Uh it is um the 8th of September 2025.

This is Billings City Council uh business meeting.

Please uh join with me for the Pledge of Allegiance by standing and then we'll remain standing for our invocation.

Councilmember Boyet will be filling in for Councilmember uh Rogers tonight.

With liberty and let us take a moment to pause and reflect.

We gather tonight with gratitude for the opportunity to serve our community.

May our decisions be guided by wisdom, fairness, and respect.

May we listen with open minds, speak with integrity, and make decisions that strengthen the well-being of all who call the city home.

We recognize the responsibilities entrusted to us and commit ourselves to the acts to the act with compassion, humility, and vision.

May our work reflect the values of cooperation, justice, and care for one another.

With that spirit in mind, let us begin.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Again, welcome everyone.

Uh Tony, would you please call the role?

Councilmember Shaw.

Here.

Guelick.

Nece.

Owen.

Here.

Rogers.

Excused.

Kennedy.

Here.

Aspenlighter.

Here.

Tidswell.

Here.

Boyette.

Repsis.

Excuse.

Mayor Cole.

Here.

First item of business or minutes from August 25th, but I believe those are pending or have those been distributed.

Tony.

Those are pending.

Okay.

That was my recollection.

So we'll come back to those at our next uh business meeting.

Um first item up, then are council courtesies.

And I'd like to uh begin um by asking um uh representatives uh from just serve uh or the just serve organization to come on up to the uh podium and if they've got some comments for us to give them uh to us uh as you might or not rec might or might not recall uh council uh back in July I signed the um uh proclamation in recognition of uh Billings being a just serve city uh in recognition that the values of compassion empathy and community support are foundational to Billings and uh just serve as an organization that's dedicated to uh linking up those uh volunteering opportunities with the residents of our community so uh Lynn and Dell, uh Nielsen and your crew come on up and if you've got some comments for us, Aaron, and then uh they'd like to uh make a little presentation uh to us and also get a photograph.

So Aaron.

Awesome.

Thank you so much.

So I'm Aaron Walker.

I'm a volunteer specialist with JustServe.org.

And I'm as Mayor Cole said, I'm here with um other specialists from the city to award billings.

Um but first I wanted to tell you really quick about our platform.

So just serve.org is a national website that connects nonprofits who are looking for volunteer need help with community members who are in search of meaningful service opportunities.

And so we work with the nonprofits to get their volunteer needs put on the website and then any community member can go to just serve.org, put in our zip code, and then scroll through all the local service opportunities and they can register right there for whatever matches their interests.

So as I'm sure you know research consistently shows that volunteerism helps to build stronger communities.

So the studies show that people who give back to their community experience better overall health greater life satisfaction fewer hospitalizations higher self-esteem and greater ability to manage their chronic illnesses giving service reduces stress depression and anxiety and it enhances one's sense of purpose.

So in short volunteering makes people feel good and it leads to better physical and mental wellbeing.

So any city that encourages volunteerism is enhancing the lives of their community members.

So it's especially timely that we came today because September 11th has been uh designated as a national day of service in our country in honor of the sacrifices made on 9-11 by American heroes so I encourage all of you to go to just serve.org and scroll through the many volunteer opportunities that are happening and in this week in particular bring your friends your neighbors or just register yourself and start enjoying the happiness that comes from giving service that's our mission at justserve.org now I'd like to turn the time over to Lynn Dell thank you council members and mayor cole um this is really an honor this is exciting for us to be the first city in Montana to become a just serve city there are 400 across the United States that are just served cities and Canada.

Now I'd like to turn the time over to Lynn Adell.

Thank you, Council members and Mayor Cole.

Um, this is really an honor.

This is exciting for us to be the first city in Montana to become a just served city.

There are 400 across the United States that are just served cities and Canada.

Um also, this is an international website.

It is in 14 countries.

So service is important across the world.

And so just in our city alone, just so you just a little bit of tidbit.

We have over 120 organizations on the website here locally, as well as approximately 88 projects that are available for volunteers to go out and volunteer.

There's some that are ongoing.

There's some that um are just a one-day theme or one that might be repetitive.

So there's lots of opportunities to serve, and we just want the city and those in our community to know that this resource and tool is available to our community to utilize and serve, serve these organizations that are reaching out for volunteering.

So I have a plaque that is indicating that Billings, Montana is now a just served city, and we'd like to present it to you.

That would be great.

If you if you and uh your crew want to come up just in front, and council, if we all stand and somebody can snap a picture and Lindell, why don't you just hold the certificate?

Um with this here, but if you just stand right in, stand right in the middle, we're holding it, then it'll be clear what that is and we'll we'll all smile.

Very good.

All right, thank you.

Uh, thank you very much.

Uh other council courtesies.

Councilmember Kennedy.

Last Thursday evening, Philip 66 had a uh um Philip66 had the picnic in the park at South Park.

We had uh many, many uh nonprofit agencies there, and they invited folks um all over the South Side to come.

Um free food, drink, and the ability to meet and talk with the different nonprofits.

And I just like to say thank you to Philip 60 once again for sponsoring that event.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Raspenweiter.

Thanks.

Um just wanted to commend Highlands Golf Club.

The four Gulf Pros at Highlands did their 100-hole challenge.

They do that every year.

Uh, this year they did it for Warriors in Quiet Waters, uh, an organization that supports uh post-9-11 combat veterans with uh centering and grounding experiences and in nature here in Montana.

Umganization founded out of Bozeman, but the the Gulf Pros bit a hundred holes in in one day and raised uh about 40,000 for that organization.

Um I think that's a uh a nod to their their commitment to serving those who have served for us and uh just wanted to recognize their their efforts.

Uh Garrett Wooden, Brady Cadietti, Cavern, and Bryce Finman.

Very good.

Thank you.

Yes, any other council courtesies this evening.

Uh seeing that, we'll move on to our proclamations this evening.

We have uh uh two proclamations.

The first one is in recognition of Suicide Prevention uh day.

So Nancy, if you and your compatriot want to come up, I will uh read the proclamation as you do so, and we'll give you a chance to um uh make any other comments.

So uh whereas, according to the CDC, there are approximately 118 suicides per day, over 43,000 suicides per year, and more than one and a half million suicide attempts each year in the United States, making suicide the 11th leading cause of death.

And whereas Montana has the highest suicide rate in the nation per 100,000 population, with over twice the national average.

And suicide is the eighth leading cause of death overall and the second leading cause of death among Montanans between the ages of 10 to 44.

And whereas over 90% of the people who die by suicide have a diagnosable and treatable mental health condition, which is often not recognized or treated.

And the stigma associated with mental health conditions and suicidality works against suicide prevention by discouraging persons at risk for suicide from seeking life-saving, help and further traumatizes survivors of suicide loss.

And whereas organizations such as the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention envision a world without suicide and are dedicated to saving lives and bringing hope through research, education, and advocacy for those who've lost or struggle and urge that we first declare suicide prevention to be a priority.

Second, acknowledge that no single suicide prevention program can be appropriate for all populations or communities.

Third, encourage initiatives based on the goals contained in the national strategy for suicide prevention and the 2023 Montana Suicide Prevention Strategic Plan.

Fourth, promote awareness that not uh that there is no single cause of suicide, and suicide must often uh most often occurs when stressors exceed current coping abilities and someone suffering from a mental health condition.

And lastly, develop and implement strategies to increase access to quality mental health, substance abuse, and suicide prevention services.

So now, therefore, I William Cole, mayor of the City of Billings, Montana, hereby proclaim Sunday, September 21, 2025, as Suicide Prevention Day in Billings to coincide with the Yellowstone Valley Out of Darkness Walk for Suicide Prevention to be held on that same day.

And with that, I'll turn it over uh Nancy.

Go ahead.

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you for having us today.

I am just honored to have this proclamation read for suicide prevention.

Um, we're um pretty thrilled to have the 21st as Suicide Prevention Day.

Um of those statistics for Montana just they are just uh staggering, and we really do need to um get the word out, get um the prevention, the awareness, and that's basically what we're doing with this suicide prevention walk on the 21st.

Um American Foundation for Suicide Prevention Model or motto is to save lives and bring hope to those affected by suicide, and also um to bring um mental health awareness to those um that are struggling.

And one other thing that I just wanted to mention about statistics is we have been Montana has been number one in the nation, um not number one, but in the top five of the nation for the last 40 years at least, which is again staggering.

Um we do um in buildings and surrounding areas, our group does presentations, um, trainings, we do fundraisers around to get the awareness out, being at different venues, we're able to pass out literature information, and we also do trainings at the schools, at organizations, businesses, wherever anyone is interested in learning more about suicide awareness and um prevention, and our out of the darkness walk.

Um, it brings everybody together in community.

Um, there because they've lost someone, they struggle themselves, or they are supporting someone who has lost, um, someone who is struggling.

And those people are able to connect with others.

We have 25 mental health support um vendors that are going to be there, and we have some uh special activity that brings them to those different vendors, and they're able to make a connection, and it's sometimes it's life-changing to be able to make that connection with some mental health support.

We have some of VA along with Intermountain Health and some of the therapists and counselors in town that'll be there.

Uh our events, we try to keep the activities very meaningful and inclusive.

We have activities for kids, we do live music, we have people that get up and talk about why they walk and how suicide has affected their lives.

We um have a big silent auction raffle, and we just have a lot of very meaningful things that we do on the 21st.

Um free to register.

Uh, you can go to our website at afsp.org slash Yellowstone Valley.

We would love to have you join us that day, and we are always looking for volunteers as well.

Thank you very much.

Um, and we're also looking for volunteers to do the trainings and the presentations.

So that's something that we are always in need of because just with the um pre-registration that we have so far, we probably have 25 different people that would like us to come to you with those presentations.

And um, so we really are in need of those.

But again, I just hope you will join us at Will James Middle School on September 21st.

Event starts at 1230.

We'd love to see you there.

Thank you so much for having us.

Very good.

Thank you.

And thank you for your help.

Again, that date remember uh Sunday, uh September 21st, Will James starting at 12 30.

Yes.

Thanks very good.

Or thank you very much.

Uh and remember always the National Suicide Prevention Number 988.

Yes.

Thanks very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh next, uh elections are uh around the corner.

And so we have a request from the uh League of Women Voters to recognize National Voter Registration Day uh through a proclamation, and that proclamation reads as follows.

Whereas voting is the foremost right and responsibility of citizens of the United States, and whereas active and engaged citizens, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or political affiliation, are the foundation of democracy.

And whereas uh uh any for any democracy to work, all eligible citizens must be able to vote for their representatives without barriers in free and fair elections.

And whereas the hallmark of good citizenship is community participation, including informed voting in every election in which a ballot is received.

And whereas good citizenship includes respecting the uh other points of view, keeping an open mind and keeping uh and taking care of one another.

And whereas a thriving democracy includes governments that are open, transparent, inclusive, and equitable.

Now, therefore, I William Cole, mayor of the City of Billings, Montana, hereby proclaimed September 16, 2025 as National Voter Registration Day in billings, and encourage all citizens to reflect on the importance of democracy and active citizen participation in government and to remind friends and family to vote.

And we join the League of Women Voters of Billings in reminding citizens to check their voter registration at www.myvoterpage MT.com to ensure that they are ready and able to vote in the upcoming election.

Uh with that, I don't know if we had any representatives from the league with us uh that wanted to add anything to that.

I don't see anyone, so uh I think that's pretty self-explanatory.

Uh that concludes then our proclamations.

Uh now, council reports.

Any council reports from organizations that council members serve on.

Councilmember Gullick.

Um just wanted to uh report that there will be a budget and finance committee meeting at nine o'clock on Wednesday.

Only one item on the agenda.

I'm counting on it being short, so much so that I scheduled another meeting at 10 o'clock.

So um, but it is happening this week.

Um, so now you know.

Very good.

Thank you.

Seeing uh no others, uh city administrator report, uh Kevin filling it for Chris tonight.

Thanks, Mayor and Council.

I do have a few things for you this evening.

Uh number one, we are going to ask you to remove item number four on the regular agenda tonight, the tax increment financing assistance extension uh from the agenda to November 10th council meeting or such a later date as to be mutually agreed upon by the developer and staff.

And this was by the uh developers' request, uh, but we do have representatives here if needed for that.

Uh the second thing I have tonight, uh, we do know that there has been some concern about the stop sign compliance at 32nd North uh and both second and third avenues, and staff are taking steps to address it.

Uh, not all the signs in striping are installed yet.

And once that work is finished, the intersections will look more clearly like a four-way stop.

Also, in the meantime, we've added flags to the stop signs and place temporary stop ahead signs, longer term.

We're looking at larger signs, lights on the stop signs, potentially relocating them closer to the drive lanes, and possibly adding permanent stop-ahead signage or striping.

And finally, the police department has been also increasing traffic enforcement in that area to help reinforce compliance uh with these improvements that are underway.

Uh, and I'm happy to report there have been no accidents, at least since uh August 1st at any of those intersections.

The third thing I had tonight is in regards to uh the facilities management RFP.

Um so on direction from city council, staff did issue a request for proposals for comprehensive facility management services to ensure efficient operations, preventative maintenance, and long-term assets sustainability across multiple city facilities following the evaluation of one RFP submission uh and a subsequent modified proposal offering a short-term consulting arrangement, staff determined that neither approach meets the city's operational and financial requirements at this time.

Some key considerations that were taken into account or alignment with the scope of work, operational readiness, modified proposal, and the financial and contractual considerations for these reasons, staff does recommend not moving forward with either of these initial RFP proposal or the subsequent modified consulting proposal, and staff can continue to assess approaches to facilities management to best need operational financial and public service needs with that.

And staff can continue to assess approaches to facilities management to best need operational financial and public service needs with that.

And the last thing I have tonight is uh our city attorney Gina Dahl did sound out an announcement that there will be a hearing tomorrow on the colonial apartments.

Uh it will be in Judge Nisley's courtroom, uh, room 608 of the courthouse at 130 p.m.

Uh, and this is uh in regards to the continuing uh lawsuit uh and hearings uh with the colonial department.

So just a reminder of that, and you should all have an email with that in your inbox.

And with that, there was no ex parte communication received after 3 p.m.

And that's all I have tonight, Mayor.

Okay, thank you, Kevin.

And uh Councilmember Kennedy, uh you'd like to ask you a question about the RFP process, uh, Councilmember Kenny.

Kevin, on the RFP process, we met last week.

We didn't come up with the decision.

So when did you and the staff make that decision?

So we did not meet last week.

It was a couple weeks ago.

We did receive the consulting proposal uh from the company that did submit the original RFP proposal.

Correct.

That was reviewed um significantly out of scope of the original RFP, along with cost would uh basically require us if we were going to go to a consulting route to basically reissue uh different RFP proposal for that.

So with that, the staff decided you weren't gonna go forward.

Correct, because the original RFP proposal was 50% more than what we're currently paying.

I would have just asked it would have been nice to uh have that discussion before hearing the final tonight.

Okay.

Thank you.

Very good.

Um the uh council on the scheduling issue uh we'll come back to that.

There was a request to move item uh 10 to a future uh agenda.

Um on the chances there's anybody here who would like to comment on that, uh, we'll keep that on the agenda technically until we've had that public comment period, and then I'll ask for a motion or at least discussion on that issue before we get to the consent agenda.

Um on item number four, I'm sorry.

Um very good count.

Um I'm gonna recognize Councilmanish just because you had his hand up and then council member Shaw.

Uh Council Renees.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, I had a couple of questions with Kevin on this.

I'm gonna first go back to the crossing on 32nd Street, right?

Um I did see the video of that.

And and I I it's a miracle we haven't had any accidents there because they're moving pretty fast.

If anyone would walk out, they would they wouldn't have time to stop because they're going so fast.

Um are you with you say you're doing things.

I saw some spot, you know, they even said after this the flags were up, people are still going through the intersection.

Are you are you gonna put something in the middle of the road, maybe that says stop?

I mean a big barrel with a stop sign on it, something like that, uh at least temporarily until people realize this is a stop sign.

I mean, it really needs to be a drastic or someone waving their, you know, put a crossing guard there with a stop sign, something until people realize this is a stop sign.

Because if this is um, yeah, it's it looks pretty dangerous from what I saw.

I mean, yeah, and that's one of the items that is on the list to look at moving the stop signs closer to the traffic lane versus I I would do that right away because that would that's an easy move the barrel out there.

It's you don't have to worry about plowing or anything like that around it right now.

But that's that would be my recommendation because I don't want to see the city suit because you know, or our um and then the other thing I wasn't sure of, and I haven't traveled that one, but is the line of sight good for with the treat and the new foliage and there would be able to see to see the stop sign from a distance?

You know, I'm just not sure if they those stop signs are gonna be able to be seen uh with the park cars there and stuff like that because it's so far off of the from the bike lane.

Yeah, and we'll we can make sure that the line of sight is clear there, free of any obstructions.

But like you said, I think the main issue is that it's significantly outside the traffic lane at this point.

Okay.

Um regarding the RFP, I uh I guess my concern is is like any RFP, if it doesn't meet it, we either have to redo the RFP or we just have to quit it and keep going what going forward with what we need to do and and uh hire it for the position.

Um are we when can we see this?

Does the council have to see this to say yes, this RSV is dead dead, or do uh can this be done at a next week's work session, or what's the process moving forward on this?

So we can either kill this and move or just and get someone hired that you know, fill the facility manager or uh look through a new new RF RFP.

Yeah, thanks, Councilmember Nice.

Um, I I think council's original emotion was for us to go out and issue that RFP for total facility maintenance services back on May 5th of 2025.

That was completed.

And with that, you know, we did incur a 50% higher cost in that RFP than what we're currently, you know, paying for facility management services.

So without no we normally do not bring anything back to council at that point uh this was an informative thing for you that you know that we let you know that this is the status that we didn't fulfill you know council's vote and request for this normally in a normal RFP process then what we would do is you know if we were going to move forward with it we'd negotiate a contract and then we'd bring that contract back to council for you to then either approve or disapprove of that contract.

Okay so the initiative is now complete it's it's ended and we're going to move forward with hiring a facilities manager advertising and getting that going is that right correct all right thank you very much that clarifies that and I'll just point out uh our on the earlier issue uh public works director Debbie Melling uh is in the room so she heard your comments uh on that uh issue as well so um if there's nothing else we will uh move on then to public comment on oh I apologize council member shaw out of sight out of mind uh I appreciate your yellow hand be sure to go do a hand make sure you we we recognize you thank you go ahead I appreciate I just wanted to add a little more context to the RFP discussion for the rest of council to say we did talk about it at council operations last week where four of us that are currently here were present um kevin gave us uh some more of the background so this was not just a decision from staff to be clear that the four of us collectively all said basically exactly what Kevin um uh communicated tonight so just so that everyone's aware that this wasn't um just staff coming back this was kind of vetted through council operations so thanks just one of the uh very good thank you council kenny said you'd like to make a final comment I was just gonna make the final comment on that I was on the RFP committee and I didn't even know about it.

So if the operations committee is going to make decisions or whatever and you can't even let the council person know that's on the committee it's pretty sad um understood uh that it was on our agenda but it was uh relatively late so your your concern is uh uh understood um and I wouldn't say as it was a decision but that was the advice to staff that they had completed the uh direction of the council which was to issue the RFP um okay that concludes then uh Mr.

Reports public comment on non uh public hearing items tonight that's item one the consent agenda and then also item number four the old buildings hardware uh TIFF extension request items two and four will have a public hearing on later uh so we'll have an opportunity for public comment then um is there any public comment on items one or four if so please feel free to come uh forward to the podium and tell us your name and keep your comments to three minutes please good evening mayor and council Dan Brooks with the Billings Chamber at 815 South 27th Street won't take me three minutes I'll be very brief uh considering your uh recommendation to push this to a later date and uh because we've weighed in on this in the past back in 2022 when it originally passed but I will briefly emphasize uh the positive benefits of the infill uh adding to our uh tax base and namely our downtown tax base uh adding housing uh in a very desirable area of town and of course because I can't leave the podium without mentioning crime prevention through environmental design the benefits of bringing additional residents to our downtown those eyes on the streets that natural surveillance to help either deter uh crime and would-be criminals or report it to the police so that our police can detail uh can handle it so uh for those reasons uh I would ask your support either tonight or perhaps uh in the very near future so thank you mayor very good thank you is there any other public comment on item one any of the subparts on our consent agenda or um item uh number four uh seeing none uh we will um uh close the public comment period and uh entertain any scheduling issues about our agenda uh including the recommendation from uh Kevin is there uh any further questions for Kevin on uh the request to move item number four to November 10th or a later date as agreed by staff and developer or is there a motion council member uh as my letter and mayor you can tell me whether this is the appropriate place to ask the question if if we're gonna move this I I would hope we're gonna have a vote on that I've got a line of questioning about how this impacts our TIFF balance sheet and the obligation but I don't know if this is the appropriate time it it's it would be appropriate if we keep it tonight.

Yeah let's it is let's just say it's relevant to only the scheduling issue if that's what the motion is so if it would I'm gonna be opposed to moving it tonight.

I'm gonna want to talk about this now.

Um we've set the precedent by um letting people who've come before us for TIF and from uh request that we move them to a different date when they requested it.

We've done this on several occasions.

So for the uh sake of this, I'll uh say, Mayor, I'd like to move that we move item number four to November 10th at uh uh the individual's request.

Okay, council boy, just to clarify the motion or the suggested motion was to November 10th or a later date if the developer and staff agreed.

Was that part of your motion?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Is there a second to the motion made by council member Boyet?

Um I will second that motion.

Um so uh now discussion on that motion.

Uh Councilmember, well, I'll just ask Council Boy, did you want to address you?

You've already done that.

Yeah, only that we've we've allowed other uh entities to reschedule at their request.

And so that's why I move this forward.

Okay, and I don't have any comments, Council Braft Slayer.

I I'm interested in talking about this now because I I think this is different than other times.

I mean, this is an application that was approved three years ago.

Um they've been unable to move this ball forward.

We continue to punt.

My concern is that this obligation continues to show on the downtown TIFF, and we keep moving it back and moving it back, but it still shows as an obligation.

And if this project isn't ready to go, it needs to come back when it's ready to go.

I'm I'm not against supporting it when it's ready, but I am against tying the money up in perpetuity until they figure it out.

That's not how this should go.

We shouldn't see half-baked projects uh and and then have them holding on to the dollars until they can figure it out.

We should be seeing these applications when they're ready to go and when they're ready to be implemented.

So my concern and and the reason I want to talk about this tonight is because I want to know are we uh are we continuing to carry this obligation forward?

And if we are, then I think we need to kill this application and let them go back through the reapplication process when they're actually ready, so that we're not holding money back from other folks that that are ready.

And by the way, this is a TIFF district that is not flush.

Uh Council Aspot, I'll comment because I was the one who kind of raised this issue because I I recognize the wisdom of what you said.

And it was actually because of that that my understanding is why they would like to delay it, because they're waiting on some um uh final green light on some uh financing, and they don't want to come here until they can uh represent they've got that green light.

But they think the green light will come in the very near future, hence the reasons for the delay.

We do have the developer here that we could uh investigate that uh further.

I mean, one one further uh point of clarification.

I mean the this extension request was also not run back through the TIFF board.

It it did not go back in front of the DB, the downtown business business partnership.

So they also didn't look at this to give us.

I mean, their recommendation was in 2022, when the world was different than it is today.

So to me, at the very least, this needs to go back through the TIFF board with a with a new recommendation based on new financials, which are apparently not complete.

So again, I I think it's we get ourselves in trouble when we just lag these things along and and we don't bring projects, we commit money to projects that aren't ready to actually go.

Come when you're ready.

Uh very good.

Uh we'll continue the discussion.

Again, we do have the developer with us if we would like it.

Council member Nase.

Mayor, I think um this will type a lot of time right now.

And I think if we were to just hear it on the agenda at the agenda time, we can address all of this because um I think there's a lot of questions I have as well that I would like to talk about this, but uh to do it all right now and and delay the rest of them.

I I would I I don't think I'm gonna support the delay of it, but we can always delay it when we hear it at the at the end of the agenda at item four when we actually hear it.

So I'm gonna I'm gonna not support the motion to move it from the agenda and we'll address that, whether we're not gonna you know delay it at that time.

Okay, further discussion on again the scheduling motion.

Um one other item I want to mention.

Ed hasn't said anything, but I'm sure he's recusing himself from any of this discussion.

I will.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Shah.

Uh thank you.

I will support the motion to delay.

I agree we've set a precedent of doing this when developers ask.

I think it makes sense to have this come back when there's gonna be answers to all these questions.

But my one question related to the motion um is did this go before the DVP?

I would I would like just some clarification on that.

So that's not out there floating if um based on whether or not that happened.

I was under the impression it had.

Uh very good.

Uh Wyeth is coming to the uh podium, and then if he doesn't know the answer, uh developer uh ran a few papers with us as well.

So why?

Yes, uh thanks, Mayor and Council.

Yeah, actually, um Randy Um is here and Mametta is also here uh as well.

I I guess I'll just give you a little background, which a lot of it was in the memo as well, which is that um just a couple months ago, the um applicant was preparing to sign the development agreement, which is normally what happens after sometime after approval of the project.

Um and uh we the the discovery was made, came to me that there was a condition that the council had placed on the original approval of the 365 days um from approval that the development agreement had to be signed, and it was either that or it was tied to um some um tax credits that they were pursuing.

And so what happened was then at that point we had to um back up because we had passed 365 days, and so it needed to come back because it was a council improv um imposed condition.

Um that condition actually wasn't hadn't been, we didn't have any record of that from the DBP board.

Mamet had spoken with that board, they're aware of all this, they knew that they were like, that's fine, just go, you know, let's get this sorted out.

So it didn't go back to them for another review and recommendation for a second time.

That's why that part is not part of didn't happen.

It was because the condition had been imposed at the time of the council had made the approval.

So it was we were coming back to council because of that.

So that's the background on why we're here and the issue with the development agreement and that language.

Uh the applicant obviously could speak more to the financing piece and such, but I just wanted you to be aware of that.

That's that's why DBP board didn't re do another action on it.

Okay, uh very good.

I guess we'll uh council uh we want to get into our regular agenda.

So this is just a scheduling issue, so I'll proceed to a vote now if there's no further discussion.

Uh council member gullick, I just need to more formally uh recuse myself because my uh my business is uh involved with this project.

Very good.

Thank you for that uh clarification.

So if the motion is clear, it's to move item four to November 10th business meeting or such other later date as might be agreed by the developer and um uh staff.

Um uh let's go ahead and do a show of hands of those in favor of the motion and those against.

So if in favor of the motion, uh please raise your hand.

Um myself, um and council member Boyet and Councilmember Shaw.

Uh if in opposition, uh raise your hand.

Um, all the council members, council members uh uh uh Tidswell, Aspen Leiter, uh Kennedy, Owen, and Nice.

And so that is uh three in favor, five against.

So the motion fails.

So we'll go ahead and uh keep this on the regular agenda and uh we'll get to it on item four and have a more uh detailed discussion then.

Um with that, we'll move on then to our regular agenda, which is uh uh first our consent agenda.

Tony, would you read item one?

I don't typically read these.

Oh, I apologize.

I haven't asked for uh separations.

Uh so focused on that.

Let's get uh separations on item number one.

Do we have any uh this evening?

Uh we don't have any separations.

Um so uh we'll move ahead with uh uh looking for motions.

Councilmember Denise.

I move to approve the items on the consent agenda as submitted with the exception.

Well, there's no exceptions with as submitted by the staff.

Very good.

Is there a second?

Second by council member Gullock.

Uh is there now any discussion on these items?

Councilmember Nees.

Thank you.

I didn't separate these or make a motion to remove these, but E F and G, I I had an email conversation with Gina earlier today.

Um these are uh airport leases up at the that are valued over the 10 years about eight 18,200, which is well within the city administrator's authority of 80,000.

Um I talked to Gina and Gina can speak here in a minute about it.

But um there is some there is our code that talks about that um the under purchases, section uh two and two nine oh two says leases of city-owned real property shall be executed from uh excluded from this section and will be approved by the same manner at all um as all other contracts submitted to the city for approval.

So all of our contracts typically are submitted.

If if they're over 80,000, we see them if they're under 80,000, the city ministry just signs them.

And so I I think these are shouldn't be coming to us, just even talking about them or delaying it more than we could have could have all the approved and moved on.

But that we're if we want to have the city administrator do their job, they should be approved and they shouldn't be on the agenda.

Now I'll I'll approve them if you guys think we need to, but I I think we need to make it clear and um that something like this.

I think Gina can speak to this.

She thinks the code is not clear on the fact that maybe these uh we need to change our code to specifically say leases are uh uh authority by the city administrator.

So Gina, if you want to mention or kind of some what you think needs to be done or not done.

Yeah, Lisa put or Gina, please.

Sure.

Thank you, Councilmember Nees.

Um the resolution that council member Nees referenced and that I referenced in the email is the resolution that establishes the city administrator signing authority.

Um up to $80,000.

That signing authority applies specifically in that resolution to purchases, uh purchase of goods and service, goods and services.

Um other types of contracts are not addressed in that resolution.

Um so there is no expression, there's no explicit authority anywhere that I'm aware of that allows the city administrator to f to sign any other types of contracts.

Um because of this murkiness that I think was kind of uh applied in different ways over the last many, many years.

I I have started advising staff to bring contracts that where there is no explicit authority for the city administrator to sign to council for approval.

Uh council member Nice mentioned the uh city code section that addresses selling uh city property um and leases obviously are excluded from that section.

Um that's and it says um as council member Nees mentioned that those leases will be approved in the same manner as all other contracts submitted to the city for approval.

And there really is isn't any one manner for all other contracts as I just kind of described.

So um that is the reason why these come to you because it's it's unclear what council is willing to delegate, what authority council's willing to delegate to the city administrator for executing contracts and agreements.

Okay, so for tonight, doesn't sound like you would recommend that we not uh uh go ahead and with approval, but long term we might want to make some clarification if we wanted to uh cut out, make an exception for low dollar uh uh leases and yeah, I think it would be a good idea to get that quickly as soon as possible when as we're doing a lot of different leases.

We see a lot of these airport leases all the time, and these are renewals, you know, some some ownership change, but basically renewals of these leases and updating them.

So I would hope that we could get this done and especially if it's in a resolution, could be very quick to get it done and and clarify that.

So it would it certainly would be helpful for any clarification that council is willing to provide of what kind of authority that is city administrator has.

We wouldn't clog up the these consent agendas and um regular business meetings with a bunch of little contracts.

Okay, thank you.

I if I could, I'd ask uh our new airport number two, Paul.

Are you uh come on up if you would uh apologize for putting you on the spot.

Um but if uh this is an opportunity for you to introduce yourself if you would.

Jeff Roach is out of town uh this evening.

So um uh Paul is here with us, and so I'd like to give you an opportunity to introduce yourself for sure.

But also while we're talking about these leases generally, I was struck just by the by the low dollar amount too, specifically $1,800 uh a year, about $150 to have an airport hanger.

Uh seemed like a deal to me.

And I was just wondering how we know that that's uh fair market value.

And in particular, do we do a good job of um uh advertising them basically for bids?

So other people know when uh leases are coming up and if they want to pay a lot more, they could uh uh we could help them do that.

But could you just tell us a little bit?

And you're relatively new to this, right?

So you're not gonna have a lot of the history, but uh a little bit more about what you know about our process for granting these airport leases, and let's start off with the introduction.

So my name is Paul Kera, and I came here from Juneau, Alaska.

Uh, so I worked for Alaska DOT for many years for the June Airport.

So there's there's the introductions so I mean yes the uh lease amounts are uh they're pretty small um so it's common for airports to do that because you they have to be used for aviation and we want to develop aviation and that lease amount is just for the land the tenant has to build their own hangar they have to do the utilities the cement pad everything they have to do all that um and the price they do a our business manager did a comparison with other airports around Montana and in the country to see come up with a fair price the fair market value in town does not apply to what's at the airport um so they came up with that price they went a little on the high side of what other airports are charging and they came up with that price um and I can tell you in Alaska it's the same thing uh it just astounds me how inexpensive airport land is to rent out um when I look at you know my property taxes are more than that but that's that's how airports work and that's one of the reasons why we don't allow people to put in non-aviation items in their hangars they can't put boats in there or fancy sports cars or anything it's just for aviation and it develops aviation that way very good and welcome and thank you could you just uh tell us though what do we do when these are expiring do we get the how do we get the word out that if somebody did want to put in a bid um they could do that and I assume that they could right it shouldn't be a secret that these are coming up and I don't know the details of the the leasing that's another area but generally if it's somebody's already in there they get to just renew is usually how it works at airports in general.

I'm not sure how it works in billings but I'm assuming it works similarly um if there's new land available which we're trying to develop then it gets advertised and then you know we uh we can look at uh who wants the land and what they're gonna do with it and of course it's our interest to develop aviation at the airport.

Okay thank you so it's it's possible that once you've got a lease you'll just always have the opportunity to renew without anybody else uh quote bidding on it any other questions for Paul uh council yeah thank you mayor um and and two of these are actually where ownership change and that's I think that's what happens is they change ownerships and then they re just take over the leases but I I I did I've looked at this and you're right leasing is low but it's low across the entire state I think we actually were are probably one of the highest but I think we should we deserve that we we need to be a premier airport and I think we need to be higher.

In fact 29 cents is to me still cheap.

I would like to see it 39 or 40 because around the country there are some airports that are up in that 40, 50, 60, 90.

So it depends on that.

But the other thing I notice is they differentiate between commercial and you know not residential but private.

And so I think that maybe because of our airport we may want to start looking at that maybe having different lease rates for commercial versus private and uh in that trying to incentivize some of that way.

But that's just my thought is that's the only difference I've seen in when I looked around the country at different rates that they they break it down between that.

And I don't know if it's beneficial that we need to move that way yet in in the city buildings but it's just throw that out there for you to consider thank you.

Okay very good.

Nothing else for Paul?

I don't see anything so thank you and again uh welcome to Billings.

Thank you.

Um anything else in the way of discussion uh on item one council as been ledger I was just gonna commend us on not blowing up the consent agenda and then we did it anyway.

So uh perfect let's go to a vote.

Very good I won't shut you down if there is any other discussion but I don't see any.

So uh motions for approval other consent agenda uh is there uh if in favor please say aye aye if opposed nay motion passes unanimously um item two first item up on a regular agenda uh Tony would you read item number two please public hearing and resolution setting special improvement lighting maintenance district assessments staff recommends approval Jennifer is coming forward evening mayor and council this item is for approval of the annual street improvement lighting maintenance districts also called S I L M Ds so we do review the assessments annually and we set assessments at a level that is needed to recover the costs of maintenance and electricity and then charge those back to assessments to properties within each district we do calculate each individual district separately so it the costs are based on what is needed in that individual district based on assessments that are uh outstanding as well as cash um the the projected operations and electricity increases so we currently have sixty fity owned

So we do review the assessments annually, and we set assessments at a level that is needed to recover the costs of maintenance and electricity and then charge those back through assessments to properties within each district.

We do calculate each individual district separately.

So it the costs are based on what is needed in that individual district based on assessments that are uh outstanding as well as cash um the the projected operations and electricity increases.

So we currently have 65 city-owned SILMDs.

Um in these districts, we not only administrate them, but we also do the operations and maintenance for the districts.

And then we have 123 districts that are owned by other entities, primarily Northwest Energy.

And so we do the administrative work for these districts, but we do not do the maintenance for them.

And then we have a combination of districts where we have nine districts that have a combo of city-owned and other entities that own them.

So for FY26, our assessments are projected to generate $2.9 million.

It's an increase of 177,000 from FY25.

It is about a 6.5% increase overall, but not all districts are increasing by the same amount.

We did project our electricity increases at 25% more than what we paid for actual in FY25, but we do not have to assess all of that amount because we also had projected an increase for FY25 that did not come into fruition until I think May.

So we do have some reserves there.

We were able to hold some of those districts down.

And we ended up with 41 districts that have no change, 77 districts that will decrease, and 79 districts that will increase.

So that is all for street lights, and we're asking you to hold the public hearing tonight and then approve the street light district assessments for FY26.

Uh thank you, Jennifer.

Uh are there actual questions for Jennifer?

This is a public hearing, we'll open it up.

But if there's some questions for Jeffer, Councilmember Kennedy Jennifer, we were at the uh South Side Task Force meeting two weeks ago, and there was a gentleman that came up and he gave me a whole laundry list of every light on the south side that hasn't been lit for quite a while.

He talked to his councilman from the district, and um, but they haven't been lit.

They've been dark for a long period of time.

I'm gonna have a real tough time voting for this this evening because there were so many lights out down there, and how in clear conscience can we actually raise fees and um charge people when their lights street lights aren't even working.

So councilmember Kennedy, I'm not sure if if he has uh complained to either the city or Northwest Energy.

I'm not sure what type of district it is, but we always look into those, and if you have a list of lights, we can certainly do that.

I will get you that list in the morning.

Okay, perfect.

I will tell you the the assessments for these districts only recover what is needed.

So if we don't assess the districts, we can't operate or pay for the electricity for the districts.

Very good.

I guess that raises an obvious question, Jennifer.

Uh we've always just raised all, regardless of who owns them, we'd raise the districts together at the same rates.

Theoretically, could we just raise the rates on the city ones that only have city lights and not raise them or raise them for a different rate?

Those that are owned by somebody else.

So Mayor Cole, we actually raise them all independently.

Um it doesn't matter if it's it's city-owned or if it's owned by say Northwest Energy.

It's really based on what the costs are, what the reserve levels are, and what is needed for the next year.

In that individual district.

In the individual district.

Thank you, Councilmember Nish.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Jennifer, is there any uh uh audit that's done on the lights, the city district's lights to make sure that they are lit or or do you or is it just based on customer uh complaints?

It is based on customer complaints.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for Jennifer?

Don't see any, so we'll open it up for uh uh public comment.

This is a public hearing on the proposed changes to the lighting district assessments.

If you'd like to comment, please come to the podium, tell us who you are, and we just ask that you keep your comments to three minutes or less.

Is there any public comment on item number two?

These proposed changes to the lighting assessments.

Is there any public comment on item number two?

This is a public hearing, so please come forward before I close the public hearing.

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

Back to council.

Uh Council Brass uh pointing to another finger down the council member Nice.

Having conducted a public hearing considered written and spoken public testimony, I move to approve the resolution setting special improvement lighting maintenance district.

Yes, uh SILM D assessments as recommended by staff.

Uh Councilmember Asperder in the case of second.

Uh Councilmember uh Nice or Aspletter, would you like to speak to your motion?

No and no.

Uh general discussion on the motion.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

I just want to second the idea that uh Councilmember Nees said which maybe we need to be more proactive on this issue and um either send people around uh late at night uh or um have a uh more aggressive way to tell the public hey, if your light is out in your lighting district, you know, send an email, send the number just to make sure that uh um their eyes on the street literally or they know what to do with that information.

So I think either of those would be good ideas.

Uh any further discussion?

We should do a vote.

Okay.

Uh the motion is for approval of the proposed rates in item number two.

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

Uh aye.

If opposed, say nay.

Nay.

Um motion passed with exception of council member Kennedy voting in opposition.

All other council members voting in favor.

That concludes item number two.

Uh bring us to item number three.

Tony, would you read item number three?

Public hearing and resolution setting and assessing encroachment rental fees.

Staff recommends approval.

Back to Jennifer.

All right, another quick item, I think.

This item is for approval of the resolution to assess the encroachment fees for FY26.

Uh, an encroachment is any privately owned structure that is in the pro public right of way.

So this slide kind of gives the history of our encroachment rental fees back in 1985.

We set the encroachment rental fee at $1 per square feet.

And that fee continued for the next, I guess, 36 years until we changed it in FY21.

And at that time, council uh not only increased the fee, but they also approved a new methodology that we adopted for uh the encroachment fees and approved um a five-year plan to increase the fees.

So the methodology that was changed back in 2021 was to change it to a two-tier structure.

And we have the tier one, which has minimal impact to the right of way, and then tier two is the major impact to the right-of-way.

So tier two encroachments um make part of our right of way unusable to others.

So the five-year plan to increase the assessments um was an a plan to increase to the average or 50% of the average assessed value of adjacent land.

So what we do is we take um the DOR assessed value of land for each property and figure out the square foot for each property, and then we average those across all of them.

And that is the level that we are trying to get to per that plan back in 21.

So 25 last year should have been the fifth year of the five-year plan, but the assessed values increased um greatly.

And so we recommended to s to extend the five-year plan out another three years.

So this is then the six-year FY26 um to try to get it to the value that uh council approved back in 2021, that 50% of the average assessed value.

So for FY26, what we are proposing for tier one is an 11 cent increase in the tier one rate, and then a dollar fifty increase in the minimum annual fee.

For tier two, we're proposing to go from six dollars and forty-five cents per square feet or linear foot to seven dollars and eighty cents.

And the table at the bottom shows five different encroachments that we have.

The first one is a tier one, the next four are all tier twos, um, showing what the assessed value would be in FY25 and FY26.

We do have 131 encroachments currently in billings, and um those are assessed 254 tax codes.

Um these fees are adopted tonight, it would bring in 129,000 in revenue for from these fees.

You probably or hopefully saw an email from me earlier today where council member Nice had brought up a question where he was wondering why some of the properties that were on the list of assessments were less than the minimum fee.

And that is because we do have encroachments that are then prorated across multiple properties, say a sign that has a serves five properties, and then it's it's allocated to the five.

So he did request after looking at the resolution to make a language change.

Um and it's that's in section three of the resolution, and it says there is hereby fixed levied and assessed a special assessment upon or prorated upon the lots of parcels of land with an encroachment as provided in the schedule attached.

So just adding a couple parts in there to clarify that we do this.

Um Public Works has no issue with the change or supportive of it if council chooses to do so.

And that concludes our presentation.

Again, uh, we're asking you to hold the public hearing and approve the encroachment fees for FY26.

Very good.

Uh questions for Jennifer, Councilmember Kennedy.

Yes, Jennifer, what do you use these fees for?

We have specified that they are for beautification of the right-of-way.

It could be for um sweeping, it could be for you know different landscaping, it could be for the the um wraps around boxes, um, anything that's so for the increase this year, what do you uh plan for that?

Uh we don't have anything specifically planned.

It's it's what comes up during the year.

Very good.

Other questions, Consumer Broy?

Jennifer, could you give us a um rough estimate of how much we collected last year?

Um last year, I think it's in the memo.

Sorry, if that was in there, I didn't recall seeing it.

So eight eighteen five less than whatever we'd collect.

And what did we do with it last year?

Um I would have to check.

I know that some was used for sweeping, some was used um on Shiloh, some some was used in in the downtown right-of-way area, but I'd have to check.

Okay.

We don't have anything specifically where we we budget for these, it's just part of different projects that we do.

Did we spend everything we collected or are we compiling some reserves there?

We we never it doesn't generate enough to really compile.

So we spend what we what comes in.

Correct.

And do we do these things kind of we drive by and see that there's a need to go sweep or paint or something, or how how does this happen?

A lot of times it's generated by uh citizen request or or something that our staff has seen.

Um other times it's part of a different project that we're doing.

And it just gets assessed then to that.

Okay.

And then one last question, Mayor.

If we were to decide tonight to hold the fee flat at last year's rate, what would be the consequence of that?

Uh less money for the beautification of the right-of-way.

All we require is that we recover our costs.

That's that's what we need in public works is to recover our costs because we don't we don't have general fund money to make that up.

Um, but we the increase is really it it's all for the beautification of the right-of-so it wouldn't do anything really other than harmful costs.

It wouldn't do anything harmful.

That's what you're saying.

Okay, thanks, Mayor.

Very good.

Other questions uh for Jennifer.

Uh Council Burdenes.

Jennifer, do you happen to know how much would be collected once we're fully fully funded?

Um let's see.

I think we have another 40% above what our current level is.

Um, so we'd be we'd be close to 200,000.

Okay, once you get to that level, is there would be a bet is that a better way to start planning for that every single year and how to spend it and to ensure that the right-of-way is beautified, things are being fixed around there, they need to be fixed.

Yeah, absolutely.

If we if we knew what our amount was and we we got to that amount, we we could have a prioritization process for those projects.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh Jennifer, since you use these monies for improving landscaping, um, I guess I'm assuming that includes getting rid of weeds every day I drive down uh uh rimrock and I see three foot weeds in the uh sidewalks.

Um typically where there is a uh backyard fence of a homeowner or a big housing development and a big uh uh giant boulevard and it's out of sight, out of mine, those homeowners have no interest in taking care of that sidewalk.

Could these dollars be used for that?

That'd be one thing.

And then also what's the status of efforts to improve um the landscaping and the medians on Shiloh?

That was such a beautiful place when it was first built.

We all know the landscaping is all um blown away or covered by dirt or uh or whatever, but I see some uh efforts to make some changes there.

Can you just uh uh address those two specific issues?

Um, first on the sidewalk issue, it really is the adjacent property owner's responsibility.

Um, I guess we could take on that responsibility if council wanted us to, it would be with our our street crews.

Um, and they it would just take away from the work that they do now.

And then as far as the other issue for Shiloh, they did do some work out there.

Um obviously the landscaping that was originally in place wasn't quite um maybe right for billings, and so we are working to to get that back up to where it's it's um really good looking and and better um a corridor that we can really be proud of.

Very good.

I applaud those efforts.

Council member uh Boyap.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I see that the majority of the money is from outdoor patios, is that correct?

That they they generate the most amount of money.

The outdoor patios do generate um are are usually the most expensive um encroachments.

I don't think they generate the the bulk of it because there's only a few.

Um we've actually never had a a complaint from any owner of the uh patios, the businesses that have the patios, because they generate so much money off of those patios that the encroachment rental fee is worth it to them.

Thank you.

Anything further for Jennifer before we open up for public comment.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Um this is also a public hearing on the proposed uh encroachment uh rental fees.

If anybody would like to comment, this is your opportunity.

Please come to the podium.

As I've said before, we just ask that you tell us who you are and keep your comments to three minutes.

Uh is there any public comment on item number three?

If so, please come forward.

This is a public hearing.

This is a public hearing.

Is there any public comment on item number three?

Please come forward if there is.

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

So we'll close the public hearing on item number three.

Council, how do you want to proceed?

Councilmember Asmlighter, Councilmember Nice.

Mayor, I'm gonna move to set the rates at the FY25 rates and leave the encroachment permitting process as is today.

Uh is there a second?

Uh uh I I apologize.

I recognize Councilmember Nease, but Council Rowan also indicated so you guys could fight it out.

If that's what you would know.

No, I would not be seconding that.

Oh, okay, very good.

Councilmember Owen then makes the um uh uh second.

Um would you like to address your motion?

And and then council member, if she wants to comment too.

I I think this is is such a low dollar amount and it it moves the needle zero.

Um this is us putting the emphasis on the wrong syllable.

Um we we talk about trying to encourage businesses increasing their fees and their rates downtown is not the way to do that.

Um this is more accounting problems for than it then it's even worth.

I mean, we're gonna raise it 11 cents just enough to for somebody to notice and get get miffed about and then ring everybody's phone that we increase their patio fee.

I mean, if we want traffic downtown, we should be looking at things like this, not trying to increase fees and and put more cost on businesses downtown.

So I'm I'm gonna support keeping it as it is.

Very good.

Uh Council Burrow, and did you want to address your second?

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, fully agree.

I think uh heaven forbid we not give a call in response to SEPTED, but having eyes on the street matters, having these patios available as part of a good public safety strategy.

And we see downtown businesses closing.

I think it's um we we should do what we can to support our restaurants who want to be out on patios.

I recognize that they're not complaining, but I also recognize that their margins are getting thinner and thinner all the time, and whatever we can do.

Um, I I just think it makes sense to hold it where it's at.

So uh I will strongly support the motion.

Very good.

Other discussion, uh, Councilmember Kennedy.

Oh, and then Councilmember Shaw.

I have just one concern, and that's the encroachment fees.

We have no clue what we're gonna use the encroachment fees for.

We may use it for landscaping, we may use it.

We have no projects.

So why do we keep on asking for this money and then say, well, we got a slash funds, we can do something.

I I have some real concern on that.

So I can't raise it this year.

Very good.

Councilmember Shaw.

Um, thank you.

Um, Jennifer, if I uh could ask you a quick question.

Um my concern with not doing this incrementally is that in the past we've had to make bigger jumps on things like this, and that is a much harder hit to businesses.

I much prefer for businesses to be able to plan as we incrementally increase these fees.

So if we do not increase them this year by this small amount, what are we looking at next year and going forward?

Um, I I think you've heard comments from council about wanting specific projects maybe potentially to tie this to, which I is not a bad idea, but um could you talk about that a little bit?

Because that that is my concern is that we're gonna in a few years have to suddenly jump them a lot, and it's gonna be a much larger hit to businesses.

Uh council member Shaw, there is no requirement that we ever increase to that 50% of the accessible value of the land.

Um that was you know what the thought was back in 2021.

We do need to have them set enough to discourage everybody from wanting to go into the right-of-way.

Um we would never be able to construct water and sewer means if everyone was within the right-of-way.

So we want it to be a level where it it discourages people.

I mean, it is a huge benefit to people to be able to have an outdoor patio that they didn't have to pay for the land, they didn't have to pay for for any of those costs for for that.

Um it's it I agree it's also a huge benefit for billings to have those.

Um so I don't think that it will increase in in future years unless council wants it to still get up to that 50% value.

If we if we wanted to, um there's no set that we have to do it in three years or two years.

We will definitely come back uh next year and make sure that we have the list of projects that we plan on spending the money for.

Um, but I don't see a big issue with not increasing.

Very good.

Thank you.

Other uh discussion on the motion.

Councilmember Dish.

Thank you, Mayor.

I think that um the idea of having this uh being small was it's true.

We there's not very much money there, but the whole idea was to ensure that this fund grew so that we could do something with it.

And and I am uh if as we heard from Jennifer, is yeah, once it grows to 200,000, they can start budgeting and planning for something like that.

I would like to see, like you said, next year we will have some plans.

I I would like to see us starting to do that um so that we make sure that we're using this fund, whether it's for Shiloh uh or some other areas that that need that right-of-way improved.

That is the whole idea of this is to generate uh funds for right-of-way uh because the right-of-ways are being um impeded upon, uh, so the public can't use them.

So I I won't support the motion, but I I would offer a substitute motion to having conducted a public hearing and considered written and spoken testimony.

I move to approve resolution setting and assessing encroachment rental fees as recommended by staff.

Okay, second uh by council member uh Gullick.

Uh you have a substitute motion, uh uh adopting the original staff recommendation.

Um discussion now on the substitute motion.

Mayor, let me just speak to the motion.

Go ahead.

Again, yeah, I think as we heard from staff, um this there's not that many patios that utilize this, a few downtown.

Um, and if anything, patios is is Jennifer mentioned, they haven't complained.

Uh, I've I've dealt with a lot of restaurants, they turn tables.

This is just gives them extra money to turn tables on and they and they do well uh turning those tables.

And so that's a that is a really good benefit for them.

And so it doesn't, it doesn't really impede their business to have a little bit of it's like 10 bucks a day for the one that we saw on there.

So it's very, very inexpensive for them to have this additional room to put tables on it and generate revenue from.

And so I think that again, the whole idea was when we looked at this before, it was really not very much.

It wasn't capturing the cost and wasn't help giving the city and the public works the ability to do anything in the right-of-way to to beautify it.

And this is the whole idea is when we started this program to get it to an amount that could generate revenue that could benefit and offset the loss of use by public within some of these right-aways where the businesses are having an advantage by you know using that public right-of-way.

So I would hope that you we support this continued vision to see this up to that 50% level uh over the next three years.

Thank you.

Very good.

Uh Councilman Gullick, did you want to address your second?

Yeah, thank you.

Um yeah, I mean, then the encroachment fees exist because there's private use of the public, the public's resource, and it's not available then to the public.

So I think there's good reason to have them.

And I think the plan that that council put together a few years ago for for gradually increasing them, not in a big leap, uh, makes good sense.

Um, I think I mean these these are for encroachments that are throughout the community.

I think that being said, it would be, you know, as we look at where we would spend the money um for beautifying the public right of way, we'd want to make sure that there's not a wholesale transfer, I guess.

Uh you know, if if if most of it comes from downtown, I think we should be keeping most of it downtown.

Um, but this would be something to be available for like the sixth street uh underpass uh area there with that for for landscaping.

And it I think it's something we want should be wanting to grow.

Um so I will be supporting.

I think I have motion I seconded.

Very good.

Uh for the discussion on the substitute motion.

Uh I'll just comment.

I I will support substitute motions because I was involved with the the original uh plan and the and out of consistency there.

I don't know if these are high or low.

Um, but uh I can see the value of the the uh the dollars.

Uh we heard that uh we're already using 100% of what we gained.

So I I think we would just do more of what we uh uh are already doing with these dollars.

But personally, I am a uh a weed Nazi and it drives me crazy driving down our uh uh city streets, our major uh uh legacy our materials and seeing all the weeds.

And I just know it's unrealistic to expect the um uh the businesses or the homeowners oftentimes uh to deal with that, especially when they're many uh feet away or separated by a large fence and a large boulevard is just not gonna happen.

Um so I'd love to see uh these dollars available for that purpose and also uh uh getting on Shiloh, uh uh the old Laurel Road, um, Main Street, um in the heights, there's just a lot of opportunity for improving uh the look of our community, and this is a place to find at least a small amount of dollars for that purpose.

So um any further discussion before we vote on the substitute motion.

Okay.

Um so uh if in favor of the substitute motion, we'll do it by a show of hands.

Uh please raise your hand voting in favor or council members, uh uh Gulek, uh Nice, uh Cole and Boyette.

Um, if in favor, uh, or and and council member Shaw, I apologize.

And if voting in opposition, our council members Owen, uh Kennedy, uh Aspen Leiter and Tidswell.

So it looks like uh that is five in favor of the substitute motion, four against.

So um the uh staff recommendation for the uh increase of fees is uh uh adopted that uh uh uh that's just the motion on the table.

Uh well, it's a substitute motion in favor of that uh eliminates the underlying motion.

No, procedurally, that's not how that works.

We'll ask the uh parliamentary to uh address that.

So that's my understanding of why it's called substitute motion that eliminates any need for debate then on the underlying motion.

Per yes, per our rules, I believe that's how it is to be interpreted as well.

That's that it substitutes the motion.

So you agreed with my interpretation, is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Um and my understanding is part of the libertarian's uh decision on that issue is then controlling.

So um we can get further discussion later uh for future purposes.

But uh Janet, do you want to comment further?

I I was just gonna cite the section for Councilmember Aspermiter if he wishes to take a look at that.

Sure, that'd be great if you're if it's available.

Yeah.

Two-221 subsection to G.

Okay.

Very good.

Then I think that concludes an item uh number three and brings us then to item number four.

Uh Tony, would you read item number four?

Tax increment financing assistance extension from the downtown urban renewal TIFF district for old billings hardware development venture LP for its mixed use project at 2802 Montana Avenue, up to 745,000.

Downtown Billings Partnership Board recommends approval.

Very good.

And uh back to Wyatt.

Uh thank you, Mayor and Council.

And I'll be brief since I I already and you've already started discussing this, and it sounds like mainly you want to hear more from the applicant at this point.

Um, so I don't have a formal presentation on this.

Um all the information you received in the memo uh in terms of the um same um request, the same ask, the same actions are, you know, that hasn't changed.

The amount is the same and the proposed uh distribution is the same.

And as I believe uh Councilmember Aspen Leiter pointed out earlier, this is has been in the uh downtown billings uh partnership in the budget for the downtown district um since the recommendation was made.

So it continues to be a placeholder uh in there.

And as I mentioned just uh briefly that the the what happened was there was this 365 day condition um or the um completion of the phase two of the uh tax credits process that the applicant was working through, and we the 365 days came first.

Um, and so that's why um when it was realized that as they were preparing to execute the development agreement that it had to return to council for um for action for basically reaction on it again because that that time frame had expired.

So um the conditions that are proposed now, I'd I guess the only one that's that's different um is that the um number condition number one is that the development agreement be executed within 60 days.

Uh, we usually do 180 days, um, but they're they were trying to get that done before.

So we're trying, you know, moving that forward based on that um and getting it getting it done so that the project moves forward.

So with that, I can answer questions.

But like I said, we've got the applicant here and also um my met Casey with downtown if there's any questions from that standpoint as well.

Very good.

I'm sure we'll have some questions uh for the developers.

So if you want to come on out, feel free.

But why let me start with one and then Councilmember Bernice has a question.

Can you just address the uh uh very um good point made by Council Member Asperliner, which is what's the partnership's position on this extension since it wasn't officially approved?

Do they have a meeting coming up?

Is this something that we could get their input on?

Um, Mayor and Council, um, it could be put on their agenda.

It is not on their agenda.

It was not in planned to be put on their agenda.

They were um aware of this, as I said in speaking with Mamet Casey about this um when we got into this and it was determined to bring it back to council because the condition was approved was imposed at the council level.

Um, so at this point, no, it is not scheduled for their uh a meeting.

Okay, so there's no uh opposition from quote staff memet, uh, but we don't know about the full board.

Well, I I'll I can um if he would like to speak, I understand that there was conversation with some of the board from him, but uh okay.

If I could not formal.

I meant to address that issue, and then we'll turn it over to Councilmember Nees.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Uh yes, uh Memet Casey development director of the downtown Belix Partnership.

These discussions actually have taken place back in the spring of this year.

Um, if if you guys pay attention uh often to our minutes, you might have noticed that several applications have gone in front of the partnership uh recently about either defaulting or not meeting deadlines.

And so there was a collective effort in cleaning that up.

Uh, one of which the applications that were discussed then was this one.

Um at the time, the decision was made to essentially uh tell the developer or the applicant to either execute something or reapply and come back uh and release the funds and uh reapply when they're ready.

The developer uh agreed to execute the agreement, and the reason was to once you have an executed uh agreement, you then have uh deadlines that you can all parties can be held accountable to.

Some of you will will recall this same building under a different name, under a different owner, was promised funds that were never released to that person because the agreement was never executed.

So we didn't want to fall in the same scenario or situation.

By the time the developer was ready to execute the development agreement, city staff discovered that condition on the staff memo back in September of 2022.

Neither one of us staff, city staff or myself have notes or documentations of that condition.

So as far as my board is concerned, they essentially gave the developer and the applicant an ultimatum, and the developer was ready to execute.

The ball is in your court now.

Um, and so the condition, I'm sure there was good reason for placement of that.

But as far as we're concerned, we uh and the developer was uh under the impression that they had 180 days to execute the development agreement after acquisition of the um phase two approval from the state on the historic tax credit.

But again, from my board standpoint, they didn't realize that that could take three years.

And so that's why they exercised a little bit of a pressure to execute the development agreement.

Okay, so just to I don't want to put words in your mouth that it's um I'm hearing that the partnership doesn't have any objection to an extension as long as there's a signed development agreement in the near future, is that correct?

A fair summary.

And in terms of the question, there was an earlier question about the fund and whether or not that impacts the budget.

As you've indicated and you've mentioned, it's been budgeted all these years, and so there's no impact, and we're still in the positive.

And so there's no impact, and we're still in the positive.

So that would continue again, assuming that there's an executed development agreement.

And then now the applicant is meeting the deadlines indicated in the development agreement.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Uh Councilman, who do you have a question for for one of these three?

Why if or why?

Why you said um everything's the same.

A couple of questions for you.

One is regarding the development agreement.

You and I talked about this, but there will be the new development agreement that's executed, the one that has the prevailing wages in in it now.

Is that correct?

Uh council member knee, Samar and Council, correct.

Yeah, that's the current template for the agreement.

Great.

Thank you.

And then um, so there's this condition of a 365 days.

If it wasn't executed, then the deal terminated.

So what I don't understand is if it was terminated, your contract's done, you void.

Why didn't it go back through the whole process again?

Why are we seem to be skipping, even though the board met in spring about cleaning some stuff up, they didn't know at that time that the contract was the whole deal was terminated because they didn't meet the 365 days.

Uh Councilmember Nee Samaran Council, I guess the way that uh I staff has looked at it, it's it's it was the development, the condition was tied to the development agreement getting executed.

So the project was approved and the time frame was for that agreement to get executed um within that, you know, with at the 365 days um as the expiration based on the condition.

So coming back, I guess what seemed to be the best approach to that versus there was there's nothing, I guess, right now that that I have that would say, oh, you're just done, you know, it's over.

Um, because the recommendation and the what was recommended for the award and all that was still there.

It was just the development agreement execution that occurred.

Yeah, I understand that, but I believe that I mean boards changed, ideas change, especially in three years.

There's a lot that's happened downtown that has changed.

And so it would have been more comfortable to have the board actually look at the entire project instead of looking at 22 data on every application.

It would uh in my opinion, it should have been refreshed, uh, knowing now that you really is the whole deal was void.

But um, let me ask you a question because this was asked by Scott a little bit, and I don't know the answer to this, but this money that was kind of held in reserve, is there any priority that's put on that money as far as uh if someone else wants to come in today and and get 800,000 or 750,000?

Would they be told no because this money is being held?

And if they were to submit their application today, and it's a great project ahead of Randy, because there's let's say there's not enough money for two projects 750.

Would uh this project have priority over uh because in my opinion, it's kind of void.

But what is what is the um priority set on these TIFF districts when they're being applied?

And and they're then they're in the when I would call it default because it's it's a void application.

Yeah, I guess depending on the different terms of what we think it the status is, but I from the standpoint of the actual budget, um, I it's a little, I think that's a little complicated and not quite as cut as to say that if a project came in today that it wouldn't happen or wouldn't be able to be awarded funds because of this project.

It's gonna really depend again, and Memette can chime in here too, on the budget that the the downtown is operating under at any given time.

So yes, this funding is shown in that budget and is in and is factored in.

So yes, it does have an impact at some level as other projects come in and request funds.

The difference, I guess, or the the change over time is that um, you know, the budget for downtown fluctuates, projects get done, projects come in.

And so I get I don't know, it would, I guess it would be sort of it depends on what kind of project or how much was being asked where you could try to go back and calculate if that's an impact or not.

We have other projects in downtown that are in there that are starting or in different, you know, parts of their process that are also in the budget.

So they're being factored in as well.

So I think yes, it has an impact.

I I don't think it's necessarily like, you know, apples to apples exactly, based on when projects come in, what they're asking for, and all those things.

But yeah, it's it's a placeholder.

So yes, it is uh has an impact.

It is having an impact.

Okay.

And then just real quick on this is the there's always a clause in there if there's not enough money in the in the TIFF, then they they could be carried over different years.

Correct.

Um, how does it that's not prorated?

That's is that priority set by whoever started their project first, gets the first money out, and then if there's no money left over to that last guy, he's got to wait another year.

Um, council member uh knee Samaritan Council, yeah, it's based on with projects that are actually in the process that are if they're coming in for reimbursement, then they would be in reimbursed.

Um, or if there's bonding, we have to pay bonds, that's in there too.

Those all have to happen first, and then it comes down to whichever project is.

Okay, so the priority starts upon when they actually either execute the development agreement or is it when they actually start construction?

Um, I guess I my understanding would be so when you execute the development agreement, there's also then the time frame that's called out in terms of when the project might actually start requesting reimbursement.

And normally that's at least a year from then the next fiscal year.

So you're at least a fiscal year out.

Okay, so this isn't good, this isn't impacting that priority at all until he actually starts building.

At this point, right, and we're not at a point where it would be just my clock today.

Thank you.

Councilmember Shaw.

Thank you.

Um, Memet, I just have a simple question for you, which is what does the downtown TIFF want us to do right now?

The developer had requested that we delay this.

Is that the recommendation?

Or would you like us to make a motion to conditionally approve this and not have it come back in November?

Um, council member Shaw and Mayor and Council.

Uh I guess uh if if it's if it's uh at all the same with the council um if to hear from the applicant, maybe in their preference, because like I stated in um earlier from my board standpoint, we were ready for the execution to happen by June 30th of this year.

And they were the board was specific about that to make sure that it happens before the new fiscal year, so that hopefully we can set the dates based on the new fiscal year.

Obviously, between now and then, it took some time to discover the conditions and to decide collectively that we need to bring this back to you so that a decision is made here.

So now we are in the new fiscal year.

Um, it is already delayed, which means you know, no reimbursement will happen, obviously, in this year, and we'll have to wait for the project to be completed.

Um, so from the board standpoint, it doesn't matter if it's approved tonight or if it waits until November because we're already in fiscal year 26.

Mayor, could we hear from the um the developer then and then I'll I'll be prepared.

Yes, that's a very good segue.

That was gonna be my suggestion.

Uh so uh this one of the developers is on his way.

Good evening, uh, mayor and counsel, Randy Hafer.

Um representing old Billings Hardware Development Venture LP as um a general partner in that development.

I'm really sorry that we're even having this conversation tonight, but I just want to be very clear that the development agreement that we were working with had no language whatsoever about 365 days.

The language in there was very specific that we needed to sign it within 180 days after we received our approved part two application of the historic tax credit.

That's what we were working under.

Then if the board did make a decision earlier this spring that they wanted us to sign that they before June 30th, as Memet just said, and we were working with the partnership to finalize the agreement, and we had finalized it.

We were ready, we were ready to sign it.

And in fact, then it went to uh to Wyeth's office, and then that's when we found out that there was this 365 degree or day after uh it was awarded provision.

We had never ever heard anything about that, because we would not have let it lapse.

We would have been back to talk to you or whatever we needed to do if if we had been aware of that provision.

So that was a complete surprise to us.

So the fact that we're here today, I apologize for that, but we didn't know.

And we were working in good faith with the best information that we had.

We were ready to execute, we're ready to execute now.

Um, but we we would have had this all signed by June 30th, but for this issue that came up that we were totally unaware of.

The partnership was unaware of it.

I don't I still don't even know where it came from.

So, but it's out there that's not something that we'd ever seen.

If we had known about it, we would have acted accordingly.

Okay, it looks like we've got some questions.

Uh thank you so council ashlight's hand and the council member Kennedy and Council Rowan.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um Mr.

Haver, I'm gonna press you a little bit here now, because if you're ready to execute it today, you requesting that it gets put on November 10th or some date later to turn as determined by you and the staff, dragging it out longer.

Leaves me to assume that you're not ready to execute the project.

And my underlying concern with this entire application is that it got approved and and we're three years later, and now we're talking about more extensions while this is still an obligation that carries out over a five-year payout.

So we're, I mean, even assuming that you get this built by the end of 2027, we're paying out on this thing in the TIFF district for five years.

So we're not done paying you until 2032, leveraging the TIFF district way out there again.

And I still am not getting any level of confidence from you when you're actually going to build the project.

And that's my core concern with this is that we're we're leaving you this financial placeholder until you fit figure out your financial package.

And that's the backwards way in my mind to do this.

Well, let me first say that when we applied for this TIFF grant in 2022, we were prepared to move forward.

We were moving forward.

But if you recall, um, lots of things were happening at that time, and basically the whole world changed.

So we had we're coming out of COVID, we had supply chain issues, inflation went crazy, interest rates, it was really interest rates, though, that killed the deal.

And so our whole financing package fell apart.

Um, we were not able to execute the project at that time.

And because the market was so volatile for really until now.

Um, we've put it together four different times.

And we've had it fall apart four times.

This time, the the only reason we're asking uh this date really today, it doesn't mean anything.

Um, but we've thought if we could come back in two months, we would be I would be standing here telling you that we have part two approved.

It's going to be approved within the next few weeks.

Uh, we'd have our financing already in hand.

And I could tell you that we're going to start on December 1st.

I can't tell you that we're starting on December 1st today, but that is what we're aiming at.

We do have a package put together that we're moving forward with because of the difficulties in this market up until hopefully now.

Um, we've had we've you know, we've thought at different times that we were ready to go.

We've had whole packages put together.

And so we really wanted to be in a place where we could say we have it.

That's that's the only reason that we'd ask for a later date.

And but we're we're we'll execute now because we're confident that we're gonna make that happen.

Go ahead.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um, and I I this isn't a question.

I I appreciate your commentary, and maybe this is a comment for Lamette to carry back to the to the board.

Like the this stuff happens in the downtown and the eBird more than it happens anywhere else.

And we we get these applications, and when the package falls apart, then we need to kill the project and make the project go back through the application process.

Because I I question whether our actions on the the Don Cape project, the the AC hotel project would have been different if we had not had this obligation out.

Maybe we would have paid that project off in four years instead of five.

But we have we carry these things forward as placeholders, again, allowing people to try to figure this out.

When people apply, they need to have this figured out.

And we should be taking the last step and and not using this as a placeholder to then give everybody time to figure out how to make it work on the assumption that they have this in the bank.

This should be the last thing to take a project over the top, not the first thing in a funding funding in a finance package.

That's the complete backwards approach, and we do that far too often, especially in the downtown TIFF.

We do that all the time.

And that's frustrating as hell for me.

Um that's not how businesses operate.

That's not how a private business would approach this, and and it's not how a bank approaches this.

So to me, I I struggle with this one.

I appreciate that you're close to ready, or you say you're close to ready, but you've been close to ready four times.

You just said that.

And I mean, help me have confidence.

I don't have any confidence right now that we're not gonna obligate this, and then things fall apart again.

So I think I'm gonna I'm gonna vote against moving this forward until you can come back with your tax credits in place, your finance package in place, and and to say, hey, we're we are now fine finally ready to go forward, and here's our package that says so.

I I can't keep doing this because it's bad business.

I'd like to respond to that if I may.

Uh I I think uh you need to, sure.

And then uh council member uh Kennedy and Olin.

But go ahead, Rain.

Well, first of all, I can tell you that this award of $745,000 is critical to our capital stack.

And you talk about, I mean, we're private business.

This is how we've done it.

We have to we have to start putting pieces together before we can even get a bank to talk to us anymore.

The world has changed dramatically, and it's enormously frustrating.

And they're happy to lend you money all day long as long as you don't need it, but that's not the case here.

So if we were to take it away right now, we may kill the project.

It's very important that we keep this.

The bank that we're working with assumes that we have this because we have had it.

And I understand what you're saying in your frustration with the time.

That's we're unhappy about that too.

But what happened with COVID and it's aftermath is that that's completely beyond our control.

And at this point, though, to say, well, we're gonna start all over again, that everything's falls apart again.

So we're asking you, frankly, we're begging you, please don't do that.

We're finally very close.

This is going to be a really important project for downtown.

And we've been working diligently on this thing for years.

And it has been if you're frustrated, I can only assure you that we're way more frustrated.

But we are finally close to the finish line, and we just need we need that since the step has come up, we need to get past this step.

Um very good.

Uh don't go away.

There may be some other questions.

Conserver Kennedy and Cosper One.

I guess I'm looking at your project financing.

I see that uh you have the the land and the building, you have some cash invested, you're waiting for a historic tax credit equity, and you're looking for the tax increment financing district.

Do you have financing in place to go with the rest of the money?

It's the debt financing that's the only piece that's still missing.

The what is the debt financing?

So that's the bank.

But we do have all of the cash equity.

Uh the tax credit equity comes in at the end of the project, but we do have uh, well, this bank is intending to be the tax credit investor, so that equity will come from them.

Okay.

I have a question for Wyatt.

What I'm a little disturbed over the fact that uh Mr.

Hafer said he knew nothing about that um he would have to have this done quickly.

And you found this um council piece that said it was supposed to be done right away.

And uh he says he has documents that doesn't say that.

Downtown folks said they knew nothing about it.

Um how did you find it now when you've been running this program for quite a while?

Uh councilmember Kennedy and mayor and counsel.

Um, so first the um this condition was different than the standard conditions we normally have, which is 180 days you execute the development agreement.

Again, as councilmember or as uh Mamet pointed out, um when I went so when he came and said we're ready to do this, I went back because it was 2022.

I went back to look at when the action was taken because we also, when we execute development agreements, we include the minutes from the council meeting, the memo from the council action, the minutes from the downtown board.

That all goes together.

So when I went to do that, I saw that there was this condition that was 365 days or completion of phase two of those tax credits.

So first that wasn't that isn't a normal condition.

Uh it hasn't been.

It's been 180 days.

So for some reason, and and it is not in the minutes, the council put that on there at that time.

I don't know if it was because it was tied to the tax credit effort, and then concerns.

Don't think the council just puts it on and we all forget it.

I'm well, we didn't forget it because I caught it when it came in.

I'm just concerned because this project has been limping on for quite a while.

And you know, it probably is one that if you would have been familiar with everything, we probably would have caught this a long time ago.

I have some real concerns on this and real concerns that we're back here today, and there's financing or no financing or whatever.

Um I have some concerns on this whole project now because of the delay, because of the um it's just been sitting out there.

I also have a concern on that the uh downtown business district board really didn't have an opportunity to review this before it came here to us and say either go forward or don't.

And that hasn't uh uh met you may talk to a few people, but it isn't anything that went through the uh um the board.

So I have some concerns on all of this.

So on the whole this shouldn't have come to us until it was either neatly wrapped in a package or it should have been just dropped and we bring it back that it uh should be able to move forward quickly.

I have some real concerns on that.

Yeah, well, and that's why we brought it back to you was because of the condition and the expiration.

So I guess yeah, I I want to be really clear here.

If if I had been if I had known and this had been brought for the DA to be executed, I don't know, six months ago, 12 months ago, this exact same thing would have come up if we had passed 365 days.

So when this came forward in the way that it did to execute the development agreement, that's when pulling all those documents together, this was discovered.

Very good, Councilmember Owen.

Thank you, Mayor.

I have a couple of questions for Randy, if you don't mind.

I just I I really believe in downtown housing.

I think we need it.

I think it's important, but I also concur with my colleagues that we need to get these projects moving.

So I want to make really sure that I understand exactly where this project stands tonight.

Have the phase two tax credits been approved?

The phase two tax credit application is in Washington, DC with National Park Service right now.

Okay.

So no.

They have 30 days.

It's been there for a week or two.

We expect it back in the next few weeks.

And does that come back with a yes or no, or does it come back with work on these things and resubmit?

It well, it normally comes back approved.

And so then we're then that piece is done.

And that's what's necessary in order for a tax credit investor to be able to say that yes, we're ready to invest.

The reason I ask is we got them on Kevin is uh is an unexpected expert in historic tax credits on this building.

Um, and they did come back a couple of times with you have to work on this, you have to work on that.

So, what are the chances they come back with that?

With us, almost zero.

Okay.

I think we've had one comment in about 20 projects.

Okay.

Because we know what how to do these.

We do a lot of them.

So financing not final yet, as we've talked, right?

Um I'm looking at your uh project report here that was included in our packet, and it said um that in late August or early September you expect to have a hundred percent construction drawing done.

Is that done?

That's correct.

That's yes.

Been submitted for permit?

Well, no.

It says they'll be fit, they'll be submitted by the end of this month.

Okay, so you your intent is to submit permits at the end of this month?

To submit for the permit, yes.

And is that contingent on finding financing?

What's no, no, no, okay.

The financing isn't finished that will be submitted for permit anyway.

Okay, so what's holding the permit up or the submission for permit, excuse me?

Well, the drawings aren't quite finished.

Okay, so we're not quite at 100% yet.

Okay.

Um that's helpful for me to understand exactly where we stand.

And then this is a little bit of a side note, but where do I you have a lot of projects in front of you?

You're a bustling firm.

Where's the futurity tower standing right now?

Futurity is uh well, really, the market is very, very challenging.

And we do have a funder for the vast majority, 30 over 30 million dollars.

Um, we've got some resources for private capital.

Uh the loan on that would be a HUD um guaranteed uh loan or HUD guarantee on the loan.

And HUD has been a little bit squirrely.

And also they're not very communicative.

So we've been working with them to get all of their questions answered.

We do have a team, I think it's an excellent team of uh folks from around the state and the region, ranging from property managers to engineers and architects and uh suppliers, that we have a contractor, the whole nine yards, but it's very obvious that this HUD office is not at all familiar with a um CLT mass timber construction.

They're not they're apparently out of San Francisco, and they don't get the fact that they just don't understand how you can do a high rise in downtown and it snows.

Okay.

Like we're people supposed to park right.

So we're dealing with these kinds of project still.

And it's it's frustrating.

Okay, but we're working through it.

That again, we're working on that every day.

Okay.

And the mayor, I just have one more question, and then I'll I'll have a question for Gina.

Go ahead.

Uh you you just mentioned that this is a tough market.

Do you anticipate that either your financing or the actual start of construction will be contingent on a certain percentage of um of having leased some units out?

Are we gonna have to get some market before this project gets moving?

We we have not that has not been suggested that we need to do that.

We know that won't happen with the with the residential portion because that isn't even possible.

Okay.

So there's some potential that the that they could come back and say we're only gonna fund the residential portion first, and then when you have some leasing, uh the commercial portion, that has happened in the past, and we could make that work.

But right now we're looking at at funding the whole project, and that's what they're looking at.

And you don't anticipate having to revise your TIFF requests and ask for more money, more TIFF money.

We're not asking for any more money.

Okay.

All right.

And then I just have a quick question for Gina Mayor, if that's all right.

Sure, Gina.

And then I will be done, I promise.

So Gina, I do I do kind of want to go back to this question of we council approved an agreement with a contingency.

That contingency was not met.

Why do we not just consider this award void?

It's it's well lapsed.

I agree.

And I actually don't have that original agreement in front of me.

So I can only well, I can I can speculate, but um I think Wyatt might be better equipped to to explain why I didn't go back through the the process.

I think that it could it could definitely, depending on that language could definitely be considered as you've stated void and and terminated.

Um but without reading the actual language.

I hate to have a definitive opinion.

Understood.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'm done.

Very good.

Um Councilmember Shaw, your hand up.

Um yes, thank you.

I I think since earlier we voted not to delay this.

I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion to conditionally approve it, um, as it doesn't require public hearing.

So I move to conditionally approve tax increment financing assistance from the downtown urban renewal TIFF district or old billings hardware development venture LP for its mixed use project 2802 Montana Avenue up to 745,000 as recommended by DBP board.

And then I'd like to speak to the motion if there's a second.

Is there a second to the motion?

This is to uh approve uh consistent with the uh staff recommendation.

Is there a second?

Um I'm not seeing a second.

Um if there had been a second, I would have made a substitute motion.

So I'll go ahead and make that motion.

Your motion fails for lack of a second.

Uh my motion is to approve the original request made by uh or conveyed, which is to delay this until uh November 10th or a later date as determined by uh staff um uh with the consent of the developer.

Um uh and if there's a second to that, then I will speak to that.

Councilmember Shaw um has the second.

Uh my reason is I think this has been a great discussion and it shows the need to have more information.

Uh in particular, you know, is the contract good?

Yeah, we could say no, it's not and uh renounce the agreement.

Well, if if it is, that's is automatically a breach of the contract.

And I would highly recommend that we not proceed on the assumption that we do not have a contract here uh uh in in what is really a lot of ignorance.

So uh the way to deal with that is to delay this, give some time.

Um this is a great project, and I think we all know it's a great project in a critical part of downtown.

Um, but there has to be money to complete the project.

We all know that too.

So um hopefully we give uh a little bit of time, um, light a little fire under the uh uh potential funder and come back uh and we get a better understanding of uh what the project looks like and have a clear green light, hopefully also on the um tax credits, which are a critical part.

Um uh this is an essential element of the funding stack.

I appreciate Council Astraliner's uh comments.

I would love for this to be the last in the step, but the only time that happens is when they don't need our money.

Um almost by definition, if they've got the funding, they got the funding and we don't have to jump in.

And yet we always say, well, we want these dollars to be for projects that uh wouldn't happen but for our dollars.

And that's exactly what I fear this situ or not fear, but I suspect that's exactly what the situation is here.

So anyway, um, that's the reason for the uh motion just to uh uh delay this.

Um council member Shaw, you had the second.

I'll let you comment if you want and then open up for discussion.

Uh Councilman Rash or Shaw, any comments?

Uh thank you, Mary.

I appreciate that.

I I agree it has been I hopefully hopefully a helpful discussion for when this comes back.

Um I think underscores why the request earlier was to just delay this, but um I I hope that everyone developers downtown TIFF have heard this discussion and so that when it returns to us, um it is all neatly wrapped up in a nice beautiful bow.

Thank you.

Okay, very good.

Discussion now on the motion, Casper Ashton Liter.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, I'd I'd suggest uh a friendly amendment.

Um I'd I'd move to amend the motion to make it a hard and fast date of November 10th.

Um and okay, I can second that for discussion.

Uh concerns that I'd like to ask about that.

Why don't you go ahead and make that as an amendment to the proposed motion?

You've got a second.

Um any further discussion on that or yeah, I mean, I'm not interested in in leaving this open to to drag and drag and drag forever and ever and ever.

I mean, we're either gonna do it or we're not gonna do it.

And you know, leaving this open to, you know, and or unless staff and the developer agree to to schedule it some other time.

Uh I'm not interested in in this lagging further and it's still showing on the balance sheet.

If it's gonna go, it's gonna go.

If it's gonna die, it's gonna die.

And I mean, by Mr.

Hafer's own comments, we should know the answer to that by the end of October.

And so if that's the truth, then we need to have it on the 10th and make a decision, yes or no, up or down, and move forward and clear this off of the balance sheet one way or the other.

Um I'm not interested in this lagging any further than it already has.

Okay, thank you.

Um and I'm okay with that if the developer doesn't see any great problem with that.

Um, Randy, do you want to comment on uh uh again on the uh um uh making a uh definitely bringing this back by November on November 10th at the November 10th meeting?

I don't think I have probably a lot of choice.

Um if we need another week, we're gonna tell you.

If you want to pull the plug and we've got a week to go, I guess you're gonna do that too.

But yes, I we're we're we will be back on the 10th, if that's the date that you choose, and that's fine.

I mean, we should be done by then.

Okay.

And at that point we can uh decide what to do, it sounds like.

But um for discussion now on the proposed amendment, uh, Councilmember Nice.

Yeah, I I seconded it for discussion, but my concern on this is if it's coming back, um again, I'm can as far as I'm concerned, this deal is dead.

And so to bring something back that's dead, you can't bring it back.

It has to go back through the board.

And so um, you know, I in fact I was looking, I looked up the September uh 12, 22 in meetings, right there, it came from staff recommendation of you know, be within 365.

So it wasn't something the council came up with during that time.

It was something the staff recommended.

And so it is something that was there clearly in the minutes or in the memo.

And so uh as far as I'm concerned, the deal is dead.

And so I don't know even why we're voting on it.

Um I think it needs to go back to the board and then come back and if November 2nd it tends to date, great.

But I I think the deal is dead.

And I I sure would like Gina to look into this further to make sure that she uh we know that if we're just voting on a dead deal.

Okay.

Uh again, uh comments on the proposed amendment, Council Brock.

I I might regret this immediately as soon as it comes out of my mouth.

But given that we could look at this language fairly quickly and get an answer from Gina.

Can we take a five-minute break and let her do that and tell us if this deal even can be extended?

I understand council member Aspen Later's fury with this suggestion right now.

But let's at least figure out one thing that we can figure out tonight.

Uh we can, and it is 7:30, which is normally when we would take a break.

Um, my earlier comments I'll just make again at that point, but I don't want to you're you're not in prison here.

So, council, if you would like to take a five-minute break, we can uh do that and and come back.

Um but I what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna I uh I'm gonna force a a vote on that because we are so close to the end.

It's not necessary to have a vote, I'll withdraw it.

I was just trying to simply get one answer solved for council members tonight.

Um yeah, and and my concern is whatever forcing a lawyer to make what is really a absolutely fundamental, critically important decision based on five minutes is never a good idea.

So I I'm gonna say let's press ahead and I'm just gonna use my discretion, I guess, to keep moving ahead.

So uh with that though, um, is there any other discussion on the proposed amendment, which would just give a uh uh November 10th uh firm date for this to come back?

Councilmember Boyette.

Um Mad.

Yeah, my minute.

You didn't seem too excited about this.

You didn't have your positive face on.

Do you think by us waiting until November 10th this is gonna resolve itself?

Question.

What is your feeling?

Council Councilman uh Boyet, sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question.

So if we wait until November 10th, correct.

What is your feeling that this will take care of itself that we'll be able to move forward?

Or do you would you wish us to kill this?

Uh just asking your opinion.

If I were to speak on behalf of mayor and council and council member uh Boya, if I may if I were to speak on behalf of my board, I think they would be incredibly uh disappointed, disheartened, whatever adjective you want to uh insert in killing this project.

I think this project has been years, decades possibly in the making.

Um the only reason that the applicant is requesting the delay in in November, and if I may speak on behalf of the applicant, is the applicant tends to be historically from my uh interactions with him, he tends to want to be 110% sure of the deadlines that they're committing to before they're committing to them.

So in the sake of transparency, that's the request of that um extension.

Otherwise, as you heard from him today, he's ready to execute today if that's the wish of the council.

And to touch base on some of the other comments that have been made, uh and some things that I forgot to mention.

I did go back and watch the council meeting from September 2022 as well.

Not anywhere in my presentation.

Did we talk about that condition?

Not any member on the council that ask about that condition.

Again, the reason staff brought it back is because that from a legal standpoint, if you approved that as recommended by staff, it implies that the language written on the staff memo was approved by council in that way.

So if we are making any changes to it, we brought it to you for tonight forward for your consideration if it is to be reviewed again in any different fashion.

Um the applicant has requested extending it again from my board standpoint.

It doesn't make a difference if we approve it tonight or November because we're already in fiscal year 26.

It's already been budgeted out five years away from the year in which it is completed, whether it gets completed in FY26 or 27.

That becomes very evident once it's executed.

Um the development agreement itself um is not executed, and that's why the board wanted to put some teeth to the development agreement.

If I may comment um to uh council members Aspenleiter's um earlier statements, the reason why we've cleaned up our act was actually this building.

This building set the tone for when an agreement was not executed and we cleaned up all the agreements.

The uh the recent four default uh applications, two of which complied and corrected those defaults, one withdrew and one was denied.

So there this thing doesn't happen all the time in the downtown TIFF district.

And the reason for that was it was cleaned up with the partnership that we had with the city staff to look at the development agreement language to make sure that there are no loopholes for these situations.

The reason why this has taken three years, not because we've all taken a hiatus nap.

We've all been in communication closely with the applicant and understand the complexity of the historic tax credit, much like the LITEC as well from one of the applicants, Montana Rescue Mission and how long that took.

And so we just wanted to put some teeth to the development agreement by executing it, and then they have to match or meet the deadlines.

Okay.

And if they don't, they default.

Very, very good.

Thank you.

Um council, the motion before you is for uh just the amendment portion of uh creating a November 10 hard date for uh this uh applicant to come back.

Uh we'll move ahead to a council Renese is the truly for M'Met.

Because it it's it's gonna decide whether I vote yay or nay on this, even though I said, will you bring this back to your board to get your board to approve this?

Happy to.

So it'll be there before November 10th.

Yes.

Uh okay.

Because I think that's gonna really I can put it on the September agenda.

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, this is a void project, but if it comes back through the board back to the council November 10th as a new project, then I'm fine, but it has to be new new information.

Thank you.

Very good.

He uh nodded his head.

Uh everybody couldn't hear that.

And so that was indication of yes.

So okay, very good.

Uh then we'll move ahead to the vote.

The vote is again just on the amendment portion, create that November 10 hard date.

If in favor of the proposed amendment, please say uh aye.

Aye.

If uh uh and council member Gulek was not voting, uh we appreciate that.

If uh voting in opposition, please uh say nay.

So the amendment uh passes unanimously.

Um now we've got the amended motion, which is just for this to come back on uh November 10th.

And Councilmember Gullick.

Yes, I want to recuse myself from this vote uh on this project again uh as my business is involved in it.

Very good.

Thank you for that clarification.

If in favor of now the amended motion for this project come back on November 10th, um for your further consideration, if uh please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

If opposed, say nay.

Uh that motion passes unanimously, and we'll see you on November 10th.

Um thank you, uh everybody for your discussion.

Uh very educational and uh more to find out between now and then.

And so uh good discussion.

Uh much appreciated.

I know I learned a lot.

Um that concludes then uh regular uh uh items and uh next item on our agenda is just public comment on non-agenda items.

Is there anything uh for public comment on items not on our agenda?

If so, please come to the podium.

We just ask that you give us uh your name and um keep your comments to three minutes.

Is there any public comment on non-agenda items?

Any public comment on things not on our agenda?

Seeing nobody coming forward, we'll close the public comment period.

Um council initiatives, uh turn over to council member uh Kennedy.

Mayor, before you is the policy.

Um that I put together, everyone should have a copy of it.

And it's uh policy is department directors will need to live in the city of Billings.

The city of Billings is a wonderful city to live in and raise your family.

We offer a lot.

We give water, sewer, street, library, police, and fire protection and garbage pickup along with wonderful parks.

A department director makes a large scale decisions for their department and the city.

This is also entails requests for more funding and raising rates on city residents.

This proposal includes um the director in our tax base.

If there is no loyalty to the city to where we live, why would the taxpayers want to pay their salary?

This is a policy decision and not a hiring duty of the board.

That was pointed out by legal counsel.

If you would look at the second sheet I gave you.

And this is article four on the uh um on the city administrator employment and compensation.

The city administrator shall carry out policies established by the city council.

The city council, as I have gone through the charter system and the billings charter, it states that the council can make policy.

Now the city administrator does the hiring, does the firing, and runs the place.

We can set policy.

This is a policy statement, and I'm just asking that department heads, the same as the city administrator contract, live in the city of Billings.

So that's what I bring forward tonight.

And I would um is that a motion.

Take any question.

I'll I'll I'll make it as a motion that uh that we go forward with this uh with this policy.

Second.

And just to clarify, the the the motion is to put this on a it's as an agenda setting item.

So um this would go on to a future agenda uh if the motion is approved for discussion.

Um it's not doesn't um decide the issue, it just puts it on an uh agenda for future discussion.

Um so can uh is there a second?

Yeah, it's second, yeah.

I'm a second by council member discussion on the agenda.

Okay, very good.

And council member Kennedy, you've already um addressed your motion.

Is there anything further though before I hand it to Councilmanice?

Okay, Councilmember Nees, did you you had the second?

Did you want to address yeah, I think this is a good idea to take a look at.

I've long thought that the department heads who actually make the decision, the fees, the taxes that are uh assessed by all of our citizens, they should kind of share in that.

And so um I think this is a gonna be a good discussion that we can have.

And um, and I understand there could be some issues.

We have to make some exceptions until everyone's in the city, but uh I'm all willing to take a look at this and see what we can do to create this policy.

Thank you.

Very good.

Further discussion on the uh proposed motion.

Mayor uh councilman Kenny.

I would just ask that it be on an agenda in October.

Um okay, then I guess we call that a friendly amendment.

And if it's consistent with council member knees.

I'm okay with that.

Uh, do we know who um who needs to kind of do the work on this to bring this forward to us?

Um there we'd have to ask the city administrator, which is who's tonight is uh Kevin Ifflin.

So in brief consultation with our city attorney, we are anticipating that this would probably have to be an ordinance change that it we don't have anywhere where we have council policy statements.

So that's what we'd be looking at.

So it would take some work of where that would go potentially in ordinance.

Could it be a resolution?

Uh then that's would be another option we'd look at.

Do we do have bots and comment further if needed?

But I'm sorry, there was uh uh audio problem there.

What did you say, Kevin?

Yes, we could look at whether it needs to be an ordinance uh or a resolution, and I don't know if Gina can comment further on that, I guess at this point, but that's more than likely where it would need to go as one of those.

And this would involve which legal and pay and uh HR, is that what you're looking at?

Or administration, yes.

Administration.

Okay.

I did you did Council McKenzie, did you want to comment?

I'll ask Gina to comment.

Yes.

Um I would just have you call up the local government uh center and Bozeman.

They'll talk to you on policy.

And then if you go through the MCA codes, Title 7, it will lay out on the policy.

And then as I looked up and did the work on looking at the policy and what the charter says and our charter says of what policies the council can make, we can make policy, and the city administrator carries it out to their duties.

And when you look at this, this is not a uh this is a policy um governing anyone that takes one of those positions, and um so it's it's laid out, it's really cut and dried when I looked at everything.

So um you shouldn't take very long.

Gina, do you want to comment on the procedural aspect of this?

Uh yes, thank you, Mayor.

Um generally I agree that with um councilmember Kennedy's statement about council being able to make policy, that's absolutely certain, certainly true.

Um there is a state statute that requires just trying to find it here that sets forth the general qualifications for municipal officers um elective or appointed.

Those need to be prescribed by law or by ordinance.

Um so I just need to I I just need a little bit of time to reconcile our charter with state law.

Um so if this is excuse me, set for if the request is to set this for a work session in October, that's absolutely more doable.

But I'm I guess I'm just trying to clarify if if council, if councilmember Kennedy's expectation or request is that this be ready for final action in October.

I'm I'm not so sure about that, but could Councilmember Kenny can you clarify?

I guess it was my assumption you'd we'd want to see some sort of a draft and that'd be a work session type thing, but it's your motion.

So do you want to?

Actually, I think we've had a lot of it.

Um we don't have to have more discussion at a work session.

I think we have it back for final vote and a board meeting in October.

Okay.

Um I'll I'll address the merits and council member Shaw uh after that.

I'm I'm just gonna I will vote against this, but I I I do appreciate the logic of it.

Uh uh giving department heads a direct interest, uh, especially financial in the decisions they make.

And I agree that uh city council does have the power to set uh uh these sorts of things as uh policy.

And I appreciate uh especially need for maybe proximity being a factor for like the chief of police or the fire chief and um all things being equal, I'd prefer that our department heads do live in the city.

Um but I still oppose it for very practical reasons.

I uh first, I don't think there's a lot to be gained here.

Um I I don't think the uh residency requirement really would influence um uh department head decision making.

The reality is that these are mostly uh, you know, the idea is to give them a fiscal or financial stake in the decisions they make, but the typically the costs that they have direct impact on are uh relatively small dollars.

Um raise a fee here, raise a tax there, uh few hundred dollars at the most, a few uh nickels or dimes at the least.

And so that in comparison to where their family lives uh is a huge deal.

And I just don't think um uh there's much to be gained in that comparison.

But by contrast, I do think there are a lot of negative effects that could come from this.

First, I do think it'll hurt more morale.

Uh send the message for our department heads that we they can't we can't really fully trust them to be professional in making their judgment without giving them these these uh small disincentives.

And then I think it would hurt recruiting and and um retention on the on the recruiting end.

Just the reality is some people like horses.

I don't, but some particularly, uh, but some people like roosters.

Well no, I like horses.

Don't get don't send me a heat mail, uh, you know, or having four dogs or shooting their bow and arrow or using their BB gun.

And uh if they don't like that, their spouse or their kids do.

And people make these decisions, they're very important decisions, and and and good employees are hard to find, and we shouldn't put up unnecessary uh barriers to them.

Also, retention, I I we're I fear about how this could impact our retention of people who are already working for the city.

Uh when a department head leaves, it's often a good thing to hire from within the organization, and particularly for within that department.

And and I I don't think that we should be telling existing employees who maybe worked for the city for many, many years and several layers down from the top, um uh that if they don't live in the city, um, they either have to move into the city or give up what might be their dream of some time, some uh at some time running um that uh that department.

I think that would hurt retention.

Then lastly, though, um uh I think many of the costs and benefits are really hard to determine.

I mean, there's no exact crystal ball uh either uh positively or negatively on on this issue.

Um, but I do think we should be influenced by what other cities are doing.

And um, although there are some cities in the United States are doing this based on my research, it appears that none of the eight largest cities in Montana impose any sort of residency requirement for their department heads.

Um there's clearly a national trend away from imposing these uh residency requirements.

So when you put all these things together, I think that it's more prudent that we not sail alone into these uh uncharted waters.

So I'll um uh oppose the motion.

And uh staff is just already very uh uh very busy.

I think they've got higher priorities.

Um councilmember Shaw, you had your hand up.

Um thank you.

Mayor, you made most of the points I was gonna make, which I appreciate.

So I I would just second all of those.

Um the only one that I would just add that you hit on it in the end is council.

We keep throwing these initiatives at staff and it's derailing them from being able to pursue the priorities that we've adopted because they're just every week or every couple weeks getting a new something like this.

So please do not underestimate the amount of time that we're asking them to even put into researching this by going forward.

So I would definitely urge council not to approve this and not waste staff time on something that we're not seriously considering.

Thank you.

Very good.

Thank you for the discussion now on the motion.

Um uh council Rashwater, Councilmember Gillett, Councilmember Broan.

Yeah, I this is a hard one for me.

I I understand the intent and I I I fully respect where council member Kennedy is coming from in this, but I I don't think I can support this one.

I I am concerned about hiring the most qualified person.

That's what I want.

I want the most qualified people, the most educated people and the and the most driven people to lead our city.

And sometimes that means that they make family decisions to not live in inside the city.

We're we're not hiring department heads that live in Bozeman.

We're not hiring them to live in places that preclude them from making it to their job every day.

I don't want to limit the candidate pool for us in the future or going forward uh by putting a restriction in place.

I want I want to make sure that we're hiring the most qualified people.

And at the end of the day, I think that should always be our goal.

Um I understand the intent and I I certainly believe that staff understands the impacts of the decisions that they make every day.

I I truly believe that.

Um I I just think this this creates maybe uh an unintended burden or hurdle for us, a barrier for us to to attracting the best candidates in the future.

So I I'm gonna be a no tonight on this one.

Very good.

Council member you like.

Uh thank you.

Yeah, I um, you know, uh agree on the face of it, it's well meaning to make sense.

Um, but the more I thought about it, um I just don't think it's necessarily in the in the public interest.

It's in the public interest for us to have the most qualified uh candidate pool we can have.

So I think uh council member Aspen Leiter as well as the mayor uh voiced very well um what my thoughts are.

And and for instance, we I think we have a very excellent uh public works director.

Um and our public works director does not live in Billings.

Um the director was hired from within.

Um, you know, she wouldn't have been able to become our public works director if we um if we had this in place at the time.

And I I've I think there's just more uh potential downside than upside.

Um so uh I won't be supporting either.

Very good, Councilmember Owen.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh I am going to support this.

I think the concerns that have been raised are well placed and entirely resolvable.

Um there are communities that do this, and many of them include a waiver where there's good cause to waive it.

So there may be someone who is worked for the city for a long time and lives outside the city.

There may be um, you know, we have to care for an elderly relative outside the city.

There may be good cause.

But I would ask council members to consider that this might also serve as a good policy-making canary in the coal mine for us.

If in fact the city administrator is out recruiting for department directors and is hearing, I can't afford to live in billings.

I don't think it's safe to live in billings or whatever excuse whatever concern is being raised, we should know that.

That should weigh on us as we are making larger policy for the city.

So I think this gives us an opportunity to begin hearing from people who might be making decisions to relocate to the community that they find that easy or not easy.

And that's important information for us to know in guiding the policy here.

So I believe um an ordinance can be written that would ensure we don't have an unnecessary barrier that we're respectful to family decisions, um, but that we also have the information to understand the dynamics and the perception of our cities when it comes to hiring.

Um, and that's important information for us.

So I'm gonna support this um and hope that my council colleagues will reconsider and at least let's have a conversation about whether or not we can do this in a way that does serve the public interest.

Very good.

Uh Councilmember Shaw.

Oh, I I looked at Councilmember Nees, it's Councilmember Schott.

Okay.

Yeah, Councilmember Denise.

I apologize.

Yeah, no, I I thank you, uh Councilmember Owen for because that's what I was thinking too.

Isn't we have to at least have a discussion to talk about this to get this on the table.

And at that point, if if the policy is just not acceptable at that time, I would say I would probably vote against it.

I mean, again, like you mentioned, there needs I was thinking about that as as the mayor and and councilmember Goodlich spoke.

I thought we need to have some kind of waiver in there.

So I think I'm glad you mentioned that because there are there are going to be some exceptions that we need to do.

And so I think that's where it's something that we need to make sure that we look at the whole picture, but we have to have this discussion.

So I I'm I I hope you'll support that reconsider um so that we can have the discussion and come up with a really good policy that won't inhibit those great employees to coming to work for Billings because we have a great city.

Very good.

Thank you for your comments.

Um other uh discussion on the motion, motion before you is council member Kennedy's um to go forward um at this uh uh future business meeting in October.

Councilmember Boy.

So the idea was to have this a work session or no.

My understanding is the uh motion was a business meeting in October.

Councilmember Kennedy's nodding his head, and Councilmember Nees, I think had a councilmember Kennedy.

I would sure appreciate a friendly amendment to a work session.

I would I would like I think I think we need to have some better discussion during the work session than have it already baked and try to negotiate it during a business session.

So Councilmanice, I need some clarification that I I apologize.

I was treating council member uh Kennedy's clarification of a business meeting being his intent that you went along with that.

Um but now I'm I'm not so sure about that.

So I we may need to put that to a vote as an amendment.

Yeah, so that is that is a um that's a good one because I initially thought it was gonna be during work session, but then you clarified it and you said business session.

I didn't say anything about it, but I I am concerned that I I think the discussion is gonna be better held at a bit a work session than a business session.

Okay, so we'll need some clarification from council member um uh Kennedy about what his motion is business versus work session, and depending on that, we'll ask for whether to see whether we have a second.

Mayor, I could go to a work session and we could do it.

I just don't want a series of charts and everything to come up.

I want a discussion with the council on it.

Um I don't need staff to go through umpteen uh power points and everything on this.

I'd like to hear from folks if you want to waiver in there on uh being able to if it's affects hiring the best person or whatever.

But I think the real intent is billings is a good place to live.

If you really can't live here and you have to live out of town, is there a real legitimate reason that you don't want to live inside the city of Billings, but you do want to uh to be employed by the City of Billings.

So I uh I don't have a problem with running it on an October um work session, and then hopefully we pass it to go on to the next uh um to the business meeting.

Okay, so the motion has been clarified that it does refer to a work session uh in October now, Councilmember Neys, um I assume that that's considered what I'd like to do.

You're intent on your second.

So we still have a motion before you, council, but now clarified uh to be a work session.

Uh further discussion now on that uh motion, council member uh Gullick.

Yeah, I made my uh comments tonight in part because we were talking about a business um session.

And you know, I initially when we brought it up, I thought, well, I'll just talk about this during time uh when we have the discussion uh in a work session in my and my concerns about it.

Um but I think uh council member Shaw makes a very good point is that there is an opportunity cost.

We we do have uh adopted goals and priorities, and and uh we just keep giving staff reasons not to be able to work on those.

And so I am concerned about that.

So even though we're talking about a work session, I I think I will still vote against this against this, but I um I'd certainly feel better about the fact that we would be discussing it in a work session.

Uh very good.

Yeah, that doesn't change my um opposition to it.

So um any further discussion before we proceed to a vote.

Customer asked me letter.

Yeah, and I I would just say the same thing uh in full transparency.

Like I I don't see myself getting even with a waiver process getting getting to a yes on this policy.

So I don't want to waste anybody's time or or effort on it.

I don't think it's I don't I don't think it's a good policy to go forward with.

And and so I'm I'm gonna be a no regardless, and it's all be a no tonight.

Very good.

Any further discussion before we move to a vote.

Okay, is the motion clear?

Okay, no, I'm not asking anybody to ask to restate the motion.

So um uh the the motion is to uh proceed with a work session in October in this direction.

Um if in favor of the motion, uh please raise your hand.

Uh just be for clarity, council members Nice Owen, um uh uh Kennedy, Tidswell, and uh Boyette.

If opposition, raise your hand, Council members Gullick, Cole, uh Ast Moleiter and Shaw.

Uh so the motion uh passes uh five to in favor, uh four against.

And so we'll see you in November.

Uh Mayor, if I could interject us for a second, just so I'm clear, Councilmember Kennedy's comments.

You do not want staff to prepare anything, it's just gonna be a council discussion on that.

I don't want a power point in all of that.

I want if Gina comes back and states that there's a difference between policy and what we're asking.

I'd like to know that.

If not, I think we have a discussion on this policy, and if it's a waiver or whatever in there, so be it.

But I think it sets precedent for we really believe that people should live in the in the city.

Um, you know, the other the other piece I just wanted to comment on is um, you know, you can say all you want about priorities set and everything else.

We have council initiatives so people can bring up things.

Every time I brought up an initiative, what comes back is you're taking too much staff time.

Well, Councilman Kennedy, I just I just want to finish up and that's why I put it on the council initiative.

So I think it should be heard and I think it should be moved on instead of cutting it off every time I ask on something.

So I appreciate the votes tonight.

Thank you.

You bet.

And I think that's why we have this process.

So um process works.

Um with that, then Kevin, I I'm hearing sort of presentation light, but I uh I don't know about specific rules.

Uh you have to operate based based on the motion that was made.

What I've been interpreting basically is staff will bring back what the process, if something like that is adopted by council, whether that would be ordinance resolution or some other mechanism.

Okay, and I would encourage us to work with Councilmember Kennedy to make sure he's in the loop and comfortable with whatever the plan looks like, and maybe other council members as well.

Okay, very good.

That um is uh council initiatives.

And so with that, we are adjourned.

Thanks, everyone.