and context
The total estimated amount was $4,882,253. Finance answered Council questions about police-unit replacement costs. This was authorization to order budgeted equipment, not a new overall budget vote.
I voted to pass Ordinance 4951 changing zoning to neighborhood business and two-family residential and modifying the Spring Shores development agreement.
Scope and context
This later ordinance vote differs from my August 17 no vote on the application package, which remains listed. Council discussed the dog-park condition and its relationship to the development agreement. The minutes establish my yes vote but do not explain why I supported this later action. Applications ZMA-00210-2026 and DAMO-00068-2026.
I supported annexation and light-industrial zoning at 0 and 22 N Happy Valley Road, with findings, conditions and an added eight-foot, non-chain-link fence on the east boundary.
Scope and context
Council weighed neighborhood opposition, compatibility, traffic and mitigation near the airport. Application ANN-00366-2026 returned as a reconsideration request on the November 2 agenda; that later disposition remains unverified.
Outcome: Council tied 3–3; Mayor Bruner voted yes, and approval passed 4–3.
I supported Resolution 26-2026 declaring intent to create LID 175 and setting the process for protests and a November 2 hearing.
Scope and context
This procedural resolution followed the September 21 LID motions, which I opposed as recorded separately. It set out the proposed district, assessment framework and hearing process; it did not itself establish the November 2 outcome.
I voted against passage of Ordinance 4946 regulating bicycles, e-bikes, e-motos and scooters.
Scope and context
The adopted motion removed Section 6-5-15 on bicycle, e-bike and e-scooter licenses. It would be inaccurate to describe my no vote as opposing an adopted licensing requirement. Police discussed accidents and enforcement; Council discussed registration and government-overreach concerns. Those remarks are summarized collectively, not attributed individually. See pages 7–8.
Outcome: Council tied 3–3; Mayor Bruner voted yes, and the ordinance passed 4–3.
I moved to deny the proposed authorization to create LID 175, then voted against the separate motion for a City-initiated LID covering the entire subdivision.
Scope and context
Residents raised costs, who benefited, and the HOA voting process; others described repeated lift-station failures and urgent sewage concerns. These were different motions. I later supported the October 5 resolution of intention and hearing process; the November 2 hearing outcome remains unverified.
Outcome: Denial passed 4–2. The City-initiated motion passed 5–1, with me voting no.
I moved approval of the second FY26 budget amendment and supported its adoption through Ordinance 4947.
Scope and context
Finance described this as a clean-up action. The ordinance appropriated additional monies to be received; the minutes do not establish that this vote imposed a new tax. Ordinance adoption is on page 11.
I supported denial of the RMH annexation and zoning request at 17245 and 17187 N Can Ada Road.
Scope and context
The motion cited dog-park/tot-lot placement, fire-lane ambiguity, proximity to adjacent development, single access and uncertain turn-lane timing. The applicant described a 312-unit project and stated its density complied with the comprehensive plan. Application ANN-00364-2026.
Outcome: Denial passed 4–2; Jangula and Reynolds voted no.
I supported denial of the annexation, RS4 zoning, duplex conditional-use permit, preliminary plat, planned unit development and requested exceptions at 1111 Southside Boulevard.
Scope and context
The motion cited a four-foot setback as not in the City’s and public’s best interest. The applicant emphasized affordability and neighbor discussions; testimony raised privacy, setbacks and traffic. Applications ANN-00360-2026, CUP-00408-2026, SPP-00179-2026 and PUD-00022-2026.
I supported the setback variance for the existing ADU and carport at 912 9th Avenue South.
Scope and context
The approval included conditions and findings. The carport variance expires upon transfer of title and must be recorded with the County Recorder. This was property-specific relief, not repeal of setback requirements. Application VAR-00228-2026.
I supported Ordinance 4948 revising accessory-dwelling-unit standards, starter-home subdivision standards, related definitions and building-code provisions.
Scope and context
The ordinance was adopted under suspension of the reading rules, with publication of its summary. The agenda identifies the changes as related to Idaho Code 67-6541. This record does not claim removal of all permitting or building-safety requirements.
I voted against Resolution 25-2026 changing the comprehensive-plan designation at 17403 Star Road to medium-density residential.
Scope and context
The resolution changed the City plan from commercial and the Highway 16 plan from high-density residential/neighborhood commercial to medium-density residential. This was a plan-map action, not approval of a final subdivision plat. Applications CMA-00068-2026 and CTA-00024-2026.
I supported Resolution 24-2026 removing comprehensive-plan guidance that developments of five or more dwellings per acre should be planned unit developments or master-planned communities.
Scope and context
This formal resolution followed the June 15 decision already listed. It removed planning guidance, not all density review or infrastructure requirements. Application CTA-00023-2026.
I pulled the Motorola master service agreement from consent for discussion and voted against approval.
Scope and context
Discussion addressed City data use, cloud storage and negotiation of the standard agreement. This was the citywide master agreement, not a Flock-camera vote. My separate yes vote on the camera-upgrade agreement is also listed.
I supported the separate $195,280 Motorola agreement for citywide security-camera upgrades.
Scope and context
Staff answered Council questions about the scope. This purchase was listed as approved in the FY26 budget. My no vote on the separate Motorola master agreement remains listed; the two motions had different scopes.
I seconded and supported adoption of the Utility Cost-of-Service Rate Study Final Report and a recommendation to retain the current tiered rate structure.
Scope and context
Council discussed flat versus tiered rates, methodology, business cost shares and next steps for proposed rates. This approved the report and recommendation, not a specific new rate increase.
Outcome: Passed 3–2; Reynolds and Rodriguez voted no.
I supported the $9,680 TishlerBise task order to develop a tiered residential impact-fee schedule based on home size.
Scope and context
This authorized work on the schedule structure. It did not itself adopt the resulting fee schedule or establish that all growth-related operating costs would be recovered.
I supported Resolution 23-2026 implementing airport hangar-fee increases.
Scope and context
The item described a 2.7% CPI increase for existing airport land leases and additional rental changes in the resolution and rate form. The 2.7% figure should not be applied to every rental category. This was a fee-increase vote, not a property-tax vote.
I made the motion to approve the ITD agreement and resolution for this road project, including an estimated $5,161,084 city match.
My approach to infrastructure
Maintaining a functioning transportation network takes investment as well as scrutiny. My standard is a defined project, an identified local commitment, and a clear public purpose. The minutes establish my motion and the estimated City match; they do not establish that all future maintenance is funded.
I seconded and supported the construction agreement for the Orr Pathway and sidewalk projects, with a city match capped at $659,895.
My approach to infrastructure
I support practical improvements to the network residents use today. A defined local funding limit makes a proposal easier to evaluate and track. The approval here concerns this construction agreement, not a general commitment to unlimited future spending.
I voted to place a permanent $5 million police and public-safety levy override on the November 3, 2026 ballot. The minutes also record my concern about including facilities in the ballot language.
Who made the final tax decision
I supported placing the question before voters, while raising concern about the inclusion of facilities in the language. Authorizing an election differs from imposing the levy. My opposition to the separate forgone-tax proposal is also included, so the distinction is clear.
I seconded and supported the resolution directing a specific funding allocation if voters approve the levy.
Clarity before collection
The resolution specified how revenue would be allocated if voters approved the levy. That conditional scope matters: voters still had the decision on the levy itself. This record should be read together with the election resolution and my comments about its language.
I made the successful motion approving setback, vehicle-maneuvering, and landscape-buffer variances for the childcare site, with the proposed conditions and findings.
I voted against the development-agreement modification, zoning amendment, and preliminary plat for Spring Shores Commons.
My explanation
My concerns were density, infrastructure costs, and the lack of a funding mechanism I believed would adequately cover the development’s demands. I was concerned that existing taxpayers would be left subsidizing the difference. Before approving additional density, I wanted a credible plan for the roads, utilities, and public services needed to support it.
Outcome: Council tied 3–3; Mayor Bruner voted yes, and the motion passed 4–3.
Applications ZMA-00210-2026, DAMO-00068-2026, and SPP-00177-2026. Explanation provided by Sebastian; the linked source documents the decision. I later voted yes on Ordinance 4951 on October 5, 2026; that distinct ordinance action is listed separately.
I voted against both the use of forgone property taxes and the resolution to recover $501,225 for FY2027 public-safety operations.
My approach to tax decisions
I want alternatives and spending priorities examined before the City collects additional property taxes. Supporting public safety does not require supporting every proposed funding mechanism. This no vote was separate from my vote to let residents decide the police levy at an election.
I voted against the proposed $3,571,599 library budget during the separate departmental vote.
My explanation
My concerns centered on spending oversight and the share of library costs borne by Nampa taxpayers. I questioned expenditures I considered unnecessary or insufficiently authorized, and I believed city taxpayers were subsidizing a disproportionate share of services for county users. I wanted stronger spending controls and a more equitable funding arrangement.
This departmental vote was separate from the overall FY2027 budget, which I subsequently supported. Explanation provided by Sebastian; the linked source documents the decision.
I voted against the $498,521 funding option combining fixed Route 42 and on-demand service.
My approach to service funding
Transportation options matter to residents who use them. I also want the cost and service model weighed against public safety, utilities, and aging infrastructure. My earlier support for an on-demand alternative is listed separately, rather than treating every transit vote as the same question.
Outcome: Council tied 3–3; Mayor Bruner voted no, and the motion failed 3–4.
I voted against the separate proposal to fund fixed Route 42 at $283,193.
Scope of this decision
This was a separate fixed-route funding choice after the combined-service motion failed. I opposed it; the Council approved it with the Mayor's tie-breaking vote. The final result is included here so residents can distinguish my position from the service funding the City actually adopted.
Outcome: Council tied 3–3; Mayor Bruner voted yes, and the motion passed 4–3.
After the separate library, transit, and animal-shelter motions, I voted for the overall FY2027 budget as presented.
Why the sequence matters
The record includes both my objections to individual spending and tax proposals and my support for the final overall budget. Those decisions should be evaluated together. Supporting the overall budget did not erase my earlier no votes on library, transit, or forgone-tax motions; each had a different scope.
I made the motion approving a 4% employee market adjustment (COLA) during the budget workshop.
My explanation
Nampa’s employees work hard, and their contributions can be overlooked. Retaining good people requires us to take their compensation seriously. I supported the market adjustment with that responsibility in mind. More broadly, I believe employee pay should reflect both competitive market rates and individual merit.
Sebastian’s explanation. This vote approved a 4% market adjustment during the budget workshop, not individual merit awards. The final budget was considered separately on August 17, 2026.
I voted against the $498,522 option for on-demand service together with fixed Route 42.
Read alongside the alternative
This was a vote on the combined-service package. I subsequently supported the lower-cost, on-demand-only alternative. Both votes are included so residents can see the options I considered, as well as the eventual workshop outcome.
I seconded and supported $302,521 for on-demand service without fixed Route 42.
The alternative I supported
I supported a $302,521 on-demand option after voting against the more expensive combined-service proposal. The sequence shows that I considered a different service model rather than only an all-or-nothing choice. This alternative failed, and the Council then considered removing VRT funding.
After the service options failed, I voted for the motion to remove VRT funding from the proposed budget.
Tradeoffs and the later decision
This motion followed the failure of both service alternatives, including the on-demand option I supported. Removing service funding has consequences for riders and must be weighed against other needs. This was a workshop decision; the final hearing later restored Route 42 funding over my no vote.
I made the motion to remove the allocation for Association of Idaho Cities membership.
My budget standard
Recurring memberships deserve a fresh review of their cost and value, just as other discretionary spending does. My successful motion removed this proposed allocation. The minutes establish the amount and vote; they do not identify a specific road or pipe project that received the money.
Outcome: Passed 5–0; Councilmember Reynolds was temporarily absent.
I made the motion to remove the proposed economic-development incentive allocation.
Context recorded in the minutes
Before my motion, staff discussed how often incentive money was used and the choice between maintaining an annual allocation or considering a specific request when needed. My motion removed the proposed $150,000 allocation. That is a budget decision, not proof that $150,000 in actual spending was avoided or transferred to a particular infrastructure project.
I made the motion to remove conference, travel, and mileage allocations from the City Council budget.
Context recorded in the minutes
The minutes specifically say these conference, travel, and mileage lines had not been used in the past. I moved to remove the $7,500 allocation. Reviewing our own Council budget is part of applying the same scrutiny we ask of other departments.
I voted against the library-budget motion, which included purchase-authorization review and removal of a $12,000 parking line item.
My explanation
I wanted stronger oversight of library spending and a fairer distribution of costs between city taxpayers and county users. I was concerned about expenditures I considered unnecessary or insufficiently authorized. Before supporting the proposed budget, I wanted clearer spending controls and closer examination of whether county contributions adequately reflected the services provided.
Outcome: Council tied 3–3; Mayor Bruner voted yes, and the motion passed 4–3.
Budget workshop decision; the final budget was considered separately on August 17, 2026. Explanation provided by Sebastian; the linked source documents the decision.
I voted against the $187,937,554 operating-budget proposal at the July workshop.
Read the full budget sequence
The workshop involved several motions and reconsideration before this final operating-budget proposal. My no vote here and my yes vote on the overall August budget are both shown. Scrutinizing the components and keeping the City operating are related responsibilities, but they are not identical votes.
I seconded the motion to reduce departmental personal-equipment lines to FY2026 levels, then voted against it after staff clarified that the lines also covered safety equipment for new employees, including Police.
Outcome: The reduction failed 1–5. Bills voted yes; I joined the other four councilmembers voting no.
Seconding a motion allows it to be considered; it is not the same as voting for its adoption. The minutes record the clarification and roll call, without a verbatim explanation of my final vote.
Growth & infrastructureYES
Removing an additional development-approval recommendation
I voted to remove comprehensive-plan language recommending that developments of five or more dwelling units per acre obtain Planned Unit Development or Master Planned Community approval.
Context for this decision
Staff explained that the existing language was guidance and that a PUD could remain an option. The change did not remove the Council’s discretion to evaluate density or other project impacts.
Outcome: Passed 3–2. Bills, Reynolds, and I voted yes.
I pulled the monthly cash report and two grant items from the consent agenda for discussion, then moved approval of each.
Context for this decision
Discussion covered apparent impact-fee reporting discrepancies, obligations associated with a police traffic-enforcement grant, and city obligations and design changes for the $500,000 Constitution Way–Juniper Street pathway-design grant.
The minutes identify me as pulling the items and moving approval. They describe the questions collectively as Council’s questions, rather than providing a speaker-by-speaker transcript.
I seconded and supported the successful motion appointing Darl Bruner. Earlier that meeting, I also supported a Bruner motion that tied, and voted against appointing Debbie Kling or Clay Long.
I voted against approving the annexation and master-planned-community request, then made and supported the motion to deny it.
Context for this decision
My denial motion cited failure to meet elements B and C of the zoning findings due to density concerns and the public interest regarding traffic and fire concerns. The broader hearing also addressed utilities, public safety, timing, and growth costs.
Outcome: Approval failed 2–4; my motion to deny passed 4–2.
I voted against the renewed motion to convey the Ford Idaho Center to the College of Western Idaho.
My explanation
I had concerns about the deed, documentation, and handling of the conveyance process that I believed should have been resolved before the process moved forward. Community members also urged us to retain the facility. I believed then, and still believe, that CWI would be a strong steward of the facilities. Ultimately, however, my responsibility was to represent the community rather than place my own preference ahead of the people I serve.
Outcome: Council split 3–3. Mayor Debbie Kling voted yes to break the tie, and the motion passed.
I voted against the 10% domestic-water rate increase and against both the proposed 10% and final 5% irrigation rate increases.
My explanation
Before approving the increases, I wanted us to continue examining the costs associated with our highest water users and whether those costs were being shared equitably. I favored a closer look at usage and demand on the system, rather than relying on broad rate increases without fully exploring how the burden could be distributed more fairly.
Outcome: The domestic-water increase passed 4–3. The 10% irrigation proposal failed 2–4; the final 5% increase and implementing resolution each passed 5–1, with me voting no.
Renewed declaration that the facility was underutilized and scheduling a December 1 conveyance hearing. This procedural motion was separate from the final conveyance vote.
Outcome: Council split 3–3. Mayor Kling broke the tie in favor.
Initial motion to convey the Idaho Center to the College of Western Idaho. My later votes differed; all three decisions are included here to show the sequence.
My explanation
I supported the initial conveyance because I believed CWI would be a strong steward of the facilities. My later opposition reflected concerns about the deed, documentation, and process, along with community feedback favoring continued City ownership. My confidence in CWI did not remove my responsibility to consider those concerns.
I voted against the FY2026 budget and its adopting ordinance.
My budget standard
I want annual allocations tested against actual use, with unused discretionary amounts examined before tax increases and a clearer focus on aging infrastructure. A vote on an entire budget is different from a vote on a single service. This no vote should not be read as opposition to every department or employee funded by it.
Outcome: Both the budget motion and Ordinance 4885 passed 5–1.
I voted against recovering $468,023 in forgone property taxes for FY2026 operations.
My approach to tax decisions
Additional taxing authority should not be used simply because it is available. My priority is to review actual spending, recurring allocations, and essential needs before asking residents to contribute more. The minutes verify this tax-recovery vote; this paragraph explains my current budget approach.
I voted against the annexation and zoning request. The minutes record that I considered the design good for its location but the timing premature without appropriate funding mechanisms.
Reasoning recorded in the minutes
This is a concrete distinction between a project's design and the City's readiness to serve it. I recognized that the design fit the location, but said the timing was premature without appropriate funding mechanisms. Thoughtful growth requires considering both the proposal and the public-service costs that accompany it.
I voted against increasing City Council compensation through Ordinance 4879.
My explanation recorded in the minutes
Although I felt the increase was warranted, I was uncomfortable voting on our own compensation because it felt self-serving. The minutes record that explanation after the vote.
Outcome: Passed 4–3 after Mayor Debbie Kling broke the council’s 3–3 tie in favor.
I cast the only no vote on Ordinance 4880, establishing licensing, inspection, and fee requirements for public and commercial swimming pools.
My explanation
I opposed the ordinance because I believed it expanded government regulation and intrusion into the private sector. My concern was particularly strong where those requirements reached privately owned property.
Sebastian’s explanation; the minutes verify the vote. Ordinance 4880 addressed public and commercial swimming pools, with discussion of HOA-owned pools, and stated a public-health and safety purpose.
Growth & infrastructureNO
Millwood Pines — infrastructure funding before approval
I voted against the annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat for Millwood Pines at 7161 Cherry Lane.
Context for this decision
The minutes record that I recognized the need for infill projects but would not support this proposal without a proper funding mechanism for needed infrastructure. My concern was the City’s ability to serve growth responsibly.
I voted against the Murphy Development proposal on Nampa’s northeastern edge. Reporting describes my concern that the city needed to be better prepared for the pace of growth.
My approach to development timing
The issue is the City's readiness for the scale and pace of new demand. I want a credible assessment of roads, utilities, and public safety before adding commitments. The reporting describes my preparation concerns; it should not be read as a finding that every higher-density project is unsuitable.
Outcome: Council tied 3–3; Mayor Kling voted yes to approve the project.
I voted against the motion denying the Warehouse Nightclub’s new alcohol license.
My explanation
I supported a business seeking to offer activities and a gathering place for people I believed were underserved in Nampa. In my view, denying the license would unnecessarily restrict its opportunity to compete in the free market. I also believed the applicants were acting in good faith by filing what they understood to be the proper application, and I was concerned they were being penalized retroactively.
Outcome: The recorded denial vote passed 5–1, with me voting no.
Sebastian’s explanation; the minutes verify the vote. The denial motion cited the restaurant requirement, including the 60% food-sales standard and grandfathering limits. The license was denied. After the vote, Haverfield stated that he misunderstood the dates and motion and would have voted no; the recorded result remains 5–1.
My concern is whether planned density can be supported by infrastructure and services without placing unreasonable pressure on existing neighborhoods. I want growth policies to set understandable expectations before individual applications arrive. The vote and project-specific reason here remain identified as a campaign account pending a linked official record.
Scott Kido’s project stood out to me as a model of thoughtful development. I valued its approach to protecting the wildlife refuge, preserving farmland and open space, and offering larger lots within a plan intended to accommodate a range of incomes. More broadly, I support projects when developers sincerely work with neighboring community members, infrastructure can accommodate the added demand, impact fees are sufficient, and the plan benefits the community as a whole.
I voted to approve the Ridgevue Subdivision proposal near North Franklin Boulevard, including single-family homes and townhomes.
My explanation
My approach is to evaluate each development on its merits. I support projects when developers sincerely work to accommodate neighboring community members, the area can handle the added infrastructure demand, impact fees are sufficient, and the plans benefit the broader community.
Outcome: Council tied 3–3; Mayor Kling voted yes to approve the project.
This paragraph describes Sebastian’s development standard. It is not a project-specific finding that each of those conditions was independently verified for Ridgevue.
Residents deserve a clear explanation of recurring spending and the alternatives considered before taxes increase. My current priorities are to scrutinize unused allocations and direct attention to essential services and aging infrastructure. The specific historical vote remains a campaign summary until its official record is linked.
I want the City to examine spending history and available alternatives before collecting additional property taxes. Essential maintenance needs deserve a plan, and taxpayers deserve to understand the tradeoffs. The exact motion and roll call for this entry still require an official source.
I considered the spending allocations insufficiently specified.
My approach to public funding commitments
Residents should be able to identify what a proposed funding commitment will pay for and how the City will track it. My stated concern here was insufficiently specific spending allocations. This remains a campaign account, not a claim that the full meeting record has been independently verified.
