I think we are ready.

Jennifer, you're on for our communication.

Welcome everyone.

It's August 25 of 2025.

The big business meeting in the Billings City Council.

Please stand with me for our Pledge of Allegiance and our invocation by Councilmember Owen.

Liberty and Justice.

Heavenly Father, as we gather here tonight in service to our community, let us begin with a moment of gratitude.

We give thanks for the opportunity to live in a place where voices can be heard, where ideas can be shared, and where challenges are met with determination and care.

We are thankful for the commitment of every person in this community.

Elected leaders, city staff, and engaged residents, all who come together with a shared purpose of building a stronger, more vibrant city of Billings.

May we carry hope into tonight's work.

Hope for meaningful and respectful debate, for wise decisions, and for progress that uplifts everyone.

May we remain mindful of the public trust that has been placed in us and approach our decisions with fairness, integrity, and humility.

Lord, I ask a blessing tonight over our community, over those who serve the vulnerable, protect our neighborhoods, and make Billings an extraordinary place to live.

Let us find harmony with one another, be grateful for our blessings, and guided by hope for our future.

In your name we pray.

Amen.

Denise, would you please call the roll?

Councilmember Shaw.

Councilmember Shaw is excused.

She's still recovering for her back surgery, but I got a text that she's doing well and hope she get the all clear to uh return to our next meeting.

Councilmember Gulik.

Neys Owen.

Here.

Rogers.

Here.

Kennedy.

Here.

Aspen Leiter.

Excuse.

Tids well.

Is online I hope he can hear us.

Boyette.

Repsis.

Mayor Cole.

Here.

Uh first uh item of business are minutes from August 11th.

Uh, are there any uh comments, changes, or motion relating to the minutes?

Uh draft minutes from August 11, 2025.

Councilmember Neys.

I make a motion to uh approve the minutes for August 11th, 2025.

Second, Councilmember Boyette.

Any discussion.

Seeing none.

If in favor of the motion, motion is for approval.

The minutes of August 11th has drafted, please say aye.

Aye, aye.

If opposed, please say nay.

Motion passes unanimously.

Uh I know we've got some council courtesies.

I'll kick us off here this evening.

Um first, just a reminder of all the members of our city council to uh speak directly into your microphone.

Um it's not such a problem at these meetings, but at our work sessions in particular where we're turning our heads and uh we've had uh uh concerns expressed by people watching on community seven that they can't hear us.

So um just a reminder on that.

And then also um uh we do need uh applicants for our community development board by September 1st, so please encourage people to apply if you've got that.

And lastly, uh for me, we've got some special guests from uh some scouts from Troop 23, which meets at uh first English Church.

So I'm gonna ask our uh four or three or four uh uh scouts to come on up to the podium.

And I I believe we've got a uh uh assistant scout master or somebody filling in.

Um feel free to come as well and uh just tell us uh your name and where you go to school.

I bet actually you we uh you can look at us.

See that microphone right?

Uh are both live.

You can take your pick, which whoever one just speak uh fairly clearly and loudly into each one or to one of them.

My name is Rosemary Staley, and I go to Skyview and Billings Early College uh Center.

Very good.

My name is Megan Finnegan and I go to Ben Steele Middle School.

What grade?

Uh eighth.

Eighth, okay.

Okay.

I am Xander Jordan and I go to Ben Steele Middle School and I'm in seventh grade.

Very good.

Thank you.

Welcome, guys.

And you're you want to tell us why your uh scouts are here, sir.

Yes, my name's Todd Jordan.

Um the scouts are here for their citizenship in the community, mayor badge.

Very good.

Welcome, come back anytime.

Hope we don't put you to sleep.

Okay.

All right.

Other uh proclamations this evening.

Councilmember Kennedy.

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

I would like to um I would like us to um to uh thank Officer Cale Gullett, who last weekend at 10th in Avenue C was hit by a van going 50 miles an hour and totaled out the police car.

In that after uh the wreck, he got out to see if the other two men in the van were okay, and they ran.

He uh went after them and apprehended them.

He then went to the hospital, and then uh he uh got checked, came back, um, got another police car and finished out his last four hours of his shift.

Um this is an exemplary um product that we have with the Billings Police Department.

Uh Officer Kel Gullett needs to be recognized by this council.

And I wanted to bring it up this evening.

So I'd like to say thank you, Officer Gullett.

Very good.

Councilmember Kennedy, thank you for bringing uh that to our attention.

Thank you very much.

Um other courtesies this evening.

Are there any other council courtesies this evening?

Uh seeing none, we'll move on to our proclamations.

We do have a proclamation this evening in recognition of healthy tribes, the healthy tribes run on the rims uh challenge day uh this weekend.

Um, whereas the city of Billings is home to approximately 5,900 American Indian and Alaska natives whose cultural heritage, health, and well-being are vital to the fabric of our uh community.

And whereas the mission of the Indian Health Service is to raise the physical, mental, social, and spiritual health of American Indians and Alaska natives and to support tribal governments and urban Indian communities in the development of comprehensive health care systems that meet the needs of their people.

And whereas the healthy tribes run on the rims challenge encourages individuals and families to engage in positive health behaviors, increase physical activity, and embrace a holistic approach to wellness, helping to prevent the onset of chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and obesity, while also providing education on suicide prevention, mental health, substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery resources.

And whereas we acknowledge the World Health Organization's definition of health promotion as quote, the process of enabling people to increase control over and to improve their health, close quote.

And we encourage our community to embrace this philosophy through increased knowledge, engagement, and action.

Now, therefore, I William Cole, mayor of the City of Billings, Montana, hereby proclaim August 30, 2025, as Healthy Tribes Run on the Rims Challenge Day in the City of Billings, and encourage all residents to join in the celebration of health, unity, and wellness, and to support the efforts of the Indian Health Service, the Rocky Mountain Tribal Leaders Council, and all participating organizations in their mission to promote healthier lives for all.

With that, uh Council reports.

Any council reports this evening?

Councilmember Boyette.

Just real quick.

I'm uh Councilmember Tiz as well as having trouble listening and speaking on his microphone.

I just wanted you to be aware of that.

He can't hear us and we can't talk.

Very good.

Thank you for uh calling that to our attention.

Um Kevin, uh, is there anything that you know that we can council member to swell?

Can you hear us now?

Yeah, I hear you now.

And we can hear you.

Good deal.

Magic.

Very good.

Thank you very much.

Um other uh okay, no other council reports.

Uh administrator reports, uh, our city administrator is not with us, but uh since City Administrator Kevin Ifflin.

Kevin.

Good evening, council.

Uh tonight, just two things on the administrator's report.

Remember that Monday is Labor Day, so the work session will be Tuesday night, September 2nd here.

And there was no ex parte communication.

That's all I have.

Very good.

Thank you.

Then uh we'll move on to public comment on non-public hearing items.

So um some of our items tonight will have a public hearing, which means you'll have an opportunity to give public comment on those items later.

But there's two items in particular where there is not a public hearing.

First, uh is our uh consent agenda item number one.

And then lastly is item number uh 10 dealing with the appointment of uh tax increment finance uh boards.

Um if you'd like to comment on either the consent agenda, item number one or those TIFF boards.

Um that now is the time to do that.

Everything else, there'll be a public hearing later, but please come forward.

Is there any public comment on items one or 10?

Items one or 10, please come forward to the podium.

We just ask that you keep your comments to three minutes and tell us uh who you are.

Uh any public comment at this point.

No one's coming forward, so we will close the public comment period and move on to our consent agenda.

Council, are there any items that require a separate discussion and vote from our consentogenic?

Uh councilmember Rupses.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Uh, I need to separate um one D two for purposes of recusal.

My client is in the pays list this week.

One D two uh bills for the week of August 4th.

Very good.

Any other separations?

Seeing none others, um, is there uh a motion relating to the consent?

Councilmember Gullick.

Uh I move to approve the items on consent agenda as submitted with the exception of items moved for separation, that being item D two.

Very good.

And saying my council member Boyette.

Uh any discussion.

Uh I'm I'm just gonna make a comment on items uh uh A1, the fire station two boiler replacement.

Um maybe I'm the only one who after eight years still can't keep my fire station straight.

Um I know there's eight, and I know you know my neighborhood, I know where the number one's downtown, eight is uh you know the new one in the heights.

Um but my recommendation to staff would be fine to keep the numbers, but could we possibly put parentheses location?

Um just that's a personal request, but if I'm the only one who can't keep them straight, then maybe we don't have to worry about that.

But I imagine the public also might benefit from that a little bit.

Uh any other discussion on the motion before we proceed to a vote.

Okay, uh the motion is for approval of the uh all the items on the consent agenda with the exception of uh one D2.

If in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye, aye.

If opposed, nay.

Motion passes unanimously.

Uh so item uh one D two are the bills uh for the week of August 4th.

Is there a motion?

Councilmember uh Gillick.

I move that we uh approve the bills for the weeks uh the week of August 4th, 2025.

Very good.

Is there second councilmember Boyette?

Any discussion.

Seeing none, uh, if in favor of the motion approval of item one D2, please uh say aye.

Aye, aye.

If opposed, say nay.

Motion passes unanimously with the exception of council member ripsis who did not vote.

Uh that concludes item one.

Our consent agenda brings us to our regular agenda.

Denise, would you please read item number two?

And for anybody who is interested, there are copies of our agenda back by the door as you come in.

Go ahead, Denise.

Sorry.

Elassian road, no action is necessary.

Thank you very much.

Our presentation tonight is by uh Karen Husman from the planning department.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

This is a land use contract to zoning application for the Allegian school.

Uh they're installing a new parking area and a requested um relief from the uh landscape buffering, which requires a six-foot buffer at the end of each drive or parking aisle.

Um the proposed location is north of their new-ish um track and field.

And the intent is to make it easier, obviously, in the winter time to remove snow and also it's cost prohibitive to install and maintain that landscaped areas.

That concludes my presentation.

If you have any questions.

Questions for Karen.

Karen, if I remember the staff report, the the plan, even if we we we don't have a say in this, our only role is to hold the public hearing.

Um but that their plan is still to have a net amount of landscaping that will be greater than what the um zoning requirements would have required in themselves.

Is that correct?

Correct.

In lieu of the terminal islands, there would be providing a consolidated area for landscaping for future planting at the south end of the proposed parking area.

Very good.

Do we have a representative from Allegian school if they start questions for that?

I actually invited a representative from Sandbell, who's their agent.

Um I didn't see anyone, but I they might be someone I don't recognize.

Okay.

Yeah.

Uh we do have a uh representative if if uh needed.

So and if you've got any comments, feel free.

Um Luke Shelton, the superintendent at the Legion School.

So I got the message today that this was going on, so I figured I would stop by if there are any questions uh from the council.

Very good.

Thank you for being here.

Are there any questions for our superintendent?

Looks like it's your lucky.

Well, oh, I almost got ahead of myself.

How much is the saving on the project?

By not doing the requirements.

How much you actually be able to cut cut off that project.

Um as far as a dollar amount.

I I don't have the exact figures for that piece.

Um we were under the big push was under time constraint to get the the project done and in place before school started, which we started last week.

Um, and so by doing that um and keeping it within a budget that we had left over from the the bill that you saw of the the field.

This this field was or this parking lot was originally in the original bid when we did the uh athletic field.

We just did not have the funds at the time to um finish that.

Um the our school board decided with the remaining funds because of the safety hazard with that parking lot as it was.

It fills with water, it does not drain when we get a rainstorm or winter.

We lose about a third to a half of the parking lot in there for almost a week as the water doesn't drain properly.

And so number one was to get this parking lot to drain.

Um that was the first part of that, and that was uh a little over $70,000 to get it to drain properly.

And then we were hoping if we could get that done, we'd have enough time to then asphalt it and get it completely done.

Um, and we were able to move forward with that.

And so that's why we were asking for those changes in order to get that done and within budget.

Um, I know it would have pushed us over.

We had to stay within restraints as far as going out for bid and time-wise, um, and we were able to do that because of just the movement of the project and how we had to do it in in the way we did.

So it was a little like less expensive sum and also faster to get done.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

Great.

Thank you.

Yep, you bet.

Very good.

I don't see anything else.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll open it for public hearing.

So uh for members of the public, uh, this is not a decision that the city council makes.

Uh, our only rule by state law is to hold the public hearing so that the public can uh be heard on this request by Legion School to be exempted from um uh the landscape requirement at the end of uh each parking row on their new parking lot.

If anybody would like to comment on this, please come to the podium.

This is a public hearing, so you should feel free to comment.

Is there any public comment on item number two?

Any public comment on item number two?

This is a public hearing before I close the public hearing.

Any other comment?

No one's standing up, no one's coming forward.

So we'll close the public uh hearing before we move on to our next item.

Council, I'll just remind you you have the right to by statute comment uh uh and or give other direction, but it's not uh anything that uh we're allowed uh to have a vote on.

Uh any uh further comments on item number two.

I don't see any, so I'll just comment for myself, which I never like these things because it always seems like government ought to live by the same rules that we make for everybody else.

Um but in this case uh if the net landscaping elsewhere is just as much, maybe it's not that big of a sacrifice.

But that's a personal comment.

Okay, uh, don't say anything else.

So we'll call that a wrap on item number two.

Move ahead with item number three.

Denise, would you read item number three, please?

Public hearing and resolution approving a street name change from leatherneck lane in a lesion subdivision to community place.

Staff recommends approval.

Jennifer.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Uh, this is a really quick item as well.

We received a request from Intermountain Health, who is one of the property owners in Allegian subdivision to change the name of Leatherneck Lane to community place.

Currently, the only property addressed off of Leatherneck Lane is Intermountain Health's laundry facility.

Uh, so it affects uh neither of the other two property owners, but they were notified of this request.

So we are required to hold a public hearing per city code.

So we're here tonight to ask you to approve it after holding a public hearing.

Any questions uh for uh Jennifer before we open up for public hearing?

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Uh uh for members of the public, this is a public hearing on item number three resolution to approve the uh street name change, also in the lesion school neighborhood.

Uh if anybody would like to comment on item number three, this is your opportunity.

Is there any public comment on item number three?

Any public comment before we close the public comment, period.

Again, no one's coming forward, no one's standing up, so we'll close the public hearing.

Uh um, Council Murray Kennedy.

Mayor, having conducted a public hearing and considered written and spoken testimony.

I um move to approve the resolution for the street name change from Leatherneck Lane to an elitiance subdivision to community place is recommended.

Is there a second?

Uh uh.

Oh, I'm sorry, Councilmember Boya has the second.

Either of you like to speak to your motion.

No and no.

Uh any discussion on the motion.

Any discussion on the motion.

Okay, we'll proceed to a vote.

The motion is for approval of item three, consistent with the staff recommendation.

If in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

If opposed, nay.

Motion passes unanimously.

Um Denise, please read item number four.

Public hearing reopened and resolution approving and adopting wastewater wholesale rates for FY2026.

Staff recommends approval.

Very good.

We'll turn it back to Jennifer.

Jennifer, in your presentation, I'll just uh uh remind the council we did get uh council Absolutely was not able to be with us.

He he was involved in this process, sent us an email uh making two points.

Uh one specifically asking that you comment on uh where uh we're gonna be at in our sewer extension fund, having fewer dollars, and then second of all, the uh addressing the uh future exceedance penalties, fines, fees, whatever you want to call it.

So it's just if in your presentation you could address those issues as well.

On to Jennifer.

All right, Mayor and Council.

I think this is part three of the public hearing that we began in May for uh water and wastewater rates.

Um so since we were here last time, we've met with uh the refineries and Lockwood, um, the refineries a couple times.

We did come to a consensus for FY26.

It's not perfect.

The methodology is not perfect, which is why we're asking you to only approve for FY26 so that we can collect the data we need and um get the right uh language in our permits and agreements to move forward with FY27 rates.

So uh we made a couple changes.

One is to the capacity side of the equation.

There's of course the capacity and the use side uh capacity.

Bottom line is that the biggest change we made was instead of using those max day values, we used a seven-day rolling average.

Um, and then we we just made a couple other little tweaks to the model.

And then on the use side, we really only changed how we allocate our I and I into the retail allocation.

Uh so the revenue changes that this brings on for um FY26 is uh uh quite a bit less than what we had previously projected.

You can see that Lockwood is a very, very minor change, and the reason that they had a minor change compared to the refineries is that they don't have the um kind of spikes in the strengths that that the refineries have sent us.

So theirs did not change too much.

Uh the chart that's to the right just shows what our original proposed um revenues would have brought in, what our new revenues would be, and then the blue is what they would be if they were calculated as a retail customers.

So this here it shows you the rates and the fees that we're asking you to approve in the attached rate resolution that was attached to your council memo.

And then we need to figure out where we're going to get the money that we did not collect then from these wholesale customers.

And that impact is 1.1 million dollars.

So we're we need to find 1.1 million dollars in our FY26 budget in order to make this work.

So what we have here is how we prioritize our capital projects in public works.

We use what's called a MODA tool, which just stands for multi-objective decision analysis.

So we use various criteria, and then we rank each project against those criteria that are shown on the left of your screen.

Umce we do that, we we rank each project into the tool, run it through our our calculations, and come up with the priorities.

So the higher the MOTA value, the higher the rank is.

The projects that are in orange are what are in your FY26 budget.

So you can see it's all the higher ranked projects except for the annual sewer line extensions.

So if you recall previously to get the retail rates to 0%, we already decreased 1.3 million dollars out of the annual sewer line extensions between 25 and 26 or FY26 and 27.

Um so we have just 700,000 remaining in 26 that we could cut, and we are recommending cutting those extensions.

As of this date, we have 2 million um in that fund for any extensions that come up during the year.

Um and then we are recommending the other 400,000 come out of reserves because we do not have a project that we could recommend cutting at this point in FY26.

We would require to make up those reserves later.

So it will require rate increases in a future year to make up the reserves if we if we go that route this year.

And then our next steps would be to start setting the FY27 wholesale rates.

We actually have our first meeting to do that later this week.

Um and what we're trying to do is is base our rates off the permitted max maximums, which we don't have all the values in our permits or agreements right now.

Um so we need to work with the wholesale customers to do that.

And then we'd have surcharges for any exceedances.

Because remember, even though we are not charging that max value, we still have to treat to everything that they send to us.

So we'd have you know the capacity side based off of the maximums and then surcharges for exceedances.

The refineries have agreed to this in theory that it is the most legally defensible way to do it, but we just have to work through all the logistics of doing that.

And we do have um representatives from both Par Montana and P66 here tonight, and I would like to invite them up to conclude this presentation.

Very good.

Thank you.

Uh hey, Jennifer, before we hear from Parr and Philip 66, sounds like uh Councilmember Kennedy has a question.

You want to have it now as opposed to after the Yes, I would like to go back to the previous slide that you had on the projects.

Okay.

Um out of those uh 2026 CIP prior prioritization projects this year you had 2025 CIP prioritization projects.

How many of those did you get done and how many did you not this year?

For FY25.

Yes.

Um, I don't believe that we had any wastewater projects not completed.

Pardon.

I don't believe we had any wastewater projects not completed.

We had some that are, you know, were bid and still in construction, but they're all in product progress right now.

You did the full amount that you were planning on.

Correct.

So this year you're saying for 2026, you can only do the ones in the yellow.

FY26, those are the budgeted CIP projects, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Very good.

Thank you.

Yeah, representatives.

Please uh well welcome back.

Hi, good evening.

Thank you.

My name is Vicky Marcus.

I'm a partner with Carly Fleck.

I'm here today representing Par Montana.

Uh Par Montana supports the fiscal year 26 wastewater wholesale rates as proposed.

Par Montana supports the process, and we look forward to continuing that process with the city staff.

Uh PAR staff have met and communicated several times with city staff over the um past several weeks.

Um actually they've been communicating the whole time as soon as the issues arose.

PAR understands that the approach for fiscal year 27 is not final, but we look forward to continued dialogue with city staff regarding those rates.

As you heard that our meeting, they have a meeting scheduled for this Thursday between the staff for Par, Montana, and P66 and the city.

So again, we support the fiscal year 26 wastewater rates, and we graciously greatly appreciate the city staff's time and efforts as well as the city councils.

Thank you.

Very good.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the council.

I'm Bill Mercer.

I'm a partner at Holland and Heart here in Billings, and I'm here on behalf of Philip66 again this evening.

And I do want to first thank you for your indulgence here.

I know that we've been before you a couple of times in addition to all the meetings with the staff, and we certainly appreciate uh your willingness to hear us out throughout this process.

Uh we too are here in support of the resolution that's in your packet uh that focuses on what the wastewater rates would be for the three customers limited just to this fiscal year 2026.

And we acknowledge that the conversations on fiscal year 2027 have begun, but we need to continue to work on those details.

But we are committed to doing that.

We think that this is a good resolution for uh what had been contested as part of this fiscal year 26 rate setting process.

And we really do appreciate Mr.

Ray's efforts and the efforts of of her colleagues in helping uh to reach this resolution.

So we uh would urge the council to adopt the resolution as drafted, and we pledge to make our best efforts as as we approach fiscal year 27.

Thank you.

Bill, before you sit down, let me just ask you if there's any questions either for Vicky or Bill.

I don't see any.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh uh council, any other questions uh for Jennifer.

Uh Councilmember Nease.

Thank you, Mayor.

Jennifer, can you go back to that slide that had the revenue requirements?

This one of the one more back.

This one that one.

So just uh you kind of buzzed through that chart on the right, but did I hear you say that if they were charged retail rates, I'm assuming commercial retail rates, that that's what they would be charged versus the wholesale rates.

So uh all retail rates, um, well, wastewater retail rates are for both residential and commercial.

We don't have separate rates for wastewater.

Um, but yes, that is what they would be charged at their current flows if they were just a regular retail customer.

Uh you have to remember that they do um treat theirs before they send it to us.

Okay, so they do pre-treat that's right.

They're doing pre-treating, so we're not getting a lot of the chemicals and junk.

They're kind of pulling that out before we get it.

Uh it's fairly diluted, yes.

Okay.

When you say diluted, uh, is it is it coming in any uh more uh hazardous than any other commercial business in town?

Um I'm not sure I can answer that specifically, but I can tell you that their nitrogen is higher than we would like it to be.

Um and their BOD is probably lower than we would like it to be.

Some of those don't mean anything to me, but I'm sure they mean something to you.

So I guess that my point is here we have commercial businesses in town paying a much higher rate.

And it sounds to me like maybe their pre-treatment isn't good enough, and we're having to still do a whole lot of work to treat that water before it goes back into the Yellowstone.

And they're getting a huge break on their rate compared to what our current commercial customers are doing.

And that's what I'm concerned about.

Is maybe we're not getting enough pre-treatment ahead of time, and maybe that's something we need to negotiate better to make sure the pretreatment comes in or they get penalized to where they're paying equal to what commercial our commercial customers are paying.

So, Councilmember Nice, I'd respond to that in a couple different ways.

First, it's similar to Heights Water District, and Heights Water District only has to pay for the assets they use.

So they don't use many of our reservoirs, many of our pump stations and our distribution system because they have their own pipe system.

So their rate is typically lower because they're not paying for all the assets.

And it's the same way for the wholesale customers.

They're not paying for basically assets that aren't at the plant.

So they have their own system for that and they they connect right to us.

Okay, so this comparison then probably isn't really apples to apples if it is not apples to apples.

Okay.

All right.

That helps to know that that actually isn't showing that there are commercial customers are paying a whole lot more.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Uh Jennifer, I got a question for you.

Uh I appreciate your comments about how a reduction in collections here will impact the CIP.

Just to make it absolutely clear, the only resolution or the only uh uh matter that's before us tonight is the approval of the uh rate resolution, which does not address the CIP.

You're just giving us a heads up, right?

There's no CIP specific matter before us tonight.

That is correct.

And we could uh I guess go to budget and finance committee would probably be the right step to to talk about the actual cuts that we make, but we we figured that question would come up about how do we deal with this.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

And I I apologize you, I think in in buzzing through your numbers before you probably said it, but in one my year and out the other.

But Councilmember Asperne's uh email, where will we be sitting with our uh uh sewer extension fund once we adopt um this tonight, assuming we do?

So we collected one million per year for the last two years, so there's two million um plus some interest earnings in that account, maybe 2.2 million.

So we'll still have that uh two million uh okay correct.

Very good, thank you.

Um any other questions for Jennifer before we have a public hearing.

Uh councilmore.

Mayor, I I um I am concerned because of the presentation talks about taking the 700,000 out of that extent pipe extension, and um I don't believe that's what should be done.

I think that uh reserves that should all be taken out of reserves um in my opinion.

Uh Jennifer, do you know how much reserves that the uh uh sewer uh has?

So council member niece, right now we have enough reserves that we could take the whole 1.1 million dollars out of it.

Over our five-year financial plan, we have zero excess reserves.

So that means that somewhere in there we have to make it up.

But don't we have to make it up anyway if we're going to rebuild that extension?

That is true, yes.

Yeah, so I I think Mayor, um, I'd like rather see that $700,000 go into the pipe extension so we have it there in the funds so that we can use it when it comes available and then uh allow the staff to have to rebuild the reserves when it comes time to rate rate making again.

They're gonna have to do it one way or the other, but at least we've got the money set aside in reserves.

And that's my my preference.

And I know that you said that we're not voting on that, but I think it needs to be directed to staff that that's what we want to do.

Uh council Ripson?

Thank you, Mayor.

Jennifer, uh, can you clarify this?

Because I might have misunderstood.

We're not actually using $700,000 of that two million dollar reserve.

We're just not collecting more to add to that reserve this year.

Correct, councilmember.

We would have we would not have the additional money going into the fund, but we still have the two million.

We were keeping the two million dollars where it is, but our plan was to collect another $700,000.

So we'd have 2.7 at the end of it.

Now we're still just gonna have two.

Correct, yes.

Very good.

Thank you for that clarification.

Anything else for Jennifer?

Uh okay, thanks, Jennifer, for oh, Councilmember Neys?

Yeah.

So, Mayor, um, Jennifer, just to clarify, this is 1.1 million that this is a change in the overall budget, correct?

And that impacts your overall public works for the the sewer budget.

Is that correct?

Correct.

We would need to decrease spending.

So it could have been come out of some capital projects, or could it affect our capital project budget, but you we chose to your recommendation is to take it out of reserves and out of out of the future capital project of pipe extensions, is that right?

So the recommendation is to take it out of the $700,000 of that's remaining in this year's uh pipe extension, and then take the other $400,000 out of reserves.

Yeah.

So if you take out the remaining $700,000, nothing goes into the pipe extension.

So that reduces the future capital expenditures that we can do for that extension of pipes.

Correct.

Okay.

And um, and so I think it this this whole change, um, I think this is one of the reasons I've I didn't want to see us make these changes until retail rates happen.

Because if we were doing this uh outside uh or in without retail rates approved, uh we would have to determine.

I think Jennifer, you told me wholesale rates are calculated first, and then kind of what's left over has to be moved made up by retail rates.

Is that pretty accurate?

Correct.

Wholesale rates are calculated first, and then you know, based off of the methodology for them, and then we use what is anticipated for those revenues to offset our needs because it's a cash needs approach that we we do for retail.

Okay, thank you.

Casper Gillett Um Thanks for your earlier explanation about the difference between the uh it's not an apples to apples between the refineries and and other uh uh commercial uh and and residential users.

Um so I I know we're trying to work out something that's fair, right?

And there's certain legal things that are still being worked out.

Um you know, this much we know that city residents and businesses are not interested in in subsidizing um refineries, so we need to have a solution that works.

And and the I'm glad to hear that we're talking about um some sort of um fines or or some sort of structure so that um I mean it seems to me that the the best way that the refineries can um reduce their costs is to reduce the peaks, the the spikes.

Is that uh correct?

Correct, Councilmember Gullick.

Um, in fact, using that methodology puts them more in control of their rates and should make them more consistent over time.

Great.

And I follow up.

Um the capacity of our water wastewater treatment plant is based on the highest peak time, right?

I mean, that's that's uh and and that's the kind of the most expensive um construction in a sense is that when you're having to build something that isn't being used most of the time, it's just being used for a peak spike.

Correct, yes.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Okay, very good.

Let's uh open for public hearing.

This is a public hearing on item number four, uh, the proposed wholesale uh wastewater rates for fiscal year 26.

If you'd like to be heard on this, it is a public hearing.

Please come forward again.

We just ask you to keep your comments of three minutes and tell us your your name.

Uh is there public comment on item number four?

If so, please come forward to the podium.

Is there any public comment on item number four?

This is a public hearing, any public comment.

Uh no one's coming forward, no one's standing up.

So we'll close the public hearing and proceed back to council.

Council, how do you want to proceed?

Councilmember Kennedy indicated the one to make a motion.

Go ahead, Councilmember Kenny.

Mr.

Uh Mayor, uh, having conducted a public hearing considered written and spoken public testimony.

I move to approve the resolution adopting fiscal year 2026 wastewater wholesale rates and fees is recommended.

Yeah, Councilmember Boyette indicates a second.

So did either of you want to speak to your motion.

No, okay.

Uh further discussion.

Councilmember Neys.

Yeah, can we clarify to make sure that even though the presentation showed a recommendation of using $700,000 in wastewater and pipe extensions that this vote does not approve that recommendation?

Because I believe one of the things we have to understand is pipe extensions are paid 100% by retail customers.

And if we were to take it out of reserve, reserves are gonna be funded by multiple sources.

And so it'd be better for have to refill your reserves and have to refill the pipe extensions that we've already cut because of wholesale rate hate rate cutting.

So I I would just want to make sure that that this is this we're approving the wastewater rates.

We've we've taken 1.1 million dollars, and in my view, it's really coming out of retail rate funding because they are the ones who usually fund the uh 700,000.

Um if this is all coming out of out of the reserve, then I think that's gonna be a mixture of funds between retail and wholesale rates that is gonna help pay for uh have to be re-recooped over the time over their reserves, however the staff uh does that through the rate system.

So just to make sure that's clear that we are not approving the recommendation.

And Casper Needs, I guess what I just say is the motion uh is the motion and it speaks for itself.

So it's the written version in your packet, uh, which says that uh uh the movement is uh moving to approve a resolution adopting the fiscal year 2026 wastewater rates and fees as recommended by staff, and the version that's been recommended by the staff is the one in our packet, um, sort of a page and a half there.

I don't see that that says anything about that issue.

So uh if it's not in there, I'd say I personally agree with you that we're we haven't spoken to that, or maybe certain expectations, of course, coming out of this, but what we're doing tonight is approving the plain language of that resolution, period.

I think I heard them tell you maybe taking that to the budget committee.

I think that would be fine to discuss that with them at the time before they make any changes on that.

Very good.

Um you have a motion on the ones that mayor if we could just interject for just a second here.

Gina's got a comment.

Go ahead, Gina, please.

Thanks, Mayor and Council.

I just wanted to point out that issue is actually addressed in the staff memo under the fiscal effects portion.

So I don't know if Jennifer wants to elaborate on that, but it it does say that staff recommends decreasing wastewater pipe extension fund by 700,000, covering the remaining 400,000 with reserve funds.

Yeah, and I don't disagree.

It's mentioned in the staff report.

So that's an interesting question.

The motion is actually to approve a resolution recommended by staff.

It's referencing the revel resolution as opposed to just anything that might be in the staff report.

You wouldn't say that we're bound by what Jennifer said in her staff report, would you, Gina?

No, I wouldn't say that.

I uh I just wanted to clarify that that was part of staff recommendation for the future.

So that's just I I don't know if Jennifer wanted to talk more about that, but I I agree with you that you're not bound by that, but that was just part of the I think that's a good recommendation.

Uh uh it's good.

Uh thank you for pointing that out.

That is part of the staff uh report uh for whatever that's worth.

Uh further discussion, you got a motion on the floor.

Council, council member Ripsis.

Thank you, Mayor.

So would you expect then we'll see a FY26 budget amendment?

Um Jennifer, I guess.

Yeah, I'm looking at you.

Sorry, Gina.

So, mayor and council, we would expect to go to the budget and finance uh committee.

We don't typically do negative budget amendments.

We just don't have the cash to spend for it.

So we would know that we didn't have that project anymore once we got the final recommendation from the budget and finance committee.

Right.

Thanks.

Okay, very good.

Uh further discussion now on the motion.

Any further discussion on the motion?

Uh I'll just make the point about the importance of the sewer extension fund.

I mean, the reason for anybody who's listening out there and they don't know what we're talking about.

Um, in the past, uh, we've always had this problem of who uh when you've got a development and cost many millions of dollars to bring utilities out to that development, who's gonna pay for that?

It doesn't really make sense for the developer to have to pay uh something of that large uh number, even if they get paid back some of it later.

And so the cities come up with a policy of well, if we collect some reserves, we can front those costs and then collect as we extend those services.

And that allows for an orderly extension of the community.

Um, but we only can front those costs if we have those reserves.

So uh it serves a very important function.

Devil's in the details about how many dollars we need exactly, but that's kind of what we're talking about here.

Um any further discussion on the motion before we proceed to a vote?

Let's vote.

Okay.

So the motion is for approval.

Item number four, consistent with the staff recommendation in your agenda.

If in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

If opposed, nay.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thanks very much.

Uh Denise, would you read item number five?

Public hearing and resolution setting annual levies for FY 2026 on general fund transit library, public safety one, two, and three, and general obligation debt.

Staff recommends approval.

Very good.

It's not going away.

Finance director, Andy, and his uh associate uh assistant, Kevin Ifflin.

We're we're going triple computer today, so a good one.

You on this one?

Yeah, I do want to need to reference stuff on.

All right.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Um, I have a brief presentation.

I've spent a fair amount of last week and uh today, speaking with a few of you uh about the mill levy setting uh for FY26.

We also went to budget and finance uh last week as well.

Um a couple things before I get into what you're being asked for tonight.

Um you've all heard many presentations from me about the legislative changes to property tax uh the property attack system and how it jived with our charter.

Um, but ultimately there were changes to property tax values.

They put in language stating they're superseding our charter, but required that we generate the same tax revenue in fiscal year 26 that was assessed in fiscal year 25.

Um the other point I want to make, not so much for you, council members up there, but any public watching is go apply for your property tax rebate.

Um the other point I want to make, not so much for you, council members up there, but any public watching is go apply for your property tax rebate that is available to you now that will give you the homestead exemption in future years.

If you don't do that now, you'll likely see significant tax increases on your primary residence.

So there's a website up there for that.

Okay.

So the number of mills that you're being asked to approve and set this evening is totals 244.39.

This is about 35 mills more than the prior year.

We saw a 15% reduction in our taxable value, and that's entirely a result of the legislative changes that occurred in order to generate the exact same tax revenue that was assessed in fiscal year 25.

Um the recommendation is that you levy 237.71 mils.

Those are for the operating levies that you traditionally um are familiar with from the charter.

Additionally, there's another uh what's that six point six eight mills for the two GO debt uh bond issuances, um totaling 244.39.

Uh this mill increase will still likely result in a tax reduction, property tax reduction for the typical home in billings.

Uh up here I have the median home, which increased $36,000 from 308 to 345,000.

Uh with even with the increased mills, there they're uh expected to see a reduction of about 200 per year for the city of billings portion.

Uh they would see a reduction as well from the county and school district.

I just don't know to what extent.

I did put together a couple of slides.

Um I may wait for an amendment before going through those.

Um speaking with a few of you today.

So uh happy to go through those as well when that time comes.

Um mayor, this is a public hearing and staff is recommending approval.

Very good.

Thank you.

Questions for Andy.

Seeing none, we'll uh open up for public hearing um and then come back.

Uh this is a public hearing on item number five, the proposed uh setting of levies uh for fiscal year 2026.

Uh, if you'd like to be heard, please come to the podium.

Is there any public comment on item number five?

Any public comment on item number five.

This is a public hearing.

Any public comment?

No one's coming forward, no one's standing up.

We'll go ahead and close the public comment period.

Uh back to Andy.

Uh Councilmember uh Owen.

Thank you, Mayor.

I would like to uh offer an amendment.

Uh the amendment that I would propose would modify sections one and two of the resolution to move the numbers to the charter authorized amount and in section two establish a new bullet F, adding in the uh required numbers of mills under HB 231.

If there's a second, I'll explain further.

Second.

Uh Councilmember Rogers indicated a uh a second.

Um would you uh explain further, Councilmember Owen and take those uh one on a one.

Order, Mayor.

Do we even have a motion to amend yet?

Uh the motion I just made.

Sorry, I meant to move that amendment.

Uh we do not we did not have a on the underlying resolution.

So uh I don't know that's necessary.

I think it would be really a motion to amend the draft, but it might be cleaner.

Whatever you like, Mayor.

I'm happy to withdraw.

I guess my suggestion would be yeah, let's get uh uh I'm gonna give it to you so you can control it.

You can make whatever motions, and then we'll come back to you, make sure you have an opportunity to make your amend uh motion to amend.

So back to council member Owen.

Uh the original motion then was withdrawn by council member and council member Rogers, I believe.

Is that what the plan is?

Okay, withdrawn.

Councilmember Owen.

Okay, would you like me to move adoption of the underlying resolution?

Yeah, let's do that just because we're kind of used to that procedure.

Uh okay.

So uh I would move the adoption of um the resolution as presented by staff.

And council member Rogers also a second.

Okay.

And um uh that's on the floor, uh possible amendments, Councilmember Rowan.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh so I would like to move uh make an amendment to the resolution as presented by staff.

This um motion would this amendment would modify sections one and two to take the uh levies as presented back to their charter authorized amount and then establish a new section two F, which would authorize the state directed under HB 231 number of mill levies equal to generate uh the required revenue from fiscal year 25.

And can you explain the substantive difference?

As soon as I have a second, I've got to uh council member Rogers uh in the case, the second.

Thank you, Mayor.

So specifically, uh I I think, and we've had some conversations about this um in the budget committee.

We had them during the um budget debate.

We are in this situation of figuring out how to comply with the language of 231, um, which I think is ambiguous in many cases and ambiguous in this particular case.

So uh it it is clear that the legislature expects us to authorize uh mill levies to match FY25 levels.

How they expect us to do that is less clear.

And it is my recommendation tonight, and um, I think consistent with some conversations that have been had that we make it clear that the voter authorized mill levies are what they are, and we will also comply with HB 231.

And I would this motion tonight, this amendment tonight would make that clear.

So specifically, section one would be amended to strike 86.71 and insert 74.

Section 2A would strike 5.86 and insert five.

Section two B would strike uh 11.71 and insert 10.

Uh to C would strike 23.41 and insert 20.

D would strike uh 70.22 and enter 60, and E would strike 39.80 and insert 34, and a new F would be added at 34.71.

That number reflects what is remaining if we go to our full charter authorized uh levels, which is what this amendment would propose to do.

I think it's important that we um retain flexibility to implement HB 231 as we continue to get guidance from the state as to how um the property tax bills overall will be implemented.

I think it is consistent with legislative intent such that that can be discerned from this bill.

Um and I think that uh I think this makes it clear to the voters that we are doing our level best to interpret this narrowly to preserve the charter where possible, and also comply with state law.

I do think uh we have talked about how we describe this so that we clearly describe a city activity that would be funded.

And so the language that I think um is up on the screen in front of you reflects that this will be distributed according to the adopted budget into the four accounts above general fund, public safety, library, and transit.

So this um I'm happy to answer questions, but I think that generally goes over the mechanics of this.

Okay, thank you for that explanation.

I'll start with the obvious question.

Um that lump sum 34.7 would 34.71 would not include any sort of allocation.

So how do we then decide where those dollars go?

Uh presumably they could all go to the library.

So library might like that.

I think they could not, right?

Because we have an adopted budget.

And so just like the general fund allocates money, so too would this um these dollars would be allocated according to the adopted budget.

And if we need to make that language clear in here, we certainly can.

We don't for the general fund, um, but this this would be a levy designed to bring in revenue, and then the budget directs those expenditures.

But we could amend the budget, so theoretically we could give it all to the library or whatever.

Theoretically, we could do that under the general fund.

We could go anywhere we want that we could send money from the general fund.

And I think you make an excellent point, Mayor.

Is going forward in the future, we might in fact need that flexibility as the property tax bills changes.

If it's my understanding that the current interpretation of 231 means that this year we functionally set the caps going forward.

And so if we allocate these out by categories, we will in fact be tied into that year after year, or at least potentially.

That's a reasonable interpretation of the bill.

And I think what I'm endeavoring to do here is maintain maximum flexibility so that council can so that the city can impose the taxes that are required under law, and then we can allocate them in the budget and be flexible to do that over the years as the underlying property tax assessments may change.

Okay.

Uh you've got an amendment before you it's been made and seconded.

Discussion is now on the proposed amendment.

Councilmember Ripsis and Councilman had a stand up.

Thank you, Mayor.

I I just want to stay on that topic because I have no idea how this would play out next year.

The voters have passed um specific levies for library, public safety, and transit.

If we lump everything into 34.71, how is Andy or anybody supposed to recognize next year how this is going to be constructed?

If we don't track that this year, it's supposed to be 5.86 for the library.

We should not have that flexibility next year to say it will be less.

We should the voters passed that.

The legislature did their thing.

I think actually the legislature locks us into next year the same number of mills.

But beyond that in future years, if we're not tracking to where we are today, um, it's you're just opening up a big slush fund for allocating those mills to wherever we choose.

And I think I heard you say we want that flexibility.

We want to set that slush fund up.

So I'm not really sure how this sets up future councils for transparent, predictable budgeting according to the voters' wishes when they pass these previous levies.

So, mayor, if I can respond.

Go ahead.

Um, I vigorously disagree with this being called a slush fund in in the same way the general fund is not a slush fund.

We set a budget for that, and dollars are allocated accordingly.

And so it is take let's go back a year before 231 existed.

We had a general fund and we had a transit levy and a library levy, and we can always levy less than that.

So it's not true that because the voters authorized five, we always levy five.

We levy up to five.

And now what we will do is levy up to five, up to ten, up to twenty, up to sixty, up to thirty-four, and up to thirty-four point seven one.

And then we will allocate it in the budget in exactly the same way we do in the general fund.

We have interfund transfers now between the general fund and the public safety fund based on how council decides to fund the departments in those two that are served by those two funds.

So this is no different.

This is exactly as transparent as every annual budget process, where we put the budget before the public hears it, they come and comment, we offer amendments.

It is the exact same process.

We are just not exactly to your point, locking in the levies for the future going forward.

Uh sure, we're this is all discussion.

Go ahead.

Um, except it does become a slush fund because you just as you said, we can levy less for the library.

We can't necessarily levy more for transit just because we want to.

So if we were to levy less for the library, but have the say we're just gonna do the same number of mills that we did last year.

We could essentially levy more for transit outside of the voter's intent here.

So that flexibility, and we are losing that transparency and accountability for what we voted for, um, regardless of what the legislature did.

Yeah.

We are losing the voter's intent by by setting this up, and the very flexibility that this purports to offer, I think sets us up for for uh some real confusion in future years.

So I you know, I I don't think this is a good move.

Uh, I much prefer uh I don't like what the legislature did.

Um, so I'm gonna vote against this um for those reasons.

Um I I think we owe it to the voters to be more transparent than what this does.

Okay, further discussion, uh, council can council, or I recognize Council Needs before I apologize.

Councilmanies, can council Kennedy?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor.

Um I I do like the idea of separating these out.

I think council member Owen presented a lot of good reasons to do that.

I think one of the things that, but Tom did bring up some good points about we want to make sure that's not a slush fund.

So I I think what we present to the on the tax um uh rolls is gonna be limited, and I think something like that's this is as presented is gonna be fine.

But I think in our resolution, we want to we maybe want to detail that out.

So maybe we have F and then uh point one two three four, you list them again with the different amounts, the general fund at 12.71, the what is it, library point eight six, the transit 3.1, you just whatever those amounts are for specifically that way.

It's it's in black and white what we're going to spend each one for within the resolution.

Now we can't bound future council members.

So to Tom's point, you we the count future council members could change those mill levies amount, but at least we as a council here are saying we're adhering to what the state state statute said, and we're we're separating it out, and this is the amounts that we're gonna have per one.

Now on the what the public sees is they're gonna see a 34.7, but they can look at the resolution and see how our resolution is breaking it down.

So I would suggest that would be a really helpful way to make it transparent in future to accountability or future councils to what to do and how to divide up the money.

And Casper Nice, just to make sure I understand uh could you state again in a sentence or two, you would uh recommend potentially changing this new F to specify the big number, but then a point one, you know.

So in other words, F would be like 37.71 mills made up of 0.1 uh general mills 12 to be going to 12.71, uh library uh point eight six, uh whatever public safety one.

You would you would you would uh specify the proportionate share of the individual accounts in the resolution in the resolution but would that be binding on the in the putting the allocation in a different place is what you're saying, but still having that allocation, mayor.

Okay, so I think council member Owen may understand.

I I understand perfectly, and we've been down this road at length, Andy and I have been.

Um what we put in here is what the county will print, and they're not gonna print that much information.

They are they are really they're like what do we decide to say 34 characters potentially in the description, which is why we've abbreviated everything anyhow.

And so I think if you council member Neese wanted to have that sort of specificity, we might have to put it in a different paragraph instead of this one that specifically would be what the county is sent to print on the bills.

Okay, so this paragraph is what the county is going to print.

So that's my understanding.

That's why I would recommend you have a second second paragraph, then if you have to to explain the 37.7 mills is to be divided by one, two, three, four.

And I would also just remind us all to keep revenues and expenditures separately.

The budget is what dictates how money is spent.

This is just simply how it is assessed and whether or not it's assessed with strings attached.

But um, to to your point specifically, I don't think we can add it here in two.

Perhaps we could find somewhere else to add it.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh we can come back to that if we need to.

But uh Cashbury County.

I would say, and I've been in most of the uh budget meetings.

If we talked about this and everything, we did say it's more straightforward to let the voter know exactly, especially when they get their tax bill, that the 34.71 was appropriated through um House Bill 231.

And it's it's stated, it's it's clear and it and it works.

Um, I don't believe it's a slush fund.

I do know one thing.

According to this charter, and I've been told over and over again um that the city administrator can move money from one to another.

We are hopefully going to the budget committee due quarterly and keep track of what is being moved around.

But this 34.71 can be moved even if you laid it all out.

It can still be moved around by the city administrator.

So that's a part of the charter and just reality.

So I uh I don't see a problem with it being laid out like this because it's very clear for the taxpayer.

Thank you.

Uh Consumer Boyette.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Andy, are you okay with this graph up here?

Can you live with this?

Uh Mayor and Council, I I can live with it.

Um the I I did put together went online and looked at what the billings tax bill looks like.

And I I put together kind of what is before you on the resolution that I had put together, what that tax bill would look like.

This is for the median home.

Um, this would be similar to what you've seen on your own tax bill.

Uh as opposed to if the amendment were to stand, uh, this is what that tax bill would look like for the billings portion.

Um still the same total information, but the dollars uh reduced proportionately.

Uh my my reason for recommending the one that we did is I I feel it's more clear and consistent with the budget that was adopted.

Um, because it shows exactly where the dollars are being allocated this year.

Um and but yeah, I'm not not gonna not gonna die on this hill.

So it's so you can live with this.

We we can live with this, yes.

If I may, mayor, further uh Andy, please.

Uh the the comment you guys are making earlier about what appears on the tax bill.

Um this is in regard to Councilmember Nice's comments about subtotaling uh part two F.

The county historically what we've done is just sent them after you guys approve the resolution.

Here's the number of mills for each uh each specific item.

Um the I did communicate with the county treasurer last week to determine well what what space is available on the tax bill, you know, what what would be available to us um if we wanted to expand any portion here.

And we we have very limited options.

That's why you have what you have up there.

Um he indicated that it may not be compliant.

There's a section of statute that says what has to be on the tax bill, and uh he didn't feel like the language that I had provided earlier was clearly indicating the specific city purpose.

Um we have changed the language to clarify it's going to general fund public safety library in transit.

Um so that's the this is language I'll say better than what I had proposed to him earlier last week.

Um, but I I guess to my original point, uh we we didn't historically send them the resolution.

I I think this year, after I've had that communication with him, I'll have to send him the resolution however it's approved tonight and said this is what council voted, this is what they want.

So if we do add language in there, um I think I think if you were to add a subtotal, getting it out of section two would be ideal.

Um I can point to sections one, two, and three, those set the mill levies.

Section four, I think it is, is really more narrative about why we're levying the additional 30 mills.

Uh Andy, does this have to be approved tonight?

Uh yes, it does.

The state law says you have to approve this by basically the first Thursday of the first full week of September, and you don't have a regular meeting next week.

So that's what's driving this.

Although I would speculate if you approved this at the first meeting in September, the county would still put it on tax bills, but we may have unnecessary pushback from the county.

Okay.

Uh further discussion.

And again, it's the amendment that is before you uh for discussion.

Council Member Gillett.

I don't know that I have anything real constructive to add in sense that's I'm just gonna put that out front.

Uh like there is no good uh solution because of the state situation.

Because on the one hand, um I it is really nice to have the original things that are in our charter in terms of the the um levied amounts.

Uh it's really confusing if you see something different from that.

I don't disagree at all.

I get that.

Um having this additional line item added though, then it makes it look as though it's the states requiring the city to uh levy some additional um that we didn't before, and that's not quite accurate either, because it's again it's the same amount total.

So it's just it's really confusing for for others.

I think our staff are gonna not have any problem sort of tracking going to the future.

It's really the public that if they're trying to um if they're looking at our charter and then looking at our budget, that's where that gets really confusing.

I don't know there is a good answer.

I and I don't have anything to offer in that regard.

Just other than to say it is really challenging to know what to do here.

Um I do want to also say though, um having uh on a slightly different matter, uh addressing something that council member Kennedy said.

Um I don't think there's ever been any evidence that our our city administrator has been moving money from different departments to others, or there's I've never seen any evidence or even um that that's done, or even that he has the power to do that.

Uh I have a totally different understanding of that.

Uh so just wanted to make sure that the public uh there's not agreement on on the council uh on that point.

Um there we have it.

So I have another question for Council Rowan, I guess.

Uh I I generally understand the concept uh of the new section F and the changes into A through E.

But do we we have a written document?

We're talking about approving very specific language for a resolution.

Do we have that specific language?

I I do, yes.

Okay, I sent it to Denise.

I can email it around or I can just read it.

It really is just the changing of the numbers.

Um well, on A through E.

Uh huh.

But then there's the new F.

F would read how Andy has it here.

So the language that I sent to Denise and would recommend is the amendment would be F 34.71, HB 231 compliance dash GFPS, L I B, TRA.

Um, and then the same parenthetical citing to authority that is in every line above.

Okay.

So that is the uh specific language, what we see from Andy plus the parentheses.

Okay, very good.

Um further discussion on the proposed amendment.

Councilmember Kennedy, Councilmember Rupsus.

Mayor, I have a question.

Kevin.

Um last year when we had the overage in uh the fire budget or overtime.

And that was moved, and then it came up back to us after the year ended.

Who moved that money over?

So councilmember Kennedy, I think maybe what the appropriate thing would say was that it can't be moved between levies.

We can't move money from public safety levy to the library, things of that nature, if that's correct, Andy.

And who moved that over?

From the fire department in inner inner fire department budget, that was a city administrator from one line item of the fire department budget to another line item in the fire department budget.

Okay, I uh uh council.

Thank you, Mayor.

So Andy going forward, um 86.71 for the general fund will always be our max.

Is that how it's gonna work?

And you're just gonna have a table in the background that says it's 74 plus 12.71.

Yeah, the the way I've kind of envisioned going forward would be the 34.71 would function similar to how entitlement share has, which is we built a distribution and part of the recommended budget that comes to you each year would recommend how that's distributed.

My estimation at this point is that the proportionate distribution would be what's up there.

You know, the equivalent of 86.71 would go to the general fund and so on.

Um as I understand the intent is that that 34.71 could be all go to public safety one year, I'll go to the library the next year.

That's my understanding, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

I I'm gonna comment.

I I'm gonna oppose this.

I understand the concept.

Um I think the existing resolution already makes it very clear why we're doing this, namely we have to uh by uh uh legislative uh uh dictate.

And I don't think the average person is really going to be confused.

They're not cruising through our resolutions.

Uh if they are, they already get it.

Or they could read it, they they'll get it from that, or they can ask us and we'll explain it to them.

So I don't think it's a real issue of voter uh confusion on this.

But what there is, in my opinion, is uh a definite decision by the voters to make a relative allocation of their tax dollars amongst these uh categories, uh namely library, transit, public safety.

And um if we upset that relative allocation, um the old numbers that would be locked in in the resolution are not just some nicety.

They represent now a very real guaranteed reduction if those are uh applied to our library, to our transit operating and to our public safety system, unless uh uh we abide by the budget.

The budget is a very important document, but we're it's something we can we can change any time.

And so I don't think we want to take that risk.

Um I think we've made the decision about allocation.

Um and uh I think it would divide the council further when we try to go uh and potentially fiddle with that 34.7.

So I I like what we have done before.

And then overall, uh I object to the process.

This is obviously a very important issue.

It's something that I'm just learning about.

Uh everybody else seems to have known about it except for me.

I mean, I've heard about the issue, of course, but I didn't uh uh I think there's been discussion about this the specifics here that I'm just hearing about for the first time.

So as a matter for process, I don't like that.

I'm gonna vote uh uh no.

So um I think that uh will respect the relative allocation made by the uh voters.

So um, but that's my views on the proposed amendment.

We do need to move to a vote on the amendment.

Councilmember Boyette.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Andy, um, let's say we keep the transit 11.71, but then transit moves away if we give the airport authority permission to take it.

Or is it 10 or 11.7 that goes away?

I'm just questioning Councilmember Boyette.

I don't know that I'm equipped to answer that hypothetical at this point.

Um prior to the legislative changes, my assumption was that if transit were to go as part of an authority, you would lose the ability to tax those 10 mills.

But a lot has changed because of this bill.

So I I don't know that I can give you a an answer on that.

And andy, isn't there a theoretical possibility?

I mean, first of all, we don't know if we're gonna do that or when that would take effect.

If it happens a year from now, we would have another set of uh of levies.

Um but we could just cut a deal with this authority.

You know, we make whatever transfer to them, and we provide some subsidy because we're gonna get the dollars or not, or call for the question.

Anything like that.

So well, it was raised as relevant to this.

So did you want to comment on the possibility of a uh no, it's beyond your scope.

I just basically making the point.

So okay.

Um further discussion though on the proposed amendment, which we should move to a vote on soon.

Call the quick.

Okay, well, now we have to vote on whether to vote.

So that'll delay us a little bit from our vote.

But if in favor of uh moving ahead, we need uh three quarters or two-thirds uh voting tonight.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight plus nine, two-thirds will be six.

So we need to have six.

If in favor of moving ahead to the vote, uh please say aye.

Aye.

If opposed, nay.

Okay, motion passes unanimously.

We'll move to a vote on the proposed amendment only.

So um is the uh uh scope of the amendment, uh proposed amendment clear.

Okay, don't need to restate that.

So if in favor of the proposed amendment, say aye.

Aye, and and actually let's do a hand vote.

Uh voting in favor are council members uh uh niece, owen, uh Rogers, uh Kennedy, uh Boyette, um, and Tidswell voting against uh raise your hand voting in opposition, uh uh Guelick, Rupsis, and Cole.

Uh so the uh proposed amendment passes.

So now we have before you the uh uh amended underlying motion.

Uh further discussion now on the amended underlying motion.

Council member Nees.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'm gonna attempt to make a motion uh to this new amended motion to add what I had described before.

The the the how the 34 point 71 mills is divided up and in paragraph four, where it discusses at the last paragraph the increase of the 30, it says 35.72, but I think that's incorrect.

Um's levy to the fiscal year is made up of, and then describe in in there how that's gonna be divided amongst the general fund, library transit, public safety one, two, and um three.

Just listed out there that way it's not in that.

I think Andy, if that you said something like that would be a better place to put it, it's not listed in that.

So if there's a second to the motion, I'll I'll keep talking.

Okay.

Okay, is the motion clear?

Uh and is there a second?

Councilmember he seconded it.

It's second.

Oh, council council member gillick seconded it.

Okay.

I just want to make sure what does that mean in English when it's all said and done.

Are we right back to where we just started from?

I think what it's gonna do is gonna tell the public and hold the council accountable to how we're gonna divvy up the 37.7 mils or whatever 34.71.

Yeah.

So it's just this year.

And so it's gonna divide it up, it's gonna hold us accountable.

And that does again, resolutions are hardly worth the paper they're written on, you know, because they they're council can change those the next meeting if they want to.

But it does at least hold us accountable that we say we're gonna honor the fact that the voters voted so much for for library, so much for transit, you know, and try to meet that.

Now I can tell you transit and library don't they don't need the funds.

They library has a huge surplus.

They could go zero this year and they would be fine.

Transit, same thing.

They're building parks with or they want to build parks with some of their reserve funds.

And so I I can tell you that those those are overfunded, in my opinion, or overfunded departments anyway.

And so we can we can we can trim some of that money and be better used for public safety.

But that said, I think to hold us accountable to what we're trying to do is what has been Scott talked about.

The intent is to convert this, then at least have within this first year show what the additional amount is that we should we are going to allocate towards the budget, because we've already or we'll be adopting the budget soon.

Uh and then we as a council member holding accountable to that.

If we change that, yeah, we can change it, but it's gonna be on the record that we change it.

Okay.

Um the motion is made and seconded on uh second amendment, uh further discussion on that proposed amendment.

Councilmember Gulett.

Uh yeah, I seconded it just so that we you know we given the first vote we had, I thought it was a good way to be able to just um keep us on track for um so yeah, I'm I will support the motion.

Okay, further discussion.

Councilmember.

Mayor, could I um suggest a friendly amendment that in both places in four where uh 35.72 exists, we would strike and insert 34.71.

So that would be in the second and fourth paragraphs, just for the sake of accuracy.

Yes.

Uh should state that again.

The the exact numbers would be uh it would be 34.71 in both places, mayor, where it says 35.72.

So in paragraph two of section four and paragraph four of section four.

Do you see those?

I do.

Okay.

Andrew, no reason.

Just like to comment on that.

So the the 35.72 is the increase over the prior year number of mills.

But if you recall, last year you did not levy to the cap.

So that's why that's the difference between 34.71 and 35.72.

So I can clarify that.

But um, yes.

But we do need to correct it, right?

Well, yeah, if you're going to you're gonna increase the ones in one and two to add the 1.01, the difference then is 34.71.

So that is correct.

Yeah.

Just wanted to explain why they're not the exact same number.

So the 35.72 represents the increase over the prior year, but you only levied 201.99 last year, which was 1.01 less than the charter cap.

So you're adding that 1.01 into sections one and two above.

And the remainder 34.71 is um what we're talking about describing in paragraph four.

Is that clarify it?

So are you saying, Andy, that the earlier assumed a uh full levy of maximum numbers and the smaller uh roughly one mil less is just a net increase over what we increased or assessed last year, but not the maximum.

I think that is correct.

Yes.

So we're carrying through in this year a decision not to levy the maximum like we did last year.

I yeah, my understanding from the the bill is we were forever lost that 1.01 mil because we have to levy the same amount we assessed last year.

And since that was not levied, that option is not available.

Uh we lost that chance potentially forever.

I I believe so, yes.

Okay.

Um, so that is uh uh we called it a a friendly amendment.

Um is there any objection from the movements to make that part of uh your proposal, Councilmember Nase and Council Maggie?

If that's what Andy indicates that needs to be changed, I'm I'm agreeable to that.

Okay.

Uh Councilmember Gullick.

Um let's yeah uh uh council member Owen, I appreciate your desire to move us along calling a friendly amendment.

Technically, there's no such thing, and that once the amendment has been or the motion has been made, it's the council's sure.

Um so let's come back to that.

It's fine.

I'm not this is not a hill to die on.

I'm just just trying to get accuracy in the numbers.

So is the accurate number in four supposed to be 35 or 34?

Based on the amendment just adopted.

Yes, as amended, it should be 34.71 additional mills.

And to be clear, to be clear, that is in addition to the mills in one and two as amended.

Yeah.

Uh okay, but we still have to decide how we're gonna handle that element.

Um council, do you consent to that being part of the if not, we'll just deal with it separately.

That's fine.

We'll come.

Okay, so um, we've got the motion, Councilmember Nieses.

We'll come back to that issue because it's perfectly uh legitimate.

But right now, um we only have council member uh uh niece's original uh proposed amendment in front of us.

Any other discussion on that before we proceed to a vote on it?

And is the motion clear uh that we'll be voting on?

Anyone need it restate it?

If if so, I'm gonna ask Council Bernice to restate it.

But uh I'm not seeing anybody asking for that.

So we're okay.

We're gonna proceed to vote on councilmember niece's um uh amendment.

Uh if in favor of council member Neeson's amendment, uh please say aye.

Aye.

If opposed, nay.

Voting in opposition, council members Kennedy and Councilmember Rupsis.

Um all and uh all other council members voting in favor.

So the motion passes uh seven two.

So again, now we have a uh the uh underlying motion has been amended twice.

Let's come back to the 70 uh uh 5.72 versus 34.71 issue.

Um is that something that somebody wants to make a motion on council member owen, for example.

Sure, mayor, I'm happy to make a motion that in section four in the two places where 35.72 mills is stated that would be stricken, and we would insert 34.71 to conform with the um two amendments now adopted.

Okay, uh is there a second?

Uh second by council member boy up.

Okay, um any further discussion by either of the movement or the second?

Any further discussion?

Okay, now any other first discussion on the motion.

Councilmember Gullick, it looks like you're ready to pounce.

No, no, not already counts.

That was actually uh discussion still.

Sorry, I'm maybe a little slow, but just Andy.

This is um the 34.71 is the increase over um our caps, but again, last year we did not um levy our whole cat to our caps and all categories.

Um I guess it doesn't say that it's an increase of 35.472 mills, uh 35.72 mills compared to last year.

I uh that's I guess, but that is the intent, is it's an increase of that over the previous year.

Yes, that is correct.

Um the first paragraph in section four, I attempted to explain that difference or started to um where I indicated the the charter cap was 203, but in fiscal year 25, uh the city only levied 201.99.

And then I think the following paragraph then provides for the difference of uh 35.72 mills.

So yes, 35.72 mils is the increase over the prior year, but not over the charter cap.

The difference being what was not levied last year.

That makes sense.

I believe so.

So if we were to say 34.71, we'd want to say over the charter amounts.

Yeah, yep.

Mayor, to be clear, I'm only trying to make the resolution accurate.

It is not important to me what this number is, other than it's the correct number.

So if it doesn't need to conform with the front, the amendments on page one, I will withdraw the amendment.

But if it's necessary for accuracy, then let's just make the technical amendment.

And uh Andy, you want to comment?

I mean, my understanding is it is necessary if uh we have to based on the state statute that says we just have to amend, or I'm sorry, uh levy in order to get to the penny that we assessed last year.

That number's 34.71, not the 35.72.

Is that correct?

I believe that paragraphs one and two or sections one and two of the resolution as amended already handle the total number of mills that need to be levied to generate the same amount of revenue as the prior year.

What I understand is attempting to occur is in section four further explanation of the new line to F, where that will be allocated, and um that's what I that amendment was already passed.

Right.

Yeah, but this is the I'm sorry.

I didn't intend to confuse those as one amendment.

Yes.

The second amendment is to further define where those 34.71 mills are to be allocated for this fiscal year.

Yes.

Okay.

Are we ready to vote?

Okay.

So is this uh proposed uh third amendment uh clear or clear enough?

Uh if in favor of the proposed amendment, please say aye.

Aye aye.

If opposed, say nay.

Voting on opposition were council members uh uh Kennedy and there was another voice down here, Councilmember Rupsis.

I believe all other council members uh voting in favor.

Um therefore the motion again passes uh uh seven uh to two.

Um uh further amendments uh before we proceed to vote on the uh ultimate question.

Are there any other amendments or questions or other discussion on the underlying um motion?

Uh Councilmember Denise.

I um I've made a lot of amendments to this in support of the amendments, but I I I finally disagree what the state's done, but I think they put us in a box and by saying that shall.

And so I'm gonna follow the state law and vote with this, but I believe that um the state overstepped their bounds in this, and I think the city may face a legal challenge, but um I think we as the council have done the best we can to navigate this and and are uh doing the best we can, but I'll support um this at this time.

So thank you.

Very good.

Any further discussion?

Council Rupsis?

I would just continue to vote against this as I said I had uh was going to, and just to be consistent with that.

And I also wish that we could have had some discussion about this in the budget committee meeting.

It could have been brought up that uh and we could have had this stuff ironed out and actually had language uh to actually look at before tonight.

Um disappointing that it wasn't, um, which is why I voted for against all the other things, but um I will continue to vote against the the budget as I described before.

Very good.

Thank you.

I will vote for it because it's uh necessary.

Um I also uh second council member ripsis.

I was at that budget committee meeting.

I these things could have been uh uh brought up or at least even in emails over the weekend are complicated.

It's important to have these things in writing.

So I do object to the process, but um we're making sausage, and we all know about that.

So okay, uh any other discussion before we proceed to a vote.

Okay, um if in favor of now the uh amended motion with the three amendments incorporated, please say aye.

Aye aye.

If opposed, say nay.

Voting on opposition council council members rips and uh Kennedy.

Uh all other uh um council members voting in favor, motion passes seven to two.

Um thank you, Andy, uh, for your work on that and uh council uh budget committee as well.

Um that concludes item number five.

Um Denise, would you read item number six?

Public hearing and resolution setting annual road maintenance district number six assessments for FY2026.

Staff recommends approval Andy.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

This is a one well, okay.

It's two slide presentation.

Uh this is uh an assessment for an emergency access road into Briarwood.

Um there are 51 lots at $55 per year per lot, totaling $2,800.

This is for maintenance on that road highlighted in red on the slide in front of you.

Uh this assessment remains unchanged from the prior fiscal year.

And uh this is a public hearing, and we are recommending approval of this assessment.

Uh okay.

Uh questions for Andy before we open up for public hearing.

I don't see any questions.

So uh uh citizen public hearing.

Item number six, the uh Briarwood emergency road access assessment.

If anybody would like to comment, please come to the podium.

This is a public hearing.

Is there any public comment on item number six?

Item number six, uh last call.

Anybody?

No one's standing up, no one's coming forward.

So we'll close the uh public comment period on number six.

Um council uh motion or comments, council member Rogers.

Having conducted a public hearing considered written and spoken public testimony, I move to approve a resolution setting annual road maintenance district number six assessments for fiscal year 2026 as recommended by staff.

Second, council councilmember Boyat.

Would either of you like to uh speak to your motion?

Seeing none, uh further discussion.

Councilmember Kennedy, Andy, is this a one-time shot?

This is not a one-time shot.

This uh assessment district has been in place, I think, since 2015 or 17.

Um and I I think it's been 55 per lot per year since then.

Okay, so this has been ongoing.

Correct.

Thank you.

Uh any other discussion.

Okay, uh, we'll proceed to a vote.

Motion is for approval of item number six, consistent with what you've got in your packet.

Um, if in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

If opposed, nay.

Motion passes unanimously.

Uh item number seven.

Denise, would you read item number seven, please?

Public hearing and resolution setting annual park maintenance districts, PMD's assessments for FY 2026.

Staff recommends approval.

Andy.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Item number seven, the park maintenance districts.

There we go.

Um just to overview.

This is really reiterating what's in your staff memo, but uh total FY26 revenue is one point almost 1.7 million.

Um this is $15,000 more than what was in the proposed budget.

Um, and I'll I'll touch on that in a second.

Uh there are almost 6,500 properties in billings that are within a park maintenance district.

The average charge at 250 dollars a year or the median at 175.

This is a 15.5% overall increase from the prior year.

A significant portion of that is within Ironwood and Reburg Ranch.

Uh they are we well, the the city is establishing funds there and beginning projects to in those two subdivisions.

Um, and my understanding is at the request of the HOAs in those subdivisions to redo the entry sign at Ironwood, and that's the $15,000 more.

Um I believe it was originally at 35, uh $35,000 um this year, and we're recommending it be at 50 because it's about 100,000 to redo that sign, so it'll be a two-year deal.

And then um the big project at Rebird Ranch is to replace the lighting along the trail, which is part of the PMD.

There are other increases.

The staff memo has uh this chart in there as well.

Um, but the the two major ones, as I indicated, were uh Ironwood and Reberg Ranch.

This is also a public hearing and staff recommends approval.

Questions for Andy.

Council Member.

Andy, in those two cases where the HOAs have asked for an increase.

Do they like send us a resolution or how do how do we know?

What's the what's that communication look like?

Well, communicating with the parks department.

Uh and beyond that, I'll let Gavin Okay further that answer.

Good evening.

Uh council mayor and council.

Uh to your question.

Yeah.

With the Ironwood, this has been multiple emails and conversations that have gone back almost two years until we finally got a design, some uh some more granular information of what is it that they want.

Okay.

Um, and so that has allowed that.

The other uh with the reburg, uh that was that too was a much larger conversation through email.

Um about a year in the making.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Very good.

Any other questions?

I don't see any.

Okay.

We'll um open up for a public hearing on item number seven, the proposed park maintenance district uh uh assessments.

Is there any public comment?

This is a public hearing.

Please come to the podium.

Just ask that you tell us your name and keep your comments to three minutes.

Is there any public comment on item number seven before we close the public hearing?

No one's coming forward, so we will close the public hearing on item number seven.

Uh look to council.

Council, how do you want to proceed?

Councilmember Boyette.

Thank you, Mayor.

Having conducted a public hearing considered written and spoken public testimony.

I move to approve a resolution setting the annual park maintenance districts, PMD's assessments for fiscal year 2026 as recommended by staff.

Very good.

Second, Councilmember Rogers.

Uh discussion.

Uh either you'd like to speak to your motion.

No.

Uh any further discussion on the motion.

Okay, we'll proceed to a vote.

The motion is for approval.

Uh, I'm sorry, did somebody say something?

No.

Um motion is for approval of uh item number seven.

Uh consistent with the staff recommendation.

If in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

If opposed, nay.

Uh motion passes unanimously.

Uh Denise, did you please read item number eight?

Public hearing a resolution approving and adopting FY 2025 budget amendments.

Staff recommends approval.

Back to Andy.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

I'm getting this up on the screen.

Okay.

Uh I have before you the FY25 budget amendments.

Uh I was before you in June for what I thought were the final ones.

Um, but as we close out the fiscal year, uh we identified two additional budget amendments for fiscal year 25.

There is sufficient cash in each fund uh to cover these expenses.

And I did uh bring this to the budget and finance committee last week where they were recommended for approval.

And the first well, both budget amendments.

I'm just gonna go here.

There we go.

Uh the first one is in our central services fund.

This covers all the print operations uh across the city where we this year, if you recall, we moved from a decentralized printing function to a centralized printing function, and uh had a I'd say a little more, a little higher startup costs than what we had anticipated we'd experience by the end of the year.

That's what that budget amendment is for.

And then finally, the uh increase to the property and liability insurance.

These are for uh deductibles on damages at times they are reimbursed if uh were found to be due reimbursement.

Um, but at this point, uh but an additional budget amendment of 15,682 is necessary.

This will make sure that our actual expenditures are not in excess of those that were budgeted for fiscal year 25.

This is also a public hearing, and staff recommends approval.

Questions for Andy?

Are there any questions for Andy?

I don't see any, Andy, so thank you very much.

This is a public hearing.

Um anybody like to is there anyone who would like to be heard on item number eight, the proposed budget amendments for fiscal year 25, which was the last fiscal year.

Any public comment on item number eight?

Please come forward if there is.

Uh no one is coming forward, so we'll close a public hearing on item number eight.

Uh council.

Uh uh Councilmember Kennedy.

Having conducted a public hearing considered written and spoken testimony.

I move to approve of the resolution, approving and adopting resolution for fiscal year 25 budget amendments as recommended by staff.

Very good.

Uh second council member Kulik.

Um is there any discussion?

Any discussion before we proceed to a vote?

Seeing none, uh the motion is for approval of item eight.

If in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

If opposed, say nay.

Uh motion passes unanimously.

Um concludes item number eight.

Denise, would you read item number nine?

Public hearing and resolution approving and adopting FY2026 final budget.

Staff recommends approval.

Andy.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

Uh have you.

Long time no see.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It's good to be back.

Um I have before you the uh FY26 budget adoption.

Um this also went to the budget and finance committee last week and was recommended for approval.

Uh what you have before you in your resolution, um, and I'll just explain it to you because I don't have a slide that shows it, but you you had the preliminary budget that was presented to you for consideration in June.

You guys made amendments and adopted that and establish the maybe for lack of a better term, adopted preliminary budget.

Uh, that's the starting point.

What's before you tonight?

I have before you four recommended amendments to that budget for this evening.

Um that would be hopefully approved.

Um, and that would establish the budget for FY26.

I I would hesitate to say it is the final budget because I would imagine you'll see budget amendments for FY26 throughout the year.

But um, I think this is our first time doing a two-step budget adoption, and I thought was a good opportunity to bring amendments to that as well at this point in time.

So I'm gonna go through the amendments uh that are before you.

The first two are to the tax increment districts, one for the South Tax Increment District and uh one to North 27th or downtown tax increment district.

These are both projects that were approved in the past, did not get started, and we uh failed to include them in the budget this year.

So we're asking that they be re-established.

These are projects that have been included in those cash flow sheets you've seen.

We've anticipated they would get spent.

Um they didn't get completed or in some cases started in fiscal year 25, but they are underway and um would uh would would like to have those funds to see the project through.

Um the next two items are are related to each other.

So if you recall when we acquired and built out this building, uh we we entered into some short-term financing to do that.

And the intention was that we would sell the old city hall, park one retail, um, and a few other things, including tax credits, and use those funds as they came in to pay down debt on this building.

When you had the FY26 budget before you, we had not closed on park one retail nor old city hall.

We expected they were coming, but uh did not include the accelerated debt payment as part of the budget.

We have since closed on those and are asking for the budget authority to pay down the debt to the tune of it'll probably be between two and a half and 2.9 million.

The so that's what that city hall financing budget authority is for to allow me to do that.

Um the the parking transfer is really just an accounting budget amendment, but when we sold park one retail, that was a parking asset.

The funds go there.

We need to transfer it out of that and into city hall financing fund so we can make that payment.

So those two are related.

Um I don't have any other amendments to the FY26 budget at this time.

And um would turn it over to you, Mayor.

A reminder, it's still a public hearing and staff recommends approval.

Thank you very much, Andy.

Uh questions now for Andy.

Are there any questions for Andy?

Councilmember Gillard.

Uh going back to slide number four there.

Um we just just making sure I I understand and the public understands um those first two items.

We've already levied for the money back in fiscal year 2025.

Uh they're sending an account somewhere, and um by passing this amendment, um, it provides authority to spend money that's already been levied.

Is that correct?

Correct.

The the cash for actually all of those is currently in the city of Billings bank accounts.

Um with respect to the first two projects, those were approved by prior councils, probably the majority of you.

Um, in in the case of the sky point rehab, that's that's the unspent portion that they're intending to use for lighting uh and electrical upgrades.

The sales are already done, it's been painted, so that's why the majority of that's been spent.

And then at Optimus Park lighting project, that um, I believe is underway at this point, but was not rebudgeted.

Okay, thank you.

Very good.

Any other questions for Andy?

Okay, thank you, Andy.

Uh, we'll open up for our public hearing then.

Uh, this is a public hearing on uh the final uh city budget item number nine.

If you'd like to be heard, just please come forward.

Just ask that you tell us uh your name and uh keep your comments to three minutes.

Mr.

Nelson.

Kevin Nelson, 4235 Bruce Avenue.

Uh hopefully within this budget, there's proper room for some what I think we need is some more traffic uh enforcement.

Mr.

Kennedy with this earlier one about the police officer gets totaled out.

Uh about a month or a year and three months ago, my wife she got her car totaled out, side impact, probably ran a red light, but he said she said this is according to the cops.

We're busy, we have other recs to get to, we gotta go.

All right.

Couple weeks ago, woman, mother raising four kids again, totaled out, high speed, side impact, totals out the car, one of the kids is injured.

The front, the driver and the passenger, they take off running.

Don't know if they were ever caught the passenger to the back of the pickup.

He's enabled to go, he goes to the hospital also.

Well, you may not agree with the approach.

But as you well know, if you pay attention to the news, uh President Trump has been bragging about how Washington DC hasn't had a homicide since he put federal enforcement in there to up the enforcement.

And the homicide haven't had any homicides.

Well, what would happen if we had additional enforcement of our traffic right here?

Who in this city would not have to suffer through the collision that may have not may not occur just because there's enforcement.

What if we had additional cops on the street absolutely enforcing these traffic laws?

How many people would not have to suffer through that?

You really don't know.

But the evidence is clear with additional enforcement.

Some of these traffic accidents just are just not going to happen because a lot of these people are going to be arrested long before the they ever create the the accident themselves.

I don't know how your budget is setting, but I would hope that this council would take seriously that the traffic in this town needs to be addressed and necessary funding needs to be put in place so this the these could be addressed.

Maybe for transparency, maybe do we need budget authority for maybe we need someone just to simply put down how many traffic stops are done every month and get a report to the people to say, hey, are we are we actually even enforcing these traffic laws?

I mean, some people don't think we are because just to the fact that they're it's just going rampant that there is no enforcement.

We don't even know.

But hopefully you'll take this consider this this seriously, put some additional funding in the budget if necessary, and get some transparency about the number of traffic stops that are actually happening so the people know what's going on.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Uh further comment on item number nine, the proposed final budget.

Is there any other public comment on item number nine?

This is a public hearing.

Feel free to come forward.

Uh no one is, so we will close the public uh hearing on item number nine.

Uh back to council.

Councilmember Boyette.

Thank you, Mayor.

Having conducted a public hearing considered written and spoken public testimony.

I move to approve a resolution approving and adopting the resolution for the FY 2026 final budget as recommended by staff.

Very good.

Second by councilmember Guelick.

Uh, would either of you like to speak to your motion?

Ms.

Per Boyette.

Um, I know it was a long drawn-out process to to buy this building as well as to sell the other building, and um we finally did it.

I didn't think that day would ever come, but we're here.

We have a wonderful building.

And I think Andy told me today with a less than three million dollars left after all of these millions of dollars.

I think we're in good place.

Very good.

Thank you.

And thanks to all the staff uh who worked on that.

Um I always like to remember that most of that money came from COVID dollars, and that meant that we had 577 people in this county or whatever the number was who died, sadly.

But um, I'm not sure where those dollars would have come from.

Um, if it hadn't been for the COVID up pandemic and those federal dollars.

Uh any other uh comment now on the proposed motion for approval of the final budget.

Any other discussion before we proceed to a vote?

Okay, seeing none, if in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

If opposed, nay, nay.

Uh voting in opposition, council member Tidswell.

Um, no, I apologize.

Yeah, uh who voted nay, Councilmember Rupsis.

I apologize.

Okay, and council member Nees.

And just those two, correct?

Okay, yeah.

So uh all of the council members voting in favor.

Um motion passes uh seven in favor, two opposed.

Um that concludes item number nine, but you just our final item for this evening, uh, item number 10.

Uh Denise, would you read item number 10?

Okay, Mayor, this um is a three-part.

It's resolutions creating advisory committees for um urban renewal areas.

Staff will recommend um approval.

And the first one is um to be considered is the East Billings Urban Renewal District, EBERD.

And then the next one will be um South Billings Boulevard, urban renewal district, uh, S.

Bird, and then downtown Urban Renewal District, and each of those will require a separate motion and vote.

Very good.

Thank you.

And as uh we'll have a joint presentation, and then at some point we'll need to have separate votes on each resolution.

Uh turn over to our city attorney, uh Gina.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I I really don't have a presentation.

This is pretty straightforward um issue.

There are three resolutions for your consideration uh to create the urban renewal district advisory committees for the three urban renewal districts that um the city of buildings has and those were presented in your packet.

However, um last week, Mayor Cole reviewed and suggested a couple of edits that were um appropriate and accepted by the well, at least two of the three districts.

We didn't hear back from Sabura, but um I uh I have pulled up a clean version of one of those one of those resolutions.

This one is the which one is this?

This is the eBird.

And so generally the edits that the are now being recommended are to section two and to section three.

And section in section two, um, you will see subsection D has six at-large members.

That section um consolidated the the three there there were um a section D E and F, I believe, and there were two, two, and two members, and it was a it was a little confusing.

Um just so you know the process based on council's direction at the work session when we discussed this.

It was to uh council basically instructed staff to move forward keeping the districts and the process as close to the same as possible.

And so staff essentially just um spoke with the districts, got what their recommendations were, what they wanted to see as far as representation on the the advisory committees, and that what was placed.

That's what was placed in here.

Um Mayor Cole made some better um edits to consolidate those to make a little bit more sense that there was consistency between between the three districts.

That's what you see in all three resolutions, excuse me.

And I've I've just pulled one of them that one of the resolutions up, the three are essentially the same, consolidating those at-large membership so that there's some consistency.

And that's what you see in section two and section three is essentially the same thing.

Um here under ABC and D that deconsolidates those uh representatives and sets the terms for those members.

Uh there is also an edit up in this initial paragraph in section two, just a little bit better language clarifying.

So what was initially in here was city code language that that talks about the initial terms, which isn't the best language, and Mayor Cole came up with a little bit better language that clarifies the initial terms.

Um when they expire that the new term starting on the calendar year is for the the whole four years.

Um that is essentially the edits, I believe.

The rest of the edits were just clean up to make it consistent with the changes to the districts.

Um, the district representatives.

I think let me check to make sure.

Yes, that's correct.

So um that's just the quick and dirty explanation.

If there's any questions, happy to answer those.

Um and I can pull up the other resolutions as well if that's helpful.

They're essentially the same edits in in all with just slight variations based on the representations that the three districts have.

Okay, uh questions uh uh for Gina and I'll just point out we also have representatives from the three existing uh TIFF advisory boards.

Uh Katie Schreiner, Heather Duty, and Dick Zier are with us as well, and we'll give them an opportunity to uh chime in here.

Um but were there any questions for Gina specifically?

Council member Nice.

Thank you, Mayor.

Gina, um these um these resolutions, these TIF districts, they're the city TIF districts, correct?

That that's correct.

This the city advisory board advisory committees.

Yeah, the advice.

That's correct.

They will now be city committees, yes.

Okay.

And so the city has the ability to set the rules and who the members are.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay, and so that's kind of what we're doing here with these resolutions, the different all right.

Of course, subject to whatever the state says.

Uh for the yeah, yes, that's correct.

In the bill, um, the legislature did require representation from city county and school district.

Okay.

And and uh just just a clear, I think I see CGU on some emails that I was talking about, and I'll bring this amendment up as we get into it, but I just want to let the council know a little bit more about it.

I think the intent when the the legislator made some of these, and maybe I'm speaking out of term, but from what I heard they wanted to have more representation outside the district uh for city county and school districts in there, and so they've had uh added these positions to be within the the district, the uh the body of decision making of what how to spend the tax uh taxpayer money.

So I I I would I'm gonna make an amendment later on as we get into this about how the representatives appointed in.

I think should be A C D if it's for Sabura, these are the um the uh city county and school district appointees, should not be able to own interest or uh personal or business interests in the district.

What this does would be to um uh make sure that we're getting community members outside the district to help put get input into the district, and I think that would give a better uh rounding of that.

So I just asking you, Gina, do you see a problem with um having something like that where we add a rule within the appointees, uh at least for the cities, but more importantly, since we we created these, can we put requirements on what the how the county or the school districts can appoint their members?

Can we have a rule like that?

Uh council member Nies, uh first I want to say I did see your emails, and I apologize for not addressing that when I was standing up there at the podium.

Um I did not include that particular edit just because I wanted to make sure that I understood exactly and uh it it seemed like it's something that might warrant a some council discussion.

So first of all, just wanted to say that I apologize for not addressing that.

Um and yes, I think that council can um can place some requirements on these uh on qualifications for the members.

I um I I think if the one the one problem I see with playing placing certain kinds of restrictions on those particular um the the representation from a city county and school district is that those three entities would be the one making a recommendation and if a particular restriction is um placed like for example, I think I think you indicated in your the most recent email that um those representatives cannot own personal or business property in the district.

Um I would just be worried that if the school district, for example, or the county or whoever wanted a particular representative and they did own property in the district, that would be problematic because they're the one who is making the um they're making the nomination and they it seems to me they have they're they're entitled to have the representative that that they want.

Um but but that's really not clear in the bill.

So I I think that that's something that council can discuss.

And I I don't think there's any prohibition to do what you want.

It just may simply be it could potentially be problematic.

Okay, yeah, no, I understand it could limit the pool of who may want to they appoint.

I think by doing something like this, you're gonna eliminate the conflict of interest between someone living in the district voting for their own sidewalks and stuff like that versus representing the school interests that they're on.

So uh, but anyway, I'll speak to that for that.

It's just long as the U don't think there's a problem with that.

So I don't.

Okay, great, thank you.

Okay, uh further uh questions for Gina, and I will ask the representatives from the TIFF districts to come forward in just a minute and uh uh chime in um with anything they want to add here.

I don't see any other thing else.

So um existing TIFF representatives don't feel any obligation, but uh uh Katie, Heather, Dick, you any of you want to comment?

Um we'd like to know what you think of uh the current uh version, including uh my amendments.

Uh I'm Dick Zier, I'm the consultant of the South Buildings Urban Renewal Association.

I live at 3039 Golden Acre Drive.

Uh well, you know, Mayor and Council.

Uh my board is in favor of uh what you did, uh the amendments you made to the to the mayor cole.

So we're good behind it.

Great, thank you very much.

Uh good evening, Mayor and Council Katie Shiner with Downtown Billings.

Um I think that the main comment that I would have for council is that we really elected to propose representation that is largely um the same as it has been for the last 30 years.

The downtown buildings partnership was created in 1995.

Our bylaws were pretty prescriptive from the very beginning, really making sure we had accurate representation from the city, county, and school district were specifically called out.

In addition, we also added in um big sky economic development.

The one change that we've made this uh go around is that we have added the Native American Development Corporation as a prescriptive uh representative uh seat on our board, really with that input to the larger economic development for our community, including downtown, uh really felt that that was important.

But largely what we've proposed for the makeup of our board is very closely aligned with what was created in our bylaws in 1995.

So sort of along that lines of what what's working will continue to work for us.

So um, and I also appreciate Mayor Cole's uh revisions to this.

Um it does make it much clearer and um uh consistent across all three districts.

So thank you.

Very good, thank you.

Heather.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Um, our board is completely happy with all the revisions that have been made, and they're very excited to get three new members who are not to uh Mr.

Nisa's point, uh representatives who own property in the district to have a little bit of that outside perspective.

Thank you.

Very good, thank you.

Okay, uh uh this is a this is not a public hearing.

I'm so used to saying that.

So we don't have to have a public hearing on on um uh this item.

We will have to have separate votes.

Uh council, are there further questions, discussion, or is there a motion?

Uh just to remind you if we if there is a motion, let's proceed in order.

Um uh first E Bird, second Sabura, and then the uh um downtown district.

So uh Councilmember uh Gula, Councilmanies.

Um let's get an underlying motion at least.

Uh so it's um I I move to approve resolution creating an advisory committee for the East Billings Urban Renewal District.

Um and Council would advise to Council Gillard.

Can I just ask you to specify the uh nature of the resolution because um uh uh exactly which resolution we're approving since uh uh there are were proposed amendments um distributed by email after the one that came out in the packet a week ago, namely the ones that I distributed.

Right, okay.

Uh so I I move to approve resolution creating advisory committee for the east billings urban renewal district uh with uh amendments uh proposed by that that that includes amendments proposed by uh Mayor Cole and as recommended by staff.

Okay, and those were the ones that were presented in Gina's uh presentation to you here a minute ago.

Second uh council member Nees.

Uh you had the second okay.

Either of you like to speak to your motion.

Uh no, thanks.

No, I I read through your amendments.

I thought they were fine and made some clarity on that.

So I appreciate you taking time looking at that.

I would like to uh make an amendment though.

Okay, uh uh Councilmember Nees.

Thank you.

And I'm sorry I don't have the resolution up here uh in front of me, but um under section uh two on the advisory committee after the uh ABCDE would um uh and this was maybe maybe not ABCDE.

I'm looking at the downtown, but where the they mentioned the different representatives being elected that we insert the um language, the representative appointed in A and C um uh cannot own uh personal or business property in the district.

There's a second, I'll speak to it.

And just to repeat your proposed amendment, it would add uh uh additional language in subsection two saying that the representatives uh uh mentioned in A through C, namely the city county, and school district may not own property in the district.

Is that that I stated correctly?

Yes, that is correct.

And then when we get to Sabur, it'll be A through D.

Okay.

Uh is there a second to the proposed amendment.

Uh second by council member Owen.

Anyway, okay.

Uh if you'd like to address your momentum.

Yeah, I spoke a little bit towards that.

I was asking Gina the questions, but I I think the whole idea is to ensure that we uh eliminate kind of conflict of interest between those who are appointed and those living in the district.

Um the whole the point of having me city representative uh school district and county representatives give an outside look uh as far as how that tax tax money is to be spent uh within the district when you look at the whole entity, the the tax dollars that would have gone into school district versus the TIFF district or the city or the county.

And so I I think by ensuring members that are outside of that industry brings that outside to perspective, it brings uh more support for the for the TIFF districts because you've got people outside of the district supporting uh the district and their developments.

Um and it also being brings new perspective in.

And then again, it just it eliminates any kind of uh conflict of interest that may uh people may point to if that individual is not even in the district and uh representing that.

So I would ask you that you would support this simple amendment.

Very good, Councilman Owen.

Do you want to speak to a second?

No.

Uh further discussion on the proposed amendment.

Councilmember Vigulick.

Um I'm not necessarily opposed to the I the idea.

I I'm a little concerned that um I mean now these are so since they're city boards or the city has a responsibility for filling these positions.

Um we have some challenges filling already.

Uh I just wonder if there's somebody who doesn't have any particular interest, I guess, um in the in a district, uh we're gonna be able to find people um to to fill that.

I I'm not sure about that.

I and it seems to me that the city council is the function because everything that does come before the city uh before the um the TIFF districts, urban rural districts does come before council, and we can uh council can uh uh provide the interests for those who aren't living in the district.

So I'd throw that out there for for discussion.

Yeah, I I agree.

Uh getting board finding board members are for a lot of different boards are difficult.

Um I I think I I you know I don't know for sure, but I would imagine the TIFF district boards and they can speak to it whether or not they have trouble finding board members or not.

But I I would hope um that this would just give a broader spectrum of of people to be able to serve on the boards.

It it actually opened up because right now board members I think have to live within the district, and so this is going to open it up to the entire city or county um uh to allow more people to be involved in it.

So I think you have a broader pool to pull from for these positions.

Very good for the discussion.

Uh council member uh uh boyet.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah, I think this is a good idea.

I mean, I'm looking at D E and F, those are property owners.

So A, B, and C, uh, I think each board should be able to go out and find a couple of people.

I I would hope they could.

Um I think this is a good idea.

I mean, why not have people who aren't property owners making decision?

Good idea.

I'll support it.

Are you good for the discussion?

Okay, I I I understand I'm gonna vote against it.

I understand the the point of it, and and it's not a big deal, frankly, to me if this passes.

I just um uh since the statutes and I don't have the statute in front of me, but I assume the statute basically said the county gets to pick their people and the school district gets to speak pick their people.

And uh if we could make this kind of limitation, uh why can't we just say they also uh have to live in the city or they also have to have financial interest or whatever we're we're imposing our will on the uh potential desires of the school district in the county.

So um I'm not inclined uh for that reason.

So any further discussion uh council or uh Gina?

Thanks, Mayor.

I just wanted to.

This is a little out of order, I guess, but when I was giving my presentation and did not mention niece's uh council member niece's potential amendment.

I don't think any of the three districts were aware of that until now they can all came up and had a chance to um tell council their positions.

I don't know if you think that would be appropriate for to inquire of them if they have any issues or if that would be problematic in any way if any of the three have the the uh representative.

Yeah, no, I think I think that's perfectly legitimate.

I assume nobody has a I don't have an objecting to that.

I didn't mention it before they gave their testimony, and I think uh the eBird did speak towards it uh in favor of it.

So um, yeah, if if the others want to mention one way or the other, that's fine.

Thank you.

Mayor and council, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this specifically.

Um while I generally don't have uh any opposition to this idea, I would reiterate that it is often a challenge to um I guess make that request to these entities to appoint their representatives.

We don't generally have an issue filling board positions on this board by our at-large membership.

Where we do have challenges is to seek representation from the very prescriptive entities specifically when you look at having a representative from City County School District.

I I would be concerned that they would find it harder to find a willing and able participant.

Should this role be more prescriptive, specifically for those three.

I do very sincerely respect the I think the intention behind this to receive input from your community is very important.

But I would um also reiterate that we have very strong conflict of interest policies uh in place from our board as a requirement.

We have seen this in uh in action in several of our um points of action on this board.

Should a representative of an entity have a conflict of interest because of personal or professional property that they might own, um, they do accuse themselves, and that that's definitely um noted in our our meeting minutes and has happened several times.

So while I don't generally have an issue behind the intent of this, I would be very concerned about ensuring that the entities that do need to appoint a representative would have uh an easy time to do that.

Um so just out of I guess respect for that to keep that in mind that that is sometimes hard to get a willing and able participant sometimes.

So thank you.

Uh very good, Dek.

I'm dictated there again.

I guess my concern would be with the state making that law.

Are we gonna open up a can of worms?

Uh and do something that they wouldn't like, and then we have a real problem.

Very good.

Uh Wyeth.

Mayor and council, if I might just briefly just to get a little more context on this.

So I when I did go and speak to uh school district two about the this process, I was actually I spoke to them about the expansion of the South Billings district and that this was coming forward.

Um, my impression, I guess, from them is they're they're looking at potentially you know, bringing forward a professional, someone professional out of their staff, um, an administrator, maybe a board member, trustee.

So I guess I I just want to point that out.

I don't know where all those people live or what they're I think they're thinking more of like the importance of the person and and how they're gonna represent the district uh more than anything else.

So just wanted to share that.

Um they're not thinking about you know, just kind of random people.

It's pretty, I think they're looking pretty specifically.

So thanks.

Okay.

Uh council, you've got a motion, uh proposed amendment uh on the table.

Any further discussion on the proposed amendment before we proceed to a vote.

Council member Mayor, I think I just want to um stick up a little bit for the the notion here that um independent directors are a good idea.

Having a little bit of balance makes a lot of sense.

And I think it's important to remember the underlying impetus of this legislation was to reflect the whether it's real or perceived, but if there is a frustration among other taxing entities, the cities come in and establish TIFFs and they feel like they don't have a voice.

So I would be stunned, frankly, if either the county or the school district had a problem finding someone to fill these positions because they are acutely interested in how tax dollars are divvied up.

I don't I don't anticipate there will be vacancies here because I think the belief is it's that counties and school districts are frustrated with TIFF districts.

So I think this amendment makes a lot of sense.

We're talking about each entity finding three people.

I think they'll be more than able to do that and ensure that those are truly independent directors.

So I think this amendment is a good idea and I will support it.

Very good further discussion on the proposed amendment.

We'll see to a vote.

Okay.

Um the uh proposed amendment then is to add language um that would uh require that the representatives and at this point we're only talking about the eBird um uh uh proposed resolution.

Uh but of course it will may have implications for others uh that those uh city count city county and school district representatives cannot own property in the district.

Um so if uh in favor of the proposed motion, please say aye.

Aye.

Uh if uh and and uh just to clarify those council members uh uh Boyette, Nice, um Owen, um okay, and if opposed, please uh uh say uh nay.

Voting in opposition, council members uh uh Tidswell, uh Kennedy, uh Rogers, uh uh Gullick, um Cole and Rupsis.

So uh that that uh uh motion fails uh three to um six.

Um brings us back then to the underlying motion.

Um uh further discussion now on the underlying motion.

Is there any further discussion on the underlying motion relating to the e-bird district?

Okay, we'll proceed to a vote.

Uh so that brings us to the uh original uh proposal.

Um uh councilmember Gullick's uh uh motion, I believe.

Uh if in favor of the original motion, please say aye.

Aye.

If opposed, say nay uh that motion passes unanimously uh nine uh zero.

Um second item up would be the South Billings Boulevard.

Councilmember Kennedy.

Mayor, I would move that uh that we uh uh create the advisory committee for the um South Billings um Boulevard Urban Renewal District as proposed and with the amendments that you have put forward attached.

Very good.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Uh second by council member uh Gullick.

Um either of you like to speak to your motion.

No.

And no.

Um any further discussion on the motion.

Okay.

Um if in uh ready to proceed to vote, no other discussion.

So uh the motion is for approval of item 10b uh with the proposed uh changes that were circulated and discussed.

If in favor of uh uh the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

If opposed, say nay.

Motion passes unanimously.

Uh the third item up then is item 10 C, the downtown urban renewal district uh proposed resolution.

Is there a motion relating to that one?

Councilmember Gulek.

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

I move to approve a resolution, create an advisory committee for the downtown urban rural district uh as recommended by staff and with amendments uh provided by Mayor Cole.

Very good segment, Councilmember Rogers.

Um either you'd like to speak to your motion.

No, okay.

Uh any further discussion.

Okay, uh we'll proceed to a vote.

If in favor of the motion for approval item 10c as stated, please uh say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

If opposed, nay, uh motion passes unanimously.

Thank you very much.

That concludes uh regular agenda in item 10.

Um brings us uh to public comment on things that were not on our agenda tonight.

Is there any comment on items not on our agenda tonight?

Um just ask that you keep your comments to three minutes and tell us your name, if you would.

Uh no one is coming forward.

Any public comment on non-agenda items.

No one's coming forward.

We'll so close the public comment period.

Um last item on our agenda, then is council initiatives, council member Kennedy.

Yes, thanks, Mayor.

I sent everyone out a council initiative proposal.

And this is um the short name for the initiative is department heads of the city of Billings residency in the city.

It's just asking that all department heads um are uh um would live in the city.

And uh and the reasoning for that is department heads proposed rate increases and fee increases.

Uh cities across the country also have this requirement.

And as a city resident, they have a voice in their own neighborhood.

Um it's just a matter of fairness that if you're making proposals um to tax people, you should be part of that uh tax base.

Um I received your um comments, Gina, today.

And as you have stated in the charter, it states that the city administrator has the um opportunity to hire and all of that.

Um as we move this initiative forward.

Um as we move this initiative forward, I would just ask that we make a uh a positive um proposal that people that are hired as department heads do live in the city.

Now the city administrator does not decide to follow that.

That's according to the charter, they have that prerogative.

But um that would be the desire of the council to put something forward so that initiative would be out there and and people know that uh you know that's what the desire of the council.

All I'm asking tonight is to move this forward to a uh a uh work session that uh we can have an overall discussion on it.

Uh very good.

Thank you.

Um so uh uh uh thank you for giving us the heads up.

Is this the time when you're going to make that uh uh motion?

Um because I'd uh you haven't made the motion per se, right?

Or are you making the motion?

Do I make a motion to move it to a study?

Yeah, uh session.

Um mayor, I think it needs to be presented on the agenda for public comment to know that it's on the initiative forum.

So it needs to be presented prior to the the um uh the agenda being pr created so that that way we came here, the public would see there was going to be an agenda on here regarding that.

And that's the point you were gonna make, I assume, Councilman Ripsis.

Uh uh, so this constant just notice um and then uh we would put it on a future amendment or a future agenda so that the the community has notice.

Yes, please.

Okay, well, thank you for heads up.

Council Repsis, you have anything else, or that was your point that you wanted to make.

Well, if we're ready to move on, then I would uh introduce my initiative.

Oh, okay.

You would give us okay.

All right.

I think we are ready to move on.

So Council Target, uh counsel, you all received in your email um notice of my initiative, um, then I'll ask to be put on our future agenda.

Two weeks from now, I'm actually gonna be out of town, so it'll probably be four weeks from now uh that we'll put the uh on on the agenda, but uh specifically dealing with uh Mr.

Nelson's uh and and many other uh complaints that we received from around the community uh dealing with aggressive driving and excessive vehicular noise.

Um and so the end result of the agenda or the initiative will really to just be uh dedicate some time to work session to to really kind of dig into what are our policy options, what legislative changes can we make, what the environmental design changes can we uh uh try and and what can we use from a technology perspective to to help deal with this issue in our community.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Uh anything else?

Heads up, sir.

Okay, Councilmember Boyet.

This may not be the time, but um uh came to mind that council member Shariqi, some years ago, I think he may have made a motion that once we built this building that we were gonna put a plaque up on the wall somewhere um signifying where the money came from, and it was for the sake of the people under COVID who passed away.

I just whether we forgot about it or in the future we I didn't want to forget that now.

Yeah, no, I appreciate that.

And and haven't forgotten about it, but nor have we driven it forward.

So Council Retrikey, uh myself, um I think Councilmember Joyce.

Yakovich, I thought he was really pushing it too.

Yeah.

Um we met a few times.

Um we talked about something uh much more substantial, um, but ran into problems.

Where would that go?

Who would pay for it?

Lots of issues.

And I think the consensus was something relatively modest.

Um, but we need something.

And um if anybody would like to uh uh have an informal uh uh uh drafting committee, uh I'd like to be on that, but uh I'd welcome any input because I I think we do just need to come up with some maybe we should send that to the art committee and a location.

Maybe send that to the art committee to do a little research.

Uh yeah.

Any objection to that, we give them a little assignment.

Uh well, although they don't exist yet.

They will they will also a little bit of a question of timing.

So uh or the operations committee, it's a kind of an internal thing, so that that's probably a good place for it too.

But if you have input or comment or location, and I know staff has been kind of looking around, uh, so they may have some thoughts as well.

So okay, thank you for calling that to our tession.

Okay, I am going to uh adjourn us if there's nothing else, guys.

Okay, thank you everyone.

We're adjourned.