If you would please stand with me for the Pledge of Allegiance, and our invocation tonight will be by Councilmember Aspen Later.

Pleasure to the planet.

Amen.

Tony, uh, if you would, please call the roll.

Councilmember Shaw.

Here.

Guewick.

President.

Owen.

Here.

Rogers.

Kennedy.

Here.

Aspen Ider.

Tidswell.

Boyette.

Repsis.

Mayor Cole.

Here.

Our first order of business are minutes.

Uh Council.

Uh, the minutes from September 22nd.

Councilmember uh Neys had some uh questions about that, which he posed to Denise, who's not available today.

So we'll put those off until our next business meeting.

And uh, but we still have the minutes from September 8th.

Uh, are there any comments uh or a motion relating to the minutes from September 8, 2025?

Uh Councilmember Boyette.

Thank you, Mayor.

I move that we approve the minutes from September 8th, 2025 as read.

Very second by councilmember Rogers.

Any discussion.

Seeing none, if in favor of the motion for approval of the minutes from December 8, 2025 is drafted, please say aye.

Aye.

If opposed, please say nay.

Motion passes unanimously.

Uh Council Courteses this evening, uh, do we have any?

No council courtesies.

Very good.

We'll move on to proclamations.

We do have a proclamation on your agenda, but it's in recognition of Indigenous People's Day.

And the proclamation reads as follows.

Whereas the state of Montana recognizes through its highest law, the state constitution and Article 10, the distinct and unique cultural heritage of American Indians and is committed to its educational goals and to the preservation of native culture and integrity.

And whereas the city of Billings as a self-governing municipal government operating uh pursuant to its charter and the laws of the state of Montana embraces the its responsibility to promote equality and the historical integrity of indigenous people, especially the 13 tribes that together constitute approximately 7% of the population of the state of Montana.

And whereas the state recognizes that indigenous people are the original stewards from time immemorial of the land underlying the city of Billings, and that over the ages has been the homeland and traditional use area of the Crow, Northern Cheyenne, Sioux, Blackfeet, and other native people in this region.

And whereas the city recognizes the important contributions of indigenous peoples, the region's rich indigenous history and the contemporary cultural, political, and economic influences that contribute to our diverse community.

And whereas the city opposes any and all forms of oppression, including those directed toward indigenous peoples who through history have been harmed by policies aimed at forced assimilation and cultural suppression.

And whereas on this day, October 13, 2025, the City of Billings recognizes, commemorates, and celebrates the contributions and resilience of all Native peoples.

Now therefore, I, William Cole, mayor of Billings, to hereby proclaim that the City of Billings supports the contributions of American Indians and our community, economy, and rich Western culture by observing and celebrating indigenous people the second Monday of October.

With that, uh on to council reports.

Are there any council reports uh uh from uh organizations, groups that you serve on on behalf of the city council members?

Seeing no council reports, um city administrator report.

Uh Chris, do you have anything for us this evening?

Yeah, just one item, uh Mayor and Council.

So brief update relative to the animal control builder and yeah, animal control building.

So uh still working towards the certificate of fitness from the Department of Environmental Quality.

The uh cleaning firm uh arrived this afternoon, began their work.

Once they finish their work later this week, we'll finish testing and hope to get that certificate from DEQ by the end of the month.

So we continue to make slow but steady progress uh working with our partners at DEQ to get the facility back safe and operational.

So thank you.

Then I'm sorry, last thing I have there was no ex parte communication that came in uh late this afternoon.

Very good.

Thank you.

Uh we'll now move on then to public comment on things that there won't be a public hearing on later.

So tonight that's um items one, our consent agenda, including all the subparts on item one.

And for anyone who needs a copy of the agenda, there should be one back by the door as you come in on that corner.

Uh so anyway, this is an opportunity for public comment on any of the items on our consent agenda.

Also, item two, which are the uh Lucy Brown LB Loft project, and then lastly, item five, which is the S.

Bird South Buildings Urban Renewal District Um or Proposed Program uh for utility hookups.

If anybody would like to comment on those three items, everything else, there'll be a public hearing later and items not on our agenda.

You'll have an opportunity to comment at the end of our meeting.

So Mr.

Brooks.

Good evening, Mayor, members of council.

For the record, Dan Brooks with the buildings chamber at 815 South 27th Street.

Uh, I want to voice our support for agenda item number two, uh, the request for funds uh from C D BG and home for the LB Lofts project.

Uh I was looking back at uh some of the discussion from uh last year, July of 2024 was the last presentation that you'd had on this.

We'd come and supported.

So I apologize.

There's gonna be a little bit of uh repetitiveness in in my points here, but I want to make them no less.

Uh the first is that we just have uh a significant need uh for these affordable housing units.

Uh last year, July 2024, there was a little over 7,000 uh on the waiting list uh at home front.

Now there's a little over 8,000.

So that need continues to grow.

The 101 units of this development are significant.

I uh had had uh supported, wrote about, uh thought it was uh frankly pretty neat uh a few years back when city council approved over 100 units uh in our downtown area with TIFF funding.

So I think this is pretty substantial, and I uh ask your support for this project.

Secondly, uh this obviously comes with some significant safety benefits, uh, namely the crime prevention through environmental design of having additional residential units and additional eyes on the streets in the area.

I have not uh myself taken a look at the site plans, but uh I don't need to because uh Patty Webster and staff at Homefront have gone through our five-day SEPTED training that was made available because of council's investment in 2023.

So I wanted to also say thank you uh to that because it's continuing to lead to good outcomes.

You had helped fund that training in 2023.

We had not only city staff uh had come through that training, but home front and others that now have that eye for crime prevention in these new developments uh that are gonna go into billing.

So for those reasons, the need for the additional supply uh and uh the safety benefits, we encourage your support.

Thank you.

Very good, thank you.

Any other public comment?

I should have said before.

We just asked that you tell us your name and uh keep your comments to three minutes or less.

Uh are there any other public comment on items one, two, or five?

Any other public comment on items one, two, or five before I close the public comment period.

Those coming forward, so we will close the public comment period, move on to uh our consent agenda.

Uh council, are there any separations uh from our consent agenda this evening?

Seeing none, uh is there a motion relating to the uh council member Aspenlighter, would you like to make the motion uh to approve the consent agenda for the first time in two years?

I would love to make that with no separation.

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

Well, with no exceptions.

Thanks.

We even build it into the statement.

Casper uh uh uh Kennedy uh seconds the motion.

Um any discussion on the motion.

Okay, if in favor of the motion, approval of the consent agenda, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

Motion passes uh unanimously.

Uh next item up is on our uh move on to our regular agenda.

Uh item number two.

Tony, would you read item number two?

Item number two, home and CDBG funding to homeward and home front for construction of LB Lofts, affordable apartment housing.

Community development board recommends approval.

Very good.

Uh item number two, uh Brenda Beckett's coming forward.

And also Jordan.

Yes, honorable mayor and city council members.

I would like to I I apologize.

Uh, Councilman Rasmuslighter needs to recuse themselves, Customer uh Gullick.

I'm sorry.

Usually it's I said ask right now.

Customer Gulliver.

Uh just had well, actually it's coming up.

I was just gonna say I'll have to reacuse myself from this uh item.

Uh my firm is uh the architect of the project.

Very good.

Thank you.

Uh back to Brenda.

Right.

Honorable mayor and city council members.

I'd like to introduce you to our newest staff member.

She joined our team in January.

She uh this is Jordan Langton, and she goes by Jay.

Um, she has a degree in business administration and 12 years experience in home lending and mortgage customer service.

So we thought she'd be great for the affordable housing development program and first-time homebuyer program.

So thanks.

Very good.

Well, welcome, Jordan.

But you prefer Jay.

Neither one is fine.

Neither one, okay.

All right.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

I'm here tonight to present the LB Lofts Affordable Housing Development Project for funding approval.

Mayor.

Can you uh council up the mic?

So that yeah, uh Jay, if you would just point that right at your lips.

Keep it as close.

Yeah, otherwise it's hard for people to hear on television.

Especially.

Yes.

We will take a minute and uh locate the uh PowerPoint.

Very good.

Looks great.

Perfect.

Oh, now I can't switch to the next slide.

There we go.

Maybe it worked on here.

Kevin broke it again.

Apparently.

All right.

Project will be developed by Homeward and owned and operated by Homefront.

Homefront will manage the property after construction is complete.

And the project is located in the Billings Heights near the intersection of Sioux Lane and Twin Oaks Drive.

The project is completing a total of one hundred and one two-bedroom, two-bathroom affordable rental units.

The project includes six home assisted units.

Thirty-eight percent of the total units that are constructed will serve households from thirty-one to fifty percent of the area median income, and the remaining sixty-two percent of these units will serve households from fifty-one to eighty percent of the area median income.

The funding being sought is one point four million in home investment partnership funding, and a hundred and forty-five thousand in community development block grant funding.

The total being requested is one million five hundred forty-five thousand dollars.

The total project budget is just over twenty-five million, so the requested city assistance is just a very small portion of the total project budget.

If approved, funding will be provided as a loan, payable as cash flow reimbursement for project costs.

And construction is expected to begin in May of 2026 and be completed by December of 2027 to begin renting.

The city's legal department has reviewed the legal drafts for the agreements required for this project.

The development agreement drafts that were attached to the agenda item have been updated to include uh the funding approval contingencies.

And uh Wyeth did email that out to the mayor and council this afternoon.

The community development board recommends approval contingent upon the viability and usability of stored building materials and the commitment of funding from the project's other funding sources.

And we do have Patty and Amber from Homefront as well as Heather here from Homeward to field questions and discuss the project further.

Very good.

I'll just ask Patty if uh you or your staff have anything to add to Jordan's presentation.

You're welcome to do so.

I have nothing to add, imagine that, but I just wanted to say thank you for the opportunity.

Finally bringing this um back to you all for approval of this funding.

Much needed housing.

Um, and we're super excited to get started.

I have Heather here as well.

Hi there.

Uh Heather McMylan with Homeward uh out of Missoula.

Uh I just wanted to give you guys a quick update uh on the project overall.

Uh one, uh, just to really appreciate your guys' patience with us.

Um we were awarded tax credits at the end of uh last year, and uh then promptly put out uh request for equity and lending and all the uh those pieces that go with tax credits right at the first of the year, and then with that uh change at the federal level, let's just say there was a bit of chaos.

Um I know you guys have me have to navigate that as well.

Uh, but we feel really comfortable at this point that the market has settled a bit and uh that we're gonna be able to get the project with the proposed timeline submitted uh to Jordan in the city uh to start this spring.

And so there's just been some volatility that we've been navigating.

Um these funds are critical gap financing um for the project.

Uh we talked about timeline, also another update.

We had put out the RFPs for general contractors input on cost and overall viability.

Uh middle of the summer, they were also very busy.

Um, so we've reissued that as of last week, and we already have a lot of um positive feedback, and we're gonna have a lot of um interested parties in this type of project.

So we're excited about that.

Um we're also another key piece that we think will help on the equity side of things is that we have a the Towers project, uh homeward project.

We own Sage and Fraser Tower here in Billings, uh, two senior projects, and we are looking uh in the next couple of weeks to find out about uh tax credits for those projects.

And so between LB Lofts and the Towers, we'll think we can uh leverage uh equity investors for both projects.

Uh so we're using all our tricks in the bag to you know navigate what is kind of a crazy world right now, as far as people not needing tax credits and interest rates being high, and uh so we really feel like uh the proposed timeline that we have out there is uh really plausible.

And I know there may be some questions about the viability of the units and any other things, so we're here to answer questions as needed.

So thank you.

Very good.

Uh council, a lot of questions uh for Patty Heather or Jordan.

Um council member Nice, uh you, Customer Boyet, Customer Rowan.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, Patty, um, we've been hearing a lot from the residents asking questions about the the units that are sitting there.

I believe they're fenced off and things like that.

But um excuse me.

Can you uh just kind of give some more information about these?

My concern is they're gonna be sitting there for quite another period of time over winter.

This is the time of year you got to keep the mice out of the house.

And so uh, what are you doing to one keep them secure to keep vagrants from moving in, but not just people vagrants, but also mice and rats and whatever else may be in those fields.

Uh, are you fumigating them or are running a kind of pest control in there?

Can you kind of explain how those are going to be um taken care of until you start building?

We're not fumigating the field.

I can tell you that if we had any field to fumigate, it would be out on 24th on Woody.

But um, yeah, so they have been placed in a way that is uh sustainable through winter.

That's why they're all kind of cockeyed so that the snow doesn't cause any significant load on any of the structures.

And as far as pests or mice, we have 80 other units on that street, and we've never had a pest issue out there.

And so right now we don't have anything to address.

If we um have one that we're aware of, we become aware of one, we will address it probably in the individual pods themselves set up some eradication of that sort.

Um, but right now there's just there's a non-issue.

We don't have a mice.

Okay, so those units, the 80 units are those units that you have people living in though, correct?

Correct.

Yeah, I think that's different than vacant units that are just sitting in the field with no people.

You'll you'll probably find that.

So it are you guys prepared that when you go to start unpacking some of these, I mean, it are are are they covered?

I mean, what's the what's the wrapped?

So they are wrapped, so they're the weather won't get to them and things like that.

Okay.

We have um cut out a L by the doors just so we can be going in and checking the units.

We're going in and checking the units all the time.

We've had only um one neighbor in Twin Oaks that had a concern.

I met him there over the weekend.

He went in, we went in and we looked at all the pods.

He went up into the pods, um, I unlocked doors, and there's there are no people living there.

There are no people living on the grounds, and um, yeah, we're looking at even another way to wrap other units.

Um there were a few where the this um the roofs look like they might need another wrap just for the winter, but keep in mind these units are not what people are gonna be living in, they're part of the construction material.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you very much for clarifying the fact that no one's living there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Boy, Council Rowan.

Uh that was gonna be my question.

If you have 202 units, you would think some damage is gonna be done over a course of time, a year, two or three years.

Is there what's the contingent if you lose two or five, or what is there any scenario where you say, well, you know, we we can rebuild two or three of them, but we can't rebuild 50.

I mean, what is the plan going forward just to make sure that these units are really what you need them to be?

Yeah, okay.

Um it's a great question.

Uh we'll have a we have a pretty healthy contingency, not only for that inevitability, uh, but also a healthy contingency in the construction budget because the volatility there.

Uh so we have resources built into the budget to help cover that inevitability.

We know that when we start use reusing the the building pieces of those pods, that some will be in better condition than others.

In fact, before they left uh North Dakota, they had some of them hadn't been wrapped the right way.

And so we we're well aware that there'll be a percentage that we'll need to do new replacement materials if needed.

Uh, but again, keeping an eye on things, making sure that we're not getting pests, but also making sure everything stays dry uh from the time we got them and here until we can start constructing is critical.

But we'll have contingency funds if necessary, and also uh plans in place if there's partial placements of those pods.

Yeah, um thank you for the question.

Um, Councilman Bullyette.

We also have 11 extra pods at the property.

So there are more pods than what we need already.

Test for Rowan and Council Shaw.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just have a couple quick questions.

Patty, I have a few questions for you, but I actually wanted to start with Wyeth, if that's okay.

Um, and I just want to be Wyatth on this same thread that we're on right now.

There's a note here in our staff memo that says um that the funding is contingent on the viability of stored building materials, which is what we're all talking about.

Are we performing that viability analysis, or is that a representation of the developer?

Um, my understanding is that here you want to.

Oh, sorry.

Yes, that would be up to the developer.

Okay, good.

I wanted to make sure we weren't getting in the business of engineering.

Okay, great.

Thanks.

So, Patty, um, I want to ask you just a couple questions about the project.

Um, I know if you're again throughout our memo, that there seems to be lots of sort of revisions and new documents and revisions and documents that of course, when you first presented this to the Heights Task Force two years ago, we thought we'd be done by now.

Yes, we did.

What happened?

Have there been delays in the project?

Have we slowed things down here locally?

Can you kind of shed some light on on what why we're here?

I like to call it a comedy of it's not a comedy of errors.

It's just a comedy of all the things happening in the world right now.

I can't even begin to say um Heather can answer some of these questions as well.

She already spoke to the equity issue that we're already having.

Um putting out the RFP for the GC ahead of time does not work for the procurement that the city of Billings has.

It works for the state, it works for our agency, which is also a public agency, but not for the city.

So assistments and things like that that just aren't aligning all the stars at the same time.

We also um Heather spoke about the towers, but this project isn't funded with the towers, but it is a twin project for the tax credits, which is which is a very complicated project, and that's hard for people to understand.

And so the city also had us decouple that, and I believe it was in August, made us submit another budget to show that decoupled because the other project that's a twin project is in Laurel, and we didn't want any um mis cues that we were funding or that you all would be funding something in Laurel outside of the city limits.

The reason I ask the question is is I think every one of us can can express.

We are constantly being asked by people in the community, by developers, by everybody.

How do we get more affordable housing?

How do we encourage development?

How do we encourage and feel you ladies both are sophisticated developers?

You do a ton of work here and around the state.

And I just in good faith want to open up the conversation that if you see places where inadvertently city processes and procedures are slowing things down or discouraging affordable housing development, we need to know.

We just need to have that conversation as partners.

So I just want to open that door.

You don't have to answer it now.

But just to know that I think we're all hearing from the community that we need to do more and better.

And so then on that same sort of note, one of the things that we hear a lot about is um having enough tax base to support provision of basic services.

Um and nonprofits don't pay property tax, but home front has a long-standing policy of paying paying a pilot to the city.

Can you walk us through that and help us understand how these affordable housing units are still actually contributing to city services?

Sure.

So back in 1973, the the city of Billings and the housing authority of Billings entered into agreement.

A pilot agreement, that's a payment in lieu of taxes.

So there's an actual calculated um formula where based on the number, it's a percentage of the charged rents.

Um I'm a firm believer that um all of us should pay our own way.

Um normally with families that um we're dealing with lower income families, maybe have additional um emergency services going to those properties.

It's a great number.

I would like to to work with the city to actually pull.

But I think that you know, fire is still going there, right?

Police are still going there, ambulance is just going there.

And so I think we should pay our own way.

And you do, right?

Yep.

And we'll continue to on these units as well.

Yes.

And I'll add, uh, we also on our Southern Lights property did a payment in lieu with a homeward owned property as well.

We always pay all the SIDs and all the added pieces.

That's never an exemption.

It's really the state property tax piece.

The payment in lieu is very helpful to be controlled and predictable versus what we all faced with our own homes over the last couple of years.

Uh the rents that we charge on our properties or home front's properties are fixed and low, and they only go up a little every year.

And so for us, we can't just raise our rents to cover that volatility.

And so that payment and lie relationship that homefront is established and our choice to do on our properties is is that happy medium because we know that we do demand on services uh and want to make sure that we are all uh contributing what we can.

And mayor may ask one more quick question.

Sure.

I noticed in the staff memo that um the per unit cost here is measurably less than a recent private sector development.

Can you help us understand how we got there?

We're just that good.

That's what I was looking for.

Yeah.

Sorry.

I I didn't mean to, I didn't mean to be.

I will speak to it a little more directly.

Uh the fact that we are doing um shared walls, shared roofs, you know, aggregating these into five plexus and sixplexes and the way we're reuse you reusing those pods.

Uh, we worked closely with high planes.

It's just the most efficient building size um and no elevators and kind of all the things we could do to really nail uh using these most effectively and doing density without harm, uh so to speak, with uh, you know, filling the whole site with single family residence would be great, but that's we can't make those projects work.

So the density here, making sure we could park it and having shared walls and shared roofs, very helpful in that cost per unit.

It's still high because building anything now is high, but that might explain whether my bit of a difference, those five and six plexes.

The parking was very helpful as well.

Having reduced um requirements for parking, then that's a huge thing for development.

So thank you.

And I'm not sure we addressed if the city is causing problems.

Nobody at the city is causing problems at this point.

In fact, uh development services was very instrumental in the review High Plains did early on for feasibility on the site.

And Jordan was very patient with us as we navigated other pieces and then did that bifurcated budget so that there wasn't a substitution between uh county property and a city property.

So that had it's kind of like taking the Siamese twin and cutting it apart, took a little longer.

So it was more on our end the delays getting back to her, a really feasible budget separating the two projects, even though they worked in tandem together.

Thank you.

Councilmember Brashaw.

Uh thank you.

Um, this is a fantastic project.

I'm so excited that you're finally back to us, um, ready to move forward.

Um, I'm ready to make a motion, but I will defer to one of the council members from the heights if they would like to do that because this is in the heights.

Uh you that you have an invitation.

Uh no, I'm gonna make a motion if you neither of you want.

Okay.

Uh I move to approve home and CDBG funding to homeward and home front for construction of LB Lofts, affordable housing apartment affordable apartment housing as recommended by the community development board.

Council Member Bernice makes the second.

Okay.

Um, I'm gonna assume neither of you want to speak to your motion.

And I'm gonna I just want to echo council member Shaw.

This has been a long time coming.

Thank you for your diligence and your innovation and creativity.

We know there's more work ahead, but very, very excited for what this means.

Okay, we have a motion on the uh floor.

Um, Council Member Shaw, anything before I uh give it to Caleb Asplotter.

Casper Ashblader.

And Councilmember uh sorry, I was slow to the gun with respect to asking a question.

So I just have one more question.

If that's that's allowable.

Perfectly in order.

Um try again.

Green lights on.

Um should be.

I think that's intentional.

Um my question is around what's the risk here that the funding falls through, and how long are we committing to you to tie up home funds and CDBG funds that other projects in the city could use.

When when are you gonna know that this goes or that this doesn't go?

And what's our commitment to you on a timeline without you know, locking this up like we do with TIFF dollars for projects for five years as they continue to try to make things work that struggle to work?

That's a wonderful question.

Um, the good news for you is that the state already has a ticking clock for us.

Uh we with the tax credits and the award of last year, we have a we need to start construction by the end of next year.

Um there's timelines on delivery at the end of tax credits.

It's it's pretty healthy and it's a little shorter than what the home guidelines are.

And home also requires us through our contracts that you guys see those draft contracts that'll hold our feet to the fire.

Now, you asked a question about risk.

We don't think the market has corrected itself that all the way, but it has also been long enough since the election and the changes in capital corporate tax rates and all the things that put the equity market on edge, and people were kind of holding back and not investing.

Now they're going back in and investing.

And so we're we've rewritten it.

Uh our deal, it's a little lower equity pricing.

Interest rates are not stabilizing, but those are where the risk points are, really nailing down an equation that'll work.

Patty mentioned it or alluded to it.

We really need general contractor on board now.

Um, we would like somebody that we can hire now to be ready to construct, but we'll bring them on to help us with the cost uh exercises of the materials and the structural systems that have been proposed and all of that to really understand the overall math.

So really in the next probably three months are the most critical as far as getting it all to work.

Uh and then we have May of next year to start construction.

What that means is that we have done all of our funding.

Uh it's all been secured, it's all dialed in and we've we've closed the majority of the risk on the project.

Nobody will, we won't break ground or spend a dollar of city money until all that risk is beaten out that we have everything in place and sign contracts.

So there's many checks and balances, and I would I don't think it's bad to ask, but that we should come back and give updates as we go over the next six months.

Um in leading, is that right?

Six, seven months until May.

And if anything changes, we give you guys updates.

Because again, we don't want to tie up the funds when they could be spent elsewhere.

But I think there's a lot of struggling projects that are dealing with a lot of the pieces that I just talked about from viability standpoint.

Very good.

Thank you.

Council Member Burstus.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, just real quick, Patty.

I I think this might make you look even better.

The staff memo says um the 25 million dollar project breaks down to 317 or so thousand per unit.

Is that 25 million for the 79 units for the whole 101?

For all of them.

Because 25 divided by 25 million divided by 101 is actually 248,000.

So I'm not sure if you you did that memo or we did not do the memo.

And I believe Jordan was using the bifurcated budget, but I'll use that.

Yes.

Yeah, because it's a total, they're using the tax credits, and they accounted that for 22 of the units.

And then our cost per unit is only figured remaining the remaining 79.

That's the cost per unit is the whole thing.

The whole 101 cost 25 million.

Yes.

Okay.

Does that include the cost for the the pods themselves?

Yes.

Yes, and we've already paid for the pods.

Right.

Pods already paid for we own the land, so we donated the land to the project.

So we're millions in already.

But really, it's only so it's really only across the 101 units.

I say only 239.

Yeah, I get two four.

Yeah, and I'm sorry if it's ever confusing, but when you do a twinned project and a twin does a 4% tax credit project in a nine, some of LB Lofts is the 9%, 22 of the units.

And on the 4% side, there's 79 of those to make that 101.

The 4% also has a project in Laurel included to give scale.

So yeah, there's a many ways to say this.

So we're not trying to make it complicated, but that's how we could get this project to be feasible.

Well, well, thank you.

Um it still seems like a heck of a lot per door.

Um but you know it's it's a lot better than what we're seeing in other places around the community.

So thank you for doing it.

Thanks for keeping after it and let's get it done.

Yes, thank you.

Very good.

Thank you.

Council, any other discussion before we proceed to a vote on this item.

Okay, motion is uh for approval consistent with the staff recommendation of item number two.

If in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

If opposed, say nay.

Uh motion passes unanimously, the exception of council member Gullick, who uh recused themselves and did not participate in the discussion or the vote.

Um with that, well, thank you very much.

Uh happy building.

Yes, thank you.

Tony, would you read item number three?

Item number three, public hearing and first reading ordinance, amending billings, Montana City Code, section 22-406, removal of snow, ice, et cetera, from sidewalks.

Staff recommends approval.

Very good.

Uh Tina Hoger's our presenter.

Tina.

Hello, good evening, Mayor and Council.

Um, I do not have a PowerPoint for you tonight.

You're welcome, Councilmember Aspen Liter.

Uh, but I think we covered the majority of the discussion that we had back in August regarding 22406.

So you will have a red line version and a clean version in your packet, and I'm here to answer any questions or concerns.

Questions uh or concerns?

Councilmember Kennedy.

Tina, I'm looking at your uh the version, it's uh nine Cumulation of impediments not removed as required by paragraph B, maybe uh removed under the direction of the city, and then the record will be um on the cost and everything, and then it'll come back to the council.

Um can you just describe that process and uh do you save it all up during the year and then bring it to us at a certain time?

And then I have a follow-up question.

Councilmember Kennedy, mayor and council.

Um, to my knowledge, we've never done uh an assessment for snow removal.

Um when we spoke at work session, I had checked with city clerk, and there isn't even a resolution on file for that.

Um I don't know that we've ever used this section of the code.

However, the general opinion was to leave it in as an option, it would work similar to how we do weed assessments.

So the same process.

If we had to go out and take care of it, we would bill them and then assess it to their taxes, but we don't have anything currently in operation like that.

Then why did we leave it in?

As an option in the future, in case you know, council in the future would want to go that route, if that's something that develops in the future as the community grows.

I'm that was the advice that we should leave it in.

Okay.

Um, my second um piece on that, Mayor, is um I'm gonna vote against it.

And I had um talked about it earlier that there's a lot of times when the snow um they're clearing the streets and it's back push back on the sidewalks.

And I just don't want people to have a fear that if that happens and it's uh frozen and everything on their on their sidewalks.

I see that that you put left this in, but there's still a fear out there that they're gonna be charged for something.

So um I'd like it cleaned up and I don't agree with this, so thank you.

Thank you.

Other uh questions, comments?

Uh Councilmember Nease.

Thank you, Mayor.

Tina, um, when people have complained about snow being the sidewalk, uh, what's the process today?

I mean, when you say you haven't charged anyone, do we actually as a city go out and clear the sidewalk for them?

Have we ever have we ever had to do that?

No.

We go out, council member niece, mayor and council.

We um we send them, we hang a door hanger.

There isn't even a letter because I mean it could it could melt within a few days.

So we do the 24 hours after the accumulation stopped.

We notify them that they need to clear their sidewalks.

And to be honest, we we have most compliance.

We we really do.

Okay.

So those of the few that are not compliant, what what do you do?

We could issue them a citation.

But you don't we could.

We haven't had to.

Currently, you're not doing that, correct?

No, we haven't had to.

Most of the time, people are complying.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Very good.

Councilmember Owen.

Tino, what's the process if someone is unexpectedly injured or you know, I mean, they're in the hospital or they're ill.

Like what what are the ways for them to come back to the city and say I understand my obligation, but there were these extenuating circumstances.

Sure.

Uh Councilmember Owen, Mayor and Council, we we work with people no matter what.

I mean, that's consistent in my division.

If there is um extenuating circumstances, we're obviously going to work with those folks.

I wish we had a snow buddies program.

Uh currently working, we do not.

Um, but we will work with them and we will try to to give them extra time to do it.

And does the notice indicate that?

The one that hangs on the door, like, you know, please contact us to discuss or if there were extenuating circumstances, here's how to appeal or whatever.

It absolutely tells them it's a 24-hour notice.

We have our contact information on there, and we ask them to contact us.

Oh, perfect.

Okay, thank you.

Very good.

Uh other questions or uh discussion.

Uh if not, I'm gonna ask for a motion on this uh oh, I apologize.

This is a public hearing.

You're right.

Sorry.

So uh uh if there are any other questions, we'll move to a public hearing.

Yep, no other questions.

Thank you, Tina.

So uh item number three is a public hearing.

This is the proposed uh changes to our uh city uh sidewalk impediments ordinance.

If you'd like to comment, please come forward.

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

Is there any public comment on item number three?

This is a public hearing.

Any public comment on item number three.

On call any public comment before we close uh the public comment, period.

No one's coming forward, so our public hearing is closed uh now.

Back to council, councilmember Boyette.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, having conducted a public hearing considered written and spoken testimony, I move to approve the first reading ordinance amending BMCC section 22-406, removal of snow, etc.

Ice, etc.

from sidewalks as recommended by staff.

Very good.

Is there a second?

Second, Councilmember Nees.

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

Yes, sir.

Councilmember Boy.

We have the ordinance, even as as she said, um, we haven't given the citations to anyone.

I think they're willing to work with people.

Uh I don't see this as a big issue of being here.

We just need it in case something happens down the road.

We haven't done it, so let's have it in the books.

If we don't need it, that's great.

Council Mr Neese?

Yeah, Mayor, I just I appreciate what the staff did as far as uh working with us on this ordinance, getting this thing really uh fine-tuned.

It is a much better ordinance than it was.

I think it'll take care of things better in the city.

And so, and I echo what councilmember Boyette said.

It needs to be there, but uh our our code enforcement division is a really good division where they work with people and try to make sure they uh resolve it without having to go to the the hammer type of thing to try to really work with them to have it done.

So thank you.

Very good.

Uh any other discussion on the motion.

We proceed to a vote.

Okay.

Um see no further discussion, the motions for approval item three, uh consistent with the staff recommendation and the draft uh document in our uh staff report.

If in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

If opposed, nay, nay.

Uh voting in opposition, council member Kennedy, all other council members voting uh in favor, the motion passes.

That concludes item number three, brings us to item number four.

Um I'm assuming we're gonna have a joint presentation on both four A, which is the annexation and uh for B, the the zoning.

Uh, we'll then proceed to have a joint public um hearing on both the uh annexation and the uh zone change proposals.

So with that, turn over to Hunter and I also see the developer's representative is in the audience, so we'll make sure they have an opportunity after Hunter for any questions or if they have comments as well.

All righty.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the council.

So this is annexation petition number 2504 and zone change 1070.

This is a returning item from our last city council.

So moving forward.

So regarding the interconnectedness of the items tonight, uh, just to give a brief explanation.

Um, zone change 1070 is regarding the zone change, a uh planned neighborhood development uh from agriculture to a PD mixed use, uh, and that is including the within its the zones for first neighborhood residential and one, mixed residential and X1, corridor mixed use, CMU one, and parks and open space zoning, P1.

Um, we will also hear a annexation petition tonight, as well as a ward boundary ordinance.

Um the zone change and annexation itself is going to be a joint public hearing, but they are going to require individual actions.

And then for the ward boundary ordinance, that will require a hearing, but there's not going to be any special presentation for it.

Uh, if the property were to be annexed, it is going to be placed into ward four.

So starting with the annexation, uh, this is the current exhibits of the annexation area in practice.

It is an area approximately uh 54 acres, give or take.

Um in size.

Um, it is currently lots 66A1 and 67A1 of the amended plat of lots 66A and 67A of Sunny Cove Fruit Farms.

Um, this is located between between Grand and Colton.

So here is the current subject property uh and the limits of annexation.

Uh the areas in green are our zone one uh limits of annexation area.

Uh so as you can see, this area is eligible to be annexed currently.

Uh, this is the current vicinity map uh of the area to be annexed.

Um as you can see on the map, this is already in an area uh of a lot of development.

Um the larger white rectangle you can see near the center of the screen.

That is the Albertsons that somewhat recently was erected.

And here is the current zoning map uh of the area around the property that's going to be the subject of the annexation and zone change.

So as I said previously, previously it was or currently it is zone A for agriculture.

Uh it is surrounded by a variety of zoning uses.

Uh to the east, we have a subdivision that's majority N2 zoning uh along Grand Avenue.

There is a mixture of zones, some predominantly corridor mixed use two, uh, as well as some NO and CMU1 zoning.

Uh to the south, there's also some public zoning, nearby school and uh N3 zoning, so more residential development.

So here is our current street side view of the property in question.

So this is the property from Grand Avenue.

Another view on Grand Avenue looking east.

Same looking south across to Grand Avenue to the nearby residential neighborhood.

So this is looking west on Grand Avenue, and another northwest view across the property from Grand Avenue.

And then one more, one more view across the street.

So as is custom, uh, the city of Billings takes a look at seven annexation criteria as part of its uh determination as to whether to recommend approval.

They are as follows.

So one, the area needs to be within zone one or zone three of the limits of annexation.

This property was within zone one, as I demonstrated earlier.

Two, the city will need to be able to provide adequate city services at a cost acceptable to the city within the future and mutually agreed to by the property owners requesting annexation in the city.

We will be able to provide services through that.

That is going to be handled through a subdivision improvement agreement for the homestead acres subdivision.

That is going to be heard at a future uh city council meeting.

I apologize for not amending the date from the previous presentation.

This date was prepared for.

Condition number three, or criteria number three.

Uh any existing or proposed public improvements within the area will need to meet city standards.

Um as said previously, any public improvements here are going to be built to city standards, and that is going to be uh further stipulated upon in the subdivision improvement agreement for the home state acres minor subdivision.

Uh criteria number four, all the property rights within the area will need to sign a waiver of right to protest, the creation of special improvement districts.

As stated before, this is something that is included with the subdivision improvement agreement for the subdivision.

Criteria number five, uh all residential property owners within the area to be annexed must create or join an existing park maintenance district.

Um this will be something that will be addressed as part of the future subdivisions.

Currently, these are agricultural lots, so no uh park maintenance districts are going to be addressed as part of this annexation right now.

So condition or criteria number six, the residential properties densities plan for the development within the area to be annexed, must meet an overall average minimum density of primary dwelling units per acre, as per the city of Billings growth policy or similar planning documents.

Um this annexation and zone change, there are no there is no residential land currently in part um as part of this area being annexed.

So that is not going to apply here, but it will apply to future subdivisions.

Um I'll demonstrate that a bit when going to the zoning.

And criteria number seven, the proposed land used within the area to be annexed, must conform to the goals of the adopted city of Billings growth policy.

Uh, we have identified that the uh proposed annexation most strongly adheres to our strong neighborhoods as well as our prosperity and essential investments uh policy goals.

So regarding the annexation in itself, uh staff is recommending to hold a public hearing on the annexation.

Um approval of the hearing, um, staff is recommending the city annex the petition property with the staff recommended uh conditions of approval in the resolution.

Before we get on to that, I'm going to talk about zone change 1070.

So zone change 1070, as part of their annexation due to its size, we are the the applicant is required to do a planned neighborhood development, a PD.

Um, and as part of doing that PND, they're required to bring in a mixture of zones, not just one or two.

Uh, and so as part of this, uh the applicant is requesting to go from agriculture to a mixture of uh N1, NX1, CMU one, and parks and open space, P1 zoning districts.

Um looking at the adjacent properties, we felt that these mixture of uses is compatible with the proposed with the zoning that's already around it.

Uh it meets the minimum requirements for the variety of densities that we ask for in the PD portion of our zoning code.

And then with this zone change, it opens up availability for any lots to the west to become another phase of infill and even more P and D connections to the city in the future.

So here is the current zoning proposal for zone change 1070.

Um as you can see, they are going for a variety of mixture, a variety of uses directly adjacent to Grand Avenue.

They're going to have a CMU one zoning, so that's our corridor mixed use, and that can allow for a mixture of commercial and residential uses.

Ummediately to the north after that, there is a NX1 zoning, and the NX1 zoning allows for densities between one dwelling unit per structure all the way up to four dwelling units per structure.

So anything from a single family home to a quadplex.

Uh and then finally, the last residential zoning they're going to try for is the N1 zoning district, um, which is our one of our more common ones, and that allows for single family homes and duplexes.

Um, they're also including some P1 zoning as uh is required by the PND regulations.

Um as you may notice, um, on the western western side of the CME1 zone property, there is a uh a 20-foot wide strip um of P1 zoning.

Uh that is going to be uh sort of private trail sorts to my understanding.

And part of the reason that is there is currently uh the regulations do not explicitly allow for the CMU one zoning to be directly adjacent to the agriculture zoning right next to it.

So that P1, that 20 foot wide area of parkland is going to be used as a sort of uh a buffer yard between the city and the county uh for commercial to agricultural.

So uh much like with the annexation criteria, uh the city also takes a look at these 10 zone change criteria.

Um the city being the city looking at um, we go over each of these points in greater detail uh in the staff report, but to but to summarize, we feel that uh this zone change application does meet all 10 of these zone change criteria, and therefore the zoning commission is recommending approval and adoption of the findings of the 10 review criteria for zone change 1070.

So the briefly summarize, we feel that it is meeting the intent of the growth policy, it is meeting the intent of the standards of the PND section of the zoning code, and the surrounding zoning designations are compatible with what they are what they're requesting for interior.

So uh with that, um, I am available to answer any questions.

Um before before we go on that, there is one point I would like to bring up is uh regarding last time uh when we uh moved this item to this current meeting.

The uh the initial concern at that time of why we did that was uh alongside of this annexation and zone change, they are also going through a subdivision, um, which is gonna have the SIA and carry the water for the annexation agreement.

Um, there were some concerns with the uh traffic impact statement that was submitted at the time.

Since then, we have received a new TIS that Public Works is currently reviewing.

Um it is the opinion of public works at this time that the contents of that um met most of our concerns.

There are a few outstanding things that we are currently taking a look at that perhaps uh the applicant could speak on a little more after me.

Um, but they should not have any bearing on the ability to uh prove approve or deny this zone change in annexation.

Very good.

Thank you, Hunter.

Uh council, do we have questions specifically for Hunter?

I'll give uh after uh we've had some questions.

We'll give the developer and developers representative opportunity to comment, also stand for questions, and then we'll have our joint public hearing.

But now, questions for Hunter, Council Brasswater, Council Boyet.

Yeah, Hunter, thanks.

I the only thing that jumps out at me at this is the 20-foot strip of P1.

And that's not the developer's fault.

I mean, this is just a stupid part of our zoning regulations with respect to buffers versus agriculture, which won't be agriculture for long.

I why isn't there?

Why wasn't there, isn't there a variance for this?

Why are we doing this?

I mean, I understand the the conceptual trail idea, but we're gonna have sidewalks and all that stuff down daybreak drive, too.

So why?

Why are we doing that?

So, Councilor Aspen Leader, um City, City Council and Mayor, um, a variance actually was a idea that was floated by the developer.

The kind of options on the table at the time when they initially proposed is either they could ask for variance and not have that strip in um, or um, they could forgo the variance and then just have that buffer in um as part of this zoning.

Um, or um, they could forgo the variance and then just have that buffer in um as part of this zoning.

Um to my understanding prior to prior to the application of those two options, they elected to go with the buffer is my understanding.

And maybe this will be a question for the developer after the developer gets up, but me, I also understand why they didn't ask for a variance, because now you're gonna pay a variance fee.

You're gonna have to prove hardship, which is also gonna be complicated for something like this, which is also a ridiculous part of this process um in our zoning code.

And I mean, staff's recommendation likely was gonna be no because you can't prove hardship.

And instead, then we end up with a 20-foot strip of public ground that's gonna be nothing.

Um, maybe it'll be a trail that never gets used by anybody, but it's wasted capital, and we're gonna end up owning it in all likelihood as the city because it's P1.

And so, you know, just wait.

Yeah, there is this is a nonsensical part of this application, and it's there because of our zoning code, and it's there because our variance process for the zoning code for things like this also is nonsensical.

So I mean, I would have hoped that we would have seen a variance.

This is something, in my opinion, that should not have even required a variance.

It should have been able to be done administratively without you know extracting another fee and putting more cost on these projects.

But this is a prime example of some of the problems that we have with the zoning code that we've theoretically fixed, but created more problems.

Okay.

Um I'm sure the developer of developers representative will comment uh on that issue in particular, whether there's gonna be a trail or not.

Uh Casper Boy.

And that was gonna be my question.

20 feet long by 12 acres.

To me, it seems like a joke.

Uh was there any other thought about the planned neighborhood development having a park other than this 20 feet wide, 20 acres long?

Uh, yes, actually.

It's a little hard to see on the map itself, but that kind of lime green square in between the N1 and NX1 zoning.

That's the majority of the required parkland that is being included in here.

So can do we have any other options other than doing this 20 feet wide.

I mean, this does seem like amazing.

The other option would have had to have been the applicant request a variance to have the CMU one zoning next to agricultural.

And that's all their options were.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Follow up on that, Casper Aspen Later.

Yeah, and maybe this is a question for Wyatt or Anna, one of one of you two as the directors.

I mean, can council just eliminate this without a variance and and just make this go away?

Is there legalities in the process from the application and the way this was noticed and all that kind of stuff?

Because this is really nonsense.

And and while you're coming up that, just think about whether if that goes away and if it was counted toward their PD park requirement, does the size of the park then need to increase slightly and it took to um yeah, so council member aspinlighter and mayor and council, I guess first that we've you know, we've uh we've flagged this issue, and so we need to fix it in the code.

I mean, that's pretty obvious um with this situation.

I think it was originally intended with some of the areas where you're adjacent to potentially like more permanent ag um and not in areas where you're gonna see you know developments.

I think that's part probably well.

I know that's partly what the intent was originally, and that it's not, you know, doesn't work in certain situations.

So that clearly has to be fixed.

Um I'm not aware, um, and maybe Gina can help.

I'm not aware of like in terms of the council at this point, you'd be basically um change, you know, basically saying, well, the whole thing would be CMU one versus that P1, I'm I would expect.

So you'd be modifying the the uh action and the application at that point.

So I guess I'd have to defer a little bit to or I would to legal on that in terms of making that change now.

Um, but I understand the interest in doing that.

So and Gina, I don't know if you can comment.

I mean, in theory, this is to protect the property owner to the West.

And I don't know that we have the ability to just presume they have no objection.

In all likelihood they don't, but there's a reason it's there.

Mayor counsel, I apologize.

If this had been brought to me prior to the meeting, I could have looked at that and been prepared for that question.

Um if you want a question, if you want an answer from me tonight, I would need to take some time, go chat with Wyatt and get back with you.

Okay.

Uh uh Counselor Ashleid, I'd suggest we just let the developer comment because they're the ones uh we don't need to carry their water if they don't want us to, put it that way.

So counselor Ashler.

And I guess the only comment I would make to that is I mean, understanding all the the other rules and whatnot.

If the applicant comes back with an indication that we're going to try to fix this in code and wants to roll this back to CMU one, which I would presume that they would, I would hope that we could do this administratively without requiring them to apply for a zone change, paying the permit, going through this entire process and and whatnot.

And we could do this in some way, shape or form administratively without wasting everybody's time and wasting people's money to do it because this is our problem in the code.

It's not a developer's problem.

Uh okay.

Um so we'll continue and uh uh I I didn't see anything down here, so council Kennedy.

Oh, and I apologize.

Council Boyet, had you had we we had had we gone to you?

Okay.

Council Kenny.

I just uh a question.

Um we have the uh the green section there, the light green or um section at the top.

It has these dotted lines in.

Is that the possibility of the roads?

And are they connecting and lined up with the subdivision to the right?

Um just a question.

Uh yes, this is the this is a sort of preliminary road layout um that they are intending to do long term, uh, that is going to line up with the adjacent subdivision.

Um to kind of clarify, the only immediate subdivision that is currently in the works is going to be a subdivision for the uh area that is intending to be rezoned to CMU one.

Um the area to the north, so all the green green space, I'll call it the residential area.

Um that is going to go through its own subdivision at a future date that we have not we have not received a formal application of.

Um so I can only I can only tell you that the provisional road layout here is a basic outline.

Um just just the piece down there at the bottom, the pink.

Correct.

Yeah, the area down in the pink um is currently what's in the works is they were gonna have an access off a grand that um connects to that kind of runs the side of it and connects to the NX One area.

Um thank you.

Okay, very good.

Nothing else for Hunter before we oh, Councilman Renese?

I'm sorry, not for Hunter.

Not nothing for for Hunter?

No, okay.

I was gonna invite up the developer.

Oh, this Councilman Rowan has something for Hunter.

Mayor, just very quickly, yeah, Hunter, you've been on board now doing this for a while.

And I continue to be frustrated that we don't get good feedback from the school district on the impacts of some of these developments.

Any insights as to what it will take to get actual um sort of input from the district on the impacts of these facilities.

Do we need to be sending our requests for input to a different portion of the district?

We we I do send requests for input from the school districts.

They tend to they tend to speak more on the subdivisions themselves.

Um, and I believe they did get comments to us on the subdivision itself.

I'm a I apologize, I don't have the stats in front of me right now.

But generally the um the extent of their comments when it comes to any of these projects, is they generally contain it to here's what our current capacity is for this school that would be in this area, and here's the maximum capacity.

Um I off the top of my head, I couldn't speak to this development, but generally the trend I see most of the time for a lot of these schools, especially in the ones in the West End, is most of the schools are at or near capacity.

And outside of any further comments, I don't get anything more with that.

Um I can certainly request in the future that if they could provide more input as to any comments or fears or concerns that they have regarding future future uh projects like this, I'd be I'd be glad to do that.

That would be helpful for me.

I would also ask if you don't mind and run this by Wyeth and Anna to make sure they're okay too.

But I I would love to know if they have planned capacity improvements in the area, just so that we have a sense of of what they're thinking and how we're thinking about it together.

Very good.

Wyatt, did you leave more?

Yeah, thank you.

Uh, mayor and council and council member owen.

Um, just to add, so this this question and issue continues to challenge us.

Um, our planning board actually has been asking about this as well.

And and we're at we've uh invited um a representative from school district two to actually they're coming to our planning board meeting tomorrow night to talk about capacity and redistricting and and that such, because there's been a lot of questions at the planning board level about this as well.

Um, so I would say that we're gonna get some more information.

So I would say that we're going to get some more information um and happy to either you know share that obviously and also if there was a an and you know a a way to have that same conversation with you all obviously that would be great but we're we are going to hear from um one of the administrators over there about how they're managing this because this question comes up and and we don't the yeah the the the big picture I guess is what we don't get so that they're going to provide more of that um to our board that's really helpful why do you think based on your experience that we should be including I don't know the superintendent or the school board or some different source inside the district to get more input as we consider these decisions.

Council member Owen and Mary and council we do coordinate at the administrative level there about how they want us to send information.

So yeah I don't know how else we and we do have part of what's helped I mean and helped with this conversation tomorrow is we have a representative an ex officio on the planning board who's from the district not the person who's the expert in this area but we were able to facilitate that.

But yeah we're we're um set up and directed from the administration there of how we're supposed to send in the comment or the request for comments are you neat?

Yeah I have a question for the chief question for Chief Hoppel.

Could you come forward chief is he just coming I just let you know I I just sent an email both to the chief oppelant and uh the chief of police uh Richmond and asked him the questions because we have in our packet the what we typically see the the standard answer of you know if you keep building you know we need some commensurate resources to to help you know service these areas and so um just in summary and I'll ask Chief to reply this I didn't hear back from the chief of police but but my concern is um you know we have we've been approving a lot of these subdivisions and we hear a lot of issues about how uh Rimrock Road is just impacted the entire place from from the west to the downtown and now we're doing this on Grand Avenue we're having the same type of results and and um we're not really building new fire stations we're not putting new fires uh people on or we don't have and we don't look at our budgeting we don't have the resources to actually even do that.

And so what I asked the chief and both of them to respond to is you know if we keep doing this at what point you know are we there to the point we need to stop and and in essence he says uh increasing density and call volume lessens the ability to deploy resources effectively so it's going to every time we put another house on and a neighborhood in it's going to cause you know more responses to that area and it's going to decrease the amount of time they have to go to somewhere else because they're out you know doing things and we've been doing that and we have a lot of uh building that we've approved that's coming online that's going to impact that even further so we've we haven't put anything in the bank to compensate for how we gonna pay for all these new public resources that we're doing um so chief if you can just explain I mean you've seen us uh approve a lot of these subdivisions massive subdivisions big ones like this one how is this going to impact your budget because we in our current budget time uh climate we have right now we're not gonna be adding more resources in the next three maybe four years unless we go to public safety milling which is is not gonna and I don't see happening in in the future here um can if if we are static on our budget what where do you see uh once these all these subdivisions can get bailed out how is the response gonna impact the community as far as public safety and in particular this uh division here if it's built out thank you council member niece and mayor and city council um first and foremost uh a genuine genuinely support growth within the community um it's you know the biggest question that came about was you know in each of these reviews that goes through the fire department puts a a pretty generic statement on each of these about how it will affect the services out in these areas so really I just want to talk about that and what we really mean by that we do understand that we currently serve these areas already through the bur billings urban fire service area through our contract with them but with that we also know that when they're in that area they're less likely to be developed because they don't have the services so there is some concern when these areas start to come into the city limits you know what our ability to provide services that what with them will be um we're constantly you know looking at that and what that looks like you know we look at this subdivision here it currently exists within 0.37 miles from a current fire station we do have more concern as we go further south uh uh into more of what we would call station five's area or the potential for a future station nine but you know long story short any time we increase increase density in any area um not really much increased the land that we're taking in but we increase density that obviously brings traffic it brings people and it brings buildings all things that we have to serve so you know of course it is a concern to us so we do want to have a plan going forward I can't answer answer the financial piece of what that would bring in once it gets developed I would have to defer that to our finance department but it is something you know that does impact what we do.

But you know, long story short, any time we increase increase density in any area, um, not really much increased the land that we're taking in, but we increase density, that obviously brings traffic, it brings people and it brings buildings, all things that we have to serve.

So, you know, of course it is a concern to us.

So we do want to have a plan going forward.

I can't answer answer the financial piece of what that would bring in once it gets developed.

I would have to defer that to our finance department.

But it is something, you know, that does impact what we do.

So I we try to keep a close watch on it.

This one didn't come on the radar just for the reasons of where it is, but I I do guarantee you that as we look at all of these coming through, it does get more concerning, you know, from a fire and response profile.

You know, it just simply saying that we already respond to it is not really a good answer that I should provide to you.

And also, you know, there's properties that we may respond to further out than this one.

So um, all I can do is guarantee you that we continue to evaluate this, but um, please just know that as we ask for further development in these areas, you'll probably see me come back forward with an ask to try to protect these properties in the way that we would like to protect them, and they deserve to be protected.

Not only do they pull our resources further out, it affects how we currently serve residents that are within the city if we don't invest in some public safety as it goes further out, i.e.

station nine, which is it is in our CIP for 2029, but obviously that's not funded, so we would have to see what financial impact this brings into the city and stay on top of it and see my face more often up here as we start to do that.

So I hope that answers a little bit of what you asked.

But uh, I just want to address what that stamp means when we put that on any of these annexation requests.

I think it does help.

Uh in Chief, you you said this is within 0.37 miles, and so that what's the response time on that?

Well, in our buffs, we've broken it down different different areas.

So within the buffs of the average response time is eight minutes, average response time within the city limit area.

Uh that station seven doesn't service or outside the station seven's areas of eight minutes within the city limits, it's anywhere from five to seven minutes.

But you know, this isn't black and white.

I will throw that out there.

Um I do understand that you know, once we any time you build a fire station, if we build it in station nine's area, you're gonna see a lot of rapid development.

Anytime you build a fire station, a school, like we just talked about with schools, that's where you really see the rapid development.

So we do understand the impact that that'll make as well.

But um, response times are key to us.

I mean, you know, the quicker we can get there with what we're dealing with today, the better.

But uh that would be a quick response time to this subdivision.

I can't speak the same for others that may be further south.

So normal's eight average eight, but you think this is going to meet within the city's what'd you say, three to six or yes, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Very good.

Thank you.

Uh our city minister, Chris, you wanted to comment on that 30,000 foot level, and maybe as part of your answer, you you could just confirm that we do not have a cost of services study to present next week.

Um it's something we've talked about for literally eight years, and it goes to this question, you know, to what extent is new development covering the costs, and that's data information we simply don't have a very good panel on.

But anyway, Chris, that was my comment.

Go ahead.

No, thank you.

Uh I think, and again, it's you know, in building a city, it's complex with all the various departments and divisions and services.

Although I would tell you, when thinking about fire to a degree, draw a polygon around each station.

And when you make a commitment that you're gonna build that station, staff that station, equip that station, there's an argument.

Now you want everything inside that polygon to fill in because that's who's paying that's that's its service area.

So as the chief said, it definitely it they all work together.

But if you look at station seven's general polygon of service area, there's a lot of vacant land and that vacant land that you know, those tax dollars aren't helping to offset the costs that are fully being incurred by the city by the rest of the citizens.

So it it's as chief and I chatted a little bit today, and new chief will see how you know Matt's different approach to this, but I would tell you thinking of station nine, and in this case, having the decision made to build station seven, once that decision is made to put that station in, I would think there should be a pretty solid commitment to see development fill in or in and around it.

Otherwise, the rest of the city is paying for that disproportionately.

So very good.

Thank you.

Um thank you, Chief.

Appreciate your input.

Why don't we uh invite our developer or developers representative or both if they've got comments?

Uh you've heard some of the discussion and anything else that you want to present for us, Sice.

For sure.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, members of council.

My name is John Halverson.

I'm a planner with Sandbell and uh agent of the applicant.

And um you guys know I don't go anywhere with fewer than 40 slides.

So I'm gonna keep it short.

I understand we have 10 minutes all in uh between me and uh my colleagues, um, some experts in traffic and some things that we're discussing this evening.

Um just gonna talk about where we are in the entitlement process, what the um context is in the area, what is in this application, and then um some of the things we talked about um earlier in the discussion.

Y'all know where we are in the process that um there's subdivision approval pending uh in the works that will have to be um approved before any dirt flies out here.

Um where we are, we are at the intersection of 54th and uh Grand Avenue there, 56, 54th and Grand Avenue in that hub that's there.

Um a lot of growth happening in that area.

This growth over the last 20 years, this area over the last 20 years absorbed 30% of the county's growth, um, rapid growth in this area, and transportation investments to match.

What you see in those uh blue uh markings there are um recent um intersection and segment improvements to our transportation corridor.

Those solid red lines are um projects that are in the five-year CIP that are funded, and additional projects that are in the long-range CIP unscheduled.

So a lot of transportation investment happening in this area.

Um you can also see that as Hunter said, we are in the uh zone one of the annexation uh boundaries um considered for um very proximate uh annexation.

And since 2001, um, when I was in seventh grade at Will James, this has been contemplated as a um a node on the west end as a center of more intense activity and more intense invel development um out here on the west end.

Um there's our site.

You can see these kind of islands of development happening around it, like we talked about these annexation areas that have to be served, some county development happening there, um, some public lands, which we'll talk about to our south um is the uh Ben Steel, right?

Public investment there at Ben Steel that drives a lot of investment.

Um a lot of low density residential that the city serves, um, some slightly more dense NX1, which is included in our application, um, some multifamily, um, and then the um commercial node that you see there at the intersection of 54th and grand um commercial, and in that um right in there behind Albertson's is as was mentioned, um fire station seven, which is uh less than a half mile from our application area.

Um so as you can see there, that's that's how it fits in with the the medley of zoning out there.

Um and and here's our area, and you can see um that our zones are very compatible with the N2 that is to the uh east of us.

Um the PND regulations do require that we show a street network that complies with the subdivision regulations.

We're not committed to it at this point, but it's just to show kind of a feasibility of what our zoning, how our zoning lines up with what the subdivision regular regulations require, um, which is um connections to the east, two continuing those, and then three additional connections to the west and um one to the north.

N1, we can have single family or duplexes in there.

Any residential zoning right in the state now does allow both single family and duplex.

In the NX1, that's that darker green area.

We can do anything that can happen in N1 can happen in NX1 in terms of single family and duplex, um, but also moving up into allowable uses of townhomes in groups of four or fourplexes as the maximum of what would be allowed in that NX1 zone.

So providing some more attainable housing right there close to Ben Steel, um, where more people are going to be able to, as was discussed, in that catchment area of that public facility, putting more people in there so that we get a better better ROI on that public investment.

Um the CMU one that borders Grand Avenue at the south of the application area can host any one of these um kinds of of development.

Our client is uh considering uh storage facilities, as is pictured there.

Um, but probably not the typical storage facility that we're used to seeing.

And that is a result of the CMU one zone, um, which has special requirements on any storage use that would be um developed there, including building to the corner, having windows on the ground floor, active uses on the ground floor, a lot of you know, rules that really ensure that a storage use is going to be a good neighbor and is going to contribute to a corridor like this at that at that location.

Now we we did discuss with staff at the and it was at our uh we did apply for that that variance seems to be some confusion about the variance being application being rescinded.

Um we can work that out, I'm sure.

Uh, but we presented this at the zoning commission that the the zoning regulations require that any CMU one and egg be separated by a right of way or an alley.

But in working through this with staff in our pre-application meeting, an alley is is not going to be approvable at that location.

We're not going to get access on the ground avenue at that location.

So this was the okay, how do we meet code was to um supply this 20 foot uh P1 buffer?

But we said, you know, the difference between a P1 buffer and a B3 type um landscaping buffer is 10 feet.

So we we suggested in our variance that we we just have a type B3 landscaping buffer requires trees along that boundary, all kinds of landscaping within a 10 foot rather than a 20 foot um uh slice through there.

So that's that's what we've requested.

That's the variance that we've requested, and we can work out um whatever confusion is is going on there procedurally.

Um, in terms of the CMU one allowing uh storage within there, um it it has a series of form-based um requirements that say, you know, your exterior doors serving individual units can't face the street um without screening or being behind other structures.

So everything highlighted in pink there, you would not be allowable to see from the street.

Um in addition to that, it it requires that security fencing is is behind landscape areas and that landscaping would be required as you see it there in the green dashed lines, that buffers of landscaping, trees at certain intervals as we move through there.

Um also requires that streets not be blocked, public rides away not be blocked, and that um individual units access from outdoors can't be within a hundred feet.

So there are a lot of requirements on storage as a use within this CMU one zone that guarantee that it is going to be a good neighbor and is going to contribute to the to the node that is forming there at 56, 54th and Grand.

Um, and also that it can't be larger than three acres.

That's part of the um the development in the the subdivision.

Um so that's kind of my overview of that.

And for more detail, I'm gonna give it up to Rick Luthold.

Thank you, John.

Uh, Mayor Cole, members of the council, Rick Luthold uh with Sam Bell uh here.

You're representing the client.

And frankly, I'm here because of my gray hair tonight.

I am uh again, one of the few folks like Bill, who's been around for this is 23 years that uh the Cottonwood Development Agreement was entered into.

Uh and Bill raised that question on September 24th with regard to this project.

I happen to actually at that time there were a lot of plans being rewritten and updated.

And John Eisen and I, John from JGA and I worked on the West Billings Plan together.

Uh that is was some of the basis of information that Bill used in crafting the Cottonwood Development Agreement and uh stormwater reports that were done and that kind of thing.

And Bill and I often actually would talk about development and how it was occurring on the West End.

So that's what brings me here this evening on behalf of our client Brian Harvey and uh his project as he moves forward.

I just want to speak to that briefly for you folks.

You know, I respect Mayor Cole and his fundamental principles that he brought the Cottonwood Park Development Agreement forward for Don and Betsy Forbes.

That is an admirable thing.

We need more big parks in town like Pioneer Park, like uh Centennial Park, like Veterans Park.

And uh that was the foundation of their gift to the city.

There were a lot of things in play at that time.

There was a school uh potentially proposed out there.

Um how do we jointly use these properties?

How do we carry them forward?

How do we give some life to this thing as we go forward?

And uh again, I respect those things that occurred there.

On behalf of Brian, he is a longtime resident of the city of Billings, and he likes to see those kinds of things for the city also is a supporter of those kinds of things.

What is at issue here is that we also want to see things that are fair and equitable.

And on behalf of Brian, I have to say here this evening that for 23 years this agreement has been in place.

There have been lots of developments annexed and occurring in and around the park that have have happened without a specific negotiated additional contribution having been made.

This project is going to contribute with regard to its park dedication as something on the order of 160,000 will be contributed to the parks department on as this project develops out.

And actually, some of this P1 stuff we may be able to squeeze down a little bit and get a little more cash into that for carrying that forward.

So uh we do believe in the project uh under the regulations from a fair and equitable standpoint.

There's a cash contribution that's occurring right now.

We do think it's a great project for this nodal area.

Uh given a few of the things that have been brought up tonight, Councilmember Aspenlighter mentioned the 20 feet.

I f fully well agree, and we would like to pursue a variance there.

And and that is one of those challenges that we had to deal with around up there and uh and uh work that through from that standpoint.

But uh would like to ask this council this evening to uh respectfully approve the annexation and the zone change that go forward with this.

Uh we do still have a subdivision process that goes forward.

Uh Mr.

Harvey is agreeable to continuing dialogue and discussions with regard to the area here.

He's he's going to be a neighbor in the area and continues to want to see things uh done that benefit the neighborhood, but want to see that be done uh again on a fair and equitable uh standpoint.

He is here this evening along with his real estate representative, George Warmer.

And I do have DJ Clark with me here tonight.

He represents us with regard to the traffic.

In order to uh respect your time here this evening, I know uh the traffic study was mentioned.

I believe we have addressed virtually all of the questions that the city uh traffic uh engineer had with regard to that.

There is one item with regard to an easement that uh is currently being addressed.

I think somebody some folks are here to speak to that during the public hearing process, but um I would just offer them for any questions and myself for any questions at the council or that you might have uh Mayor Cole at this point.

Very good.

Um we'll open up for public hearing, but before we do that, uh council, any other questions for the developer, developers representatives.

Uh Council Bernice.

Yeah, I I think uh Mayor Urin wonder asked this question is who is at uh 20 feet of P1.

Did that come out of the P1 in the center of the development?

It is part of the entire so under the PD process, we're required to provide 2% of the two percent.

And we're actually what's shown here is actually closer to about five and a half or six percent.

That's why I say cash contribution could adjust a little bit if we put a few more lots in there, or if this 20 feet goes back into the mix from a calculation standpoint.

There are things that are still at play there.

It is part of what's the first one.

But 20 feet goes away.

You don't have to adjust the the uh P1 in the center of the I would not have to adjust.

We would not have to adjust the P1 in the center in order to meet the requirements.

That's correct.

Councilmember Reid.

Very good.

Thank you.

Any other questions for uh Council Rowan?

Thank you, Mayor.

Rick, I might have missed this in the staff memo.

I saw lots of timelines for construction of the commercial piece and the road improvements.

I didn't see the actual.

When do you expect all these units to be in?

This is like any other land development project in the city of Billings.

And uh the economy, the markets, as we know that there's there's a lot of things happening on a national basis right now.

The the developer, Mr.

Harvey is is interested in moving forward immediately with the his commercial development.

That is his uh specialty.

Um he's working with uh a couple of folks uh with regard to development of the residential properties.

And uh again, his his real estate uh representatives here tonight could speak to absorption.

I mean, that's what we're talking about under the current uh mortgage interest rate uh scenarios and that kind of thing, what the absorption is.

Uh the properties, uh the lot sizes that are here are should be very marketable.

Again, it's close to the Albertans, it's close to school, it's close to uh a park that uh we want to see developed, it's close to a fire department.

All the good things that we talked about uh that came out of the West Buildings plan.

This is one of those nodes that's occurring, but uh that'll be driven by external factors.

Okay, I guess what I was just trying to drive out with some clarity is there's at least possibility that some of the road improvements to Grand Avenue will be made prior to full build-out of the residential piece.

Uh for Grand Avenue.

So Grand Avenue, anything that this project does would probably be, and I'm I'm just speaking uh uh out loud here.

Uh typically on something like this where we have an arterial out there, we do cash in lieu of contributions that go towards that development.

As as I believe the council probably knows, there is a project that's going to be coming out uh for for request for proposals on this here.

We understand yet this year uh with regard to the the redevelopment of Grand Avenue for a pretty significant section of this out here.

Uh, develop it out to full width and intersection improvements and all that kind of thing.

So that timing wise should be occurring parallel to the development that's occurring here.

And then lastly, help us understand why there is so much demand for storage units.

Why is that making sense out here?

What why do we see them popping up all over the community?

Come out and look in my garage.

Is it really that?

Is it consumption?

Is it housing churn?

What is it?

Uh there's there's as I've read the uh business journals and that kind of thing.

There's a couple of things.

One is we are a consumption-based society, so we have a lot of stuff and we run out of places to put it.

The other thing is because of the prices of homes and the prices of uh you know, affordable housing and that kind of thing, is pushing a lot of folks into smaller homes or into apartments.

I have I have a niece who's in an apartment, and and uh, you know, those kinds of folks come into an apartment, they might have have where where do I put my ski gear uh during the summertime?

Where do I keep my raft during the wintertime and that kind of thing?

And so folks like that will pick up uh storage units and that kind of thing.

Again, Mr.

Harvey's here this evening.

He has he has a tremendous uh business, and and from frankly, I use some of his facilities to park an RV in uh when it's off season and that kind of thing.

So uh it continues to be one of the things that our society needs a lot of.

Okay, thanks.

Very good.

Thank you.

I don't see any other questions, Rick.

So thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

This is a public hearing, and in this case, it's a joint public hearing, meaning that we'll have uh an opportunity for public comment on both seven, or I'm sorry, item four A, which is the annexation uh of this property, and also for B, which is the proposed zone change.

So uh we'll open up the public hearing and invite anybody to come forward.

Just ask that you tell us uh who you are, and please keep your comments to three minutes.

So is there any public comment?

Mike.

Councilman and mayor, thank you.

Um Mike Seppala, and I'm here representing Western Security Bank.

Um actually here just to make a clarification on part of the traffic issue, I think.

Um we are currently in negotiation with um Ty Schmeckel, who owns the lot just to the we we own the lot just to the east of this um subdivision, and Ty owns the lot just to the south of us or to the north of us.

So that um that uh easement is actually not uh part of the part of the development or the PUD that we're in right now, but that easement is intended to go across, and Ty and I are in negotiation verbally.

We have a deal.

Uh we just don't have it all uh put together in writing.

So hot creek will extend across the bank is committed to build that street out.

Um, and then Ty and I are working on the on the rest of the little details there.

So I know that's been something that's better been brought up on this subdivision as far as the arterial going into that area.

So I just wanted to make a clarification on that.

Thank you.

Very good.

Thank you.

Other public comments either on annexation or the zone change.

And go ahead and make a little line if there's others there.

Ready to go.

Hi there.

Uh my name is Brian Redfern.

I'm at 5523 Clear Sky Drive.

Um, I'm in the subdivision that is just south of this new proposed annexation.

Forgive me, this is my first kind of civic engagement with City Hall.

I you're doing great.

I haven't uh had anything that's really affected me like this.

So um I also represent um RHOA.

I'm in the daybreak subdivision there.

Um we have 73 homes in there.

I'm not here in that official capacity tonight.

Um, but uh I have had different numerous conversations with uh residents in our subdivision, things like that.

Um, I think there's a lot of concern about that corridor being zoned as it is.

We've heard a lot of different things going in there.

We've heard a gas station going in there, we've heard storage units.

I guess it'd be nice to get some clarification, but I would urge the city to understand exactly what we're zoning in there because I don't think any of us want neon lights in our backyard and things like that from a holiday gas station that's open 24 hours a day, if that's truly what's going in there.

We worry about our property values.

Um we we also worry about the traffic.

I don't know where these traffic studies have coming from, but I can tell you when I leave for work at 28 to take my daughter today, care and go to work.

We can hardly get out of our subdivision.

So I don't know where they're coming up with the idea that this is going to get fixed.

I've heard there's ideas of a roundabout going down by the school.

Um, but um nothing that I've heard is really going to fix the traffic issue that we already have.

Um, and it's going to turn into the new rim rock if anyone's ever traveled that in the morning or in the evening.

Um I want people to be able to develop.

I'm not naive.

Um when we moved out there, we knew that things were going to get developed around us.

Um, but you know, we went through this whole rigamore with the den and the bar, uh, everything else, which when we told we moved out there, we were going to get, you know, a strip mall maybe with a dance studio or hair salons, things like that that would close at five o'clock at night and we wouldn't have traffic issues and things.

And we have two bars, a casino, and a liquor store out there now that is morphed into something that they told us we would never see.

So again, I'm all for development.

I want people to be able to do those things.

Uh, but I am concerned about the corridor that they are saying for mixed use.

And forgive me, I'm not familiar with the codes.

As I said, I'm fairly new to this.

Um, but as a subdivision, we are concerned about that.

Uh at least I am.

And like I said, I'm not here in a capacity of speaking for the residents there, but I am just speaking for myself, and I know there are others that are concerned.

Um, the other thing um councilwoman Owen had mentioned about getting more um feedback from people.

Um, I do know that there was a lot of people that I spoke with that did have concern about this.

And unfortunately, they had said that they weren't going to come to the meeting tonight because they didn't think that there was anything they could do regarding the city.

And so I just think it's nice for you guys to know that there are people out there that think that there's nothing they can do in the city's already made up their mind on these things.

Thank you.

Very good.

Thank you.

And thank you for uh coming today.

Other public comment.

This is a public hearing on either the annexation or the zoning.

Uh, you're welcome to come forward.

Any other public comment before we close the public hearing?

Last call.

Anybody coming forward?

No one's standing up.

So we'll close the public hearing and uh come back to uh uh council and first address uh we'll address the annexation.

Council member uh as planner.

I'd make a motion if everybody's ready to go.

Um having conducted a public hearing consider written and spoken public testimony.

I move to approve a resolve a resolution conditionally approving annexation 25-04 as recommended by staff.

Motion's made for approval, second by council member Tidswell uh for approval annexation for the staff report.

Uh we'd like to speak to your motion and also Council Boyet.

Yeah, I these questions are forever, they're they're not new, they'll forever be there about what comes first development or public services.

Um nobody is wrong questioning whether we have the capacity to serve our growing city.

Uh, I think we're we're we're all well aware of that.

At the same time, development is the only way that we grow our tax base without a without a sales tax in place in Montana.

And so the only way that we can continue to grow as a city and build new fire stations and add more police build new schools is through development and increasing the taxable value of of these ag parcels.

And that creates a lot of discomfort in our growing areas of the city.

And it is what it is.

We don't have any any voice in that.

We're gonna have to continue to operate in this fashion.

So I I understand the discomfort with with development at the same time.

It it is the only way that we increase our tax base to afford the services that we need to continue to expand and grow in our city.

And so I don't have any good answers.

I I can empathize with the neighborhood.

I mean, we I live north of 80 acres that's developing right now.

And it's the same thing.

But it's the only way that for our city to move forward.

So I'll I'll support this and I'll continue to support you know economic investment in our our community.

Very good.

Thank you.

Conserver uh Tidswell.

Thank you, Council Boyette.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Wyatt, can we work out something with this 20 feet to make it?

I like the idea of the 10 foot buffer with the trees and the grass.

I mean, that's a wonderful.

Is there something we can do so that this 20 foot joke doesn't sit there?

I mean, to me, it's a waste of and and on Councilmember Boyet, I'll just make the technical point, although I'm gonna allow the question and Wyatt.

Um technically we're just all in the annexation, and that's a part of the the zoning requirement, but theoretically it could impact your vote on the annexation.

So I'm gonna ask Wyath to uh comment.

So, Councilmember Boyette, Mayor and Council, um, we are trying to sort this out right now out in the hall.

So I can't, I'm we're trying we actually there may be more to it than what we thought.

So, yeah, we're gonna have to follow up here in a couple minutes on the on the zoning piece.

So you may need to make your annexation decision without uh having a clear answer to that.

And then one other question that I get from the public is uh I was on the zoning commission for 10 years.

The crite 10 criteria, can we say we don't want to annex a property based on the fact that we may flood a school next door?

Uh council member uh Boyette and Mayor Council.

Um so want to be clear here.

So you're when you're considering annexation of a property, the the current state law is extremely broad in terms of the city's decision of whether to annex a property or not.

There are not the 10 criteria, there are not the subdivision criteria and the subdivision regs, those are different.

So when you're deciding on annexation, you're it's more open and broad.

I'm not saying that you just you know come up with whatever, but at the same time, it doesn't specify those things in there.

When you're talking about zoning, yes, you have criteria.

They talk about schools as one of the items and one of the set in one of the criteria.

And when you talk about in subdivision schools are also mentioned, uh, I can tell you that specifically in the subdivision regulations, um, you cannot um not approve a subdivision solely based on school impact, solely based on school impact.

Um, it is mentioned as one of the criteria in the zoning.

Um, it doesn't have that same language, um, but it's one of you know 10 of the criteria.

So schools are are in both of those.

Thank you very much.

Uh further comments, council member, council member.

In the interest of filibustering, while staff out there try to figure this out.

I just want to highlight that I think these some of these traffic and planning concerns are real, which is why I'm looking forward to the conversation we're gonna have a little bit later tonight on an initiative to change the way that we do traffic analysis to look more systemically and less project-based.

So I just want to put the votes that are about to happen in the context of what I think is a really important initiative by Councilmember Astman lighter later tonight.

Very good.

Thank you, Council Bernish.

Thank you, Mayor.

I agree with the traffic uh comment as well.

And you know, initially I was a little concerned about this, but I think that um I'm gonna support this annexation.

I I think that um as city administrator Kit Calcy uh indicated, this is really close to fire station.

We've approved unfortunately uh areas much farther away that we maybe should have voted no on because they're too far away outside of our service areas.

This is a perfect spot to develop.

I hope other developers see the areas uh around this thing.

It's closer.

I'd like to see some land a little farther in closer to the city developed and brought to us, but that's going to be the developers that do that.

So I I will support this.

I did have a question for YFO because I don't I think the development agreement wasn't here.

This has got the standard forever SID requirement uh or SID waiver, correct?

They're talking about for the annexation waiver for the annexation.

Um so um the way this, because this is anticipating um the subdivision um requirement, it does not have the I'm correct, right?

No, it does not have that in this because they're gonna execute it through the subdivision uh subdivision waivers are only good for 20 years.

Correct.

And so I I think I think I'm gonna maybe change my support on it because I think we have to make sure we have the waiver it is in there.

It'd be very unusual that there were not an annexation waiver.

What okay?

Why would that not be the case?

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilmember Owen, okay.

Correct me.

It is in there.

So unless I'm misreading, excuse me, mayor, unless I'm misreading the resolution that was presented to us.

The the conditional approval includes a waiver of right to participation of special improvement districts.

Okay.

Okay.

Because it it's tied then to the okay.

That's what I'm looking at.

Yeah, that's correct.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

Very good.

Yeah.

If it wasn't before, it is now.

Okay.

So okay, other uh discussion on the motion, motions for approval of item four A.

Okay, then I'll I'll jump in.

Um I I'm gonna uh tell you why I think it's a great project and why I'm gonna vote against it.

Uh, it's a great project.

I mean, this is just what we need in the West End.

Um, this is uh what we expected.

Um yes, there are uh uh growth problems.

Um I would just comment on the cost of service study I mentioned before.

Uh that's been something we've talked about for eight years.

I've given up on that.

Um, it just isn't gonna happen.

And um that's too bad.

Um maybe someday, but our our staff is uh too underfunded uh to do that in the planning department.

So we don't have a way to add answer those fundamental questions of what's the cost benefit ratio between new tax revenue and cost.

Um, and people get political about whether they think it's pays for itself or doesn't pay for itself, but we do not have a data point to uh to address that.

It's a tough question, and I still think we should come back to it, but I think we should need to be realistic and say that is just not gonna happen unless something fundamental uh changes.

But that's not um the other thing I want to mention is about the waivers.

I'm glad Council Member Needs brought it up.

Um, I'll just raise a point I've raised before, which is kind of a legal question.

We have two sets of waivers.

We have the annexation, which does not have an expiration date, and then we have a subdivision waiver that is um uh uh 20-year expiration.

And I have two concerns about that.

One is we really need to have staff come back with a chart showing now that we've been adopting the 20-year expiration waivers for about 10 years or more, we're now coming up to the point where we're gonna uh start um having those expire.

And if we're gonna create SIDs, we need to have plenty of notice to do that, or we're going to go beyond those expiration dates.

And we need to have a clear chart of where those apply and don't and look at those properties.

The other uh uh concern I have is that because typically the subdivision waiver comes later than the than the original annexation waiver, there's a basic principle of law that boy, if you're having two agreements and they deal with the same thing, the later one controls the former one.

So I'm very concerned that we will uh get an argument that oh, you replaced the annexation waiver without a time limit with the subdivision waiver with a time limit.

And so I've proposed to um uh city attorney's office and and uh planning that our language just say that's not our intent, and then we'll be fine.

But I think we the language of our waiver agreements need to be changed um to make that very clear, because that isn't our intent, and I'm stating that on the record in this case.

Uh there is no intention if there's a later subdivision waiver that that have that replace this annexation waiver without a time limit.

And then lastly, though, why I will vote against this is a matter as a matter of principle.

Uh Rick Luthold made reference to it.

Or for anybody who um is not familiar with this for a number of years I've been trying to point our attention to the now 23-year-old uh Cottonwood Park uh uh development agreement that requires that the city have a negotiation with properties before they are annexed into the property, if or into the city within one and a half miles of Cottonwood Park about a potential uh contribution to develop that large 40 acre parcel because we don't have a good mechanism otherwise.

And for 23 years, we've pretty well ignored it, uh despite my pleas.

And so, as a matter of principle, I think we uh and I appreciate uh recent efforts in the last couple of weeks between uh city staff and uh the developer to uh address this issue.

I feel the uh developers' frustration that this has been kind of popped on them.

Um, but it's something that has been well known, I think relatively well known in the development community in that area uh now for several decades.

So, as a matter of matter of principle, I will vote against the annexation on that grounds, but again, it's not because of any uh fundamental uh uh flaw that I see uh in this development.

So uh with that, any other comments before we go to a vote.

Okay.

So uh the motion is for approval of item uh four A.

If in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

If uh voting in opposition, please say nay.

Nay.

Um I think I lost that one.

Uh uh motion is approved uh 10 to 1 uh with myself being the only voting uh vote in opposition.

We'll now move on to item four B, the zone change.

Um Councilman Rashler.

Uh having conducted a public hearing, consider written and spoken testimony.

I move to approve first reading for zone change 1070 and adopt the findings of the 10 review criteria as recommended by the zoning commission.

Uh Council Rashlighter on the motion, Council Tiswell get on the second.

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

No, and Council Mr.

Titzwell, no.

Uh further discussion now and uh staff.

I will uh we are gonna uh ask for some clarification, I'm sure on that 20-foot strip.

Uh the staff is still in the hallway.

Uh it is about 7 30, council.

So I don't know.

Uh we're either going to take a break now and come back to this, or we'll press ahead.

Council member uh Nice.

Thank you, Mayor.

I think in the past we've actually uh uh done some zone changes and then approve different zones because this is a zone change hearing.

Uh and so anything can happen during a zone change hearing.

So I'm gonna I'm gonna I I'm prepared to make an amendment to the to the motion to uh to um have the the P1 um converted or approved as CMU one along with the recommended buffer zoning that uh the uh applicant showed us on on there with just the trees.

I think a 10-foot buffer buffer with three.

Council Renese, before you make that motion, I appreciate you signaling that.

Why don't we just ask uh staff uh that have been huddling a little bit to comment?

If we may we do that.

Yeah, I'm probably still gonna make the motion, but go fine.

Uh, we just want to give uh staff an opportunity if you'd like to comment.

You heard Councilmanice indicate a uh inclination to, if possible, make a motion to substitute the 20-foot uh um uh trail strip for a 10-foot buffer uh uh landscaping strip.

Uh Anna.

Mayor Council, nice to see you all again.

Um right now we cannot change the current application due to the way that state law outlines this.

We would have to renotice the public regarding the buffer zone.

And so that's what I was talking about, or the P1 that's right there.

So we have to renotice regarding that.

And I was just talking to the applicant.

Staff has made a mistake, their way that they wanted to have the layout with the CMU one going to the border.

There is an incorrect process that we made.

So the way we're gonna fix this is we'd like to proceed, and my I can defer to the applicant.

We'd like to proceed with the current application as it is.

We are going to waive as a division to make this correct um the fee associated with the zone change, but we have to go with a zone change, and that would require the a new public notice anyway.

So the best way that we can correct this going forward is to just process a separate application only for the P1 little strip and have that corrected.

Very good.

Thank you.

Your recommendations proceed.

You'll they'll come back at a later date.

You'll waive any fees associated with that.

Um councilman, uh, I want to just re uh respect Councilmember Nees's kind of priority and then look to Council Braspel.

For now, I'll defer to Councilmember.

Thank you, Councillor Rashley.

Yeah.

Anna question for for you.

So we change a lot of things on the fly at council from applications.

We condition things, we we make modifications based on recommendations.

Are you telling me that this is one that we cannot just change as a matter of of our motion and action as a body?

That is a question for me.

So there's two factors that I'm sorry.

Councilmember Aspenlight or Mayor and Council, there's two factors that are at play here.

One is a due process issue.

And so it's a matter of due process notice to the public.

And because zoning cannot be conditioned, we cannot have it amended the way that it currently is without following due process notice and proceed.

Okay.

But I'm not interested in a legal fight over that.

Very good.

Will you continue?

Again, we do have a motion on the table for approval of item four B.

Casper Burwen.

I'm a little bit interested in a legal fight about it.

So Gina, do you want to weigh in here?

Because I think Councilmember Aspenlight is right.

We make amendments all the time, and the public has been noticed that this parcel is up for discussion and debate.

And council does have the authority to change zoning.

So why are we particularly limited here?

I think that uh thanks for the question, council member Owen.

I think that this question has come up repeatedly in the past.

And I can hear Nicole Cromwell's voice in my head telling you that you can't you can't change the the zone changes have to do have to be properly noticed of.

Um and we did uh city council did amend the code a year, couple years ago.

I can probably tell you here, but um in section 27-1628 where it addresses zone changes and it addresses um city council action and specifically what you can do at this point.

And previously your options were to approve and I allow withdrawal or delay the application.

And when similar issues have come up, it was finally determined to add another option for you, which is to refer the application back to the zoning commission so that it could then be properly noticed, and then you could go through this and and um make some modifications or they could change applications or whatever the case may be.

Um, but I I would agree with what Anna has said, and there are um procedural issues here that do not allow for you to change zoning at this point.

Uh Counselor Raspbliner, or I'm sorry, Council, anything else to put.

I I'll reserve the right to come back.

I need to just think about that for a second.

Customer Brashplar.

Yeah, I don't want to belabor this anymore.

I mean, if if we're gonna work through it and I have to go through the hearing process, and I understand we're gonna waive the fee, but that doesn't waive the charge that the developer is going to pay to the consultant to represent them at all all along the process.

I mean, that's that's an economic impact that we just put on them because we made that mistake.

And they're gonna have to show up back here again, even though it's a formality to go through this process again.

And that's where my frustration comes with some of the things that we've been going through lately.

Um I'm a little frustrated that you know we've we have an interim planning commission, and they've canceled the last two meetings.

And and I think a lot of us in the development community would argue that this PUD process was well intended in recode to prevent a bunch of zone change applications, and it was supposed to streamline things and it was supposed to provide predictability.

And the reality is that it is so restrictive and it is so dialed in and so to the point that it's so far ahead of what a developer can predict that we end up with more zone changes than we had before.

And and I would argue in my experience in the consulting world that it's worse than it was before, and that it's broken actually.

And so it's frustrating to me that the interim planning commission is canceling meetings because they don't have anything to talk about when I think if if prompted by the development community and the consultants that work there, we could give you a whole host of things that we think are wrong with our zoning code right now that should be addressed.

And we're not being prompted for that kind of input.

And that's the con that's that's the relationship that I would hope we would continue to build and they would be facilitated by the department asking these questions and asking for input and and looking for the ways that from a developer's perspective, this could be better.

And that's not really happening.

Um we have to come and complain about the process or provide variances to the things that were that we that we don't like about the process and go through all this, but it doesn't feel like we're making the changes.

Just a reminder, we've got a motion before us, we should stick to that.

So I think this all applies.

Okay.

Well, we'll we'll move ahead then.

Um further discussion then on the motion.

Um, anybody who is not commented, council member shock.

Um, thank you.

I agree we're moving a little bit off of the motion, but I did just want to respond to that to say that to remind not council because council knows this, but we have an underfunded planning department who just does not have the funds to do a lot of this work that we're asking them to do.

Saying proactively look at the zone.

Yes, it's a great idea.

Yes, absolutely.

We should be doing that.

But council has to figure, and it's gonna be very difficult.

But I think we've got to take some responsibility for if that department is underfunded, we cannot continue to heap more on them.

So I that's all I'm gonna say.

You're right.

It is beyond the motion.

So beyond the scope, but I move back.

I felt like that needed just a response.

Very good.

Uh council niece now on the motion.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, in light of what Gene is advising us, this must have been under the old code.

We I know we have had hearings where we changed the zoning, but obviously it was under the prior recode, if I recall.

So um, I won't make the motion, but I agree with with councilmember Asmanliner on this that this should be something within our preview to do.

And so I I'm gonna ask that the the staff consider making that change, adding one more thing.

If if we have to, if you want to limit a council from making those changes, then limit to a certain percentage of the change.

But this is this is really unreasonable, in my opinion, to ask a developer to come back because of some issue within our our code that should have been taken care of long before it got to hearing.

And it was delayed last week and now it's gonna be delayed again because I don't think they can put stuff in the ground, knowing that they may get moved over five or ten feet or whatever it may be.

So I I'm I'm I'll vote for this, but I'm disappointed that we've got this kind of issue with it now.

Very good.

Uh any further discussion on the motion.

Okay, again, the motion is for approval of item four B, uh consistent with the staff report, which has been a matter of public record here for a week or two that includes that 20-foot strip.

But stay tuned for possible future developments on that.

Um okay.

If the motion is clear, then if in favor of the motion, uh please say aye.

Uh aye.

If opposed, say nay.

Uh motion, uh no nays, motion passes unanimously.

Move on to item four C.

Council Member Owen, you had something.

Can I ask a question before we move on to that item?

So procedurally, I just want to get a little clarity here because Anna, what I heard you talk about was a second zone change that they would have to go through, which is not a quick process.

But when developers presented, they presented the issue as a variance.

And the variance I think can go through the board of adjustments and perhaps more quickly.

So, what is the posture that we're actually in here?

Does this have to come back or can it go through an administrative process as a variance if we waive the fees more expeditiously?

So it has to go through.

Sorry, counts Councilmember Owen, Mayor, Council, it has to go through a zone change because it is designated as the P1 zoning.

It cannot go to the Board of Adjustments.

What we can do is we could have council initiate the zone map amendment, because that is a right that you have within the code.

And then the developers agent doesn't have to be there at all.

And we as a division can carry the map amendment on behalf of the developer and take it that way as well.

Um, so that is another option that I was thinking of.

And are you concerned that if we did that tonight, we would not meet notice requirements?

We would have to still notice it just would be initiated by the council themselves instead of the applicant.

So it would be following the same process, just them not carrying that.

So we could initiate it tonight, and then you could comply with notice and all the procedural work.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh all right, item four C.

Um Tony, would you please read item 4C?

Public hearing and first reading ordinance expanding the boundaries of ward four to include recently annexed property in annexation 2504, lot 66A1 and 67a one of the amended plat of lots 66A and 6667A.

Sonny Co.

Fruit Farm Subdivision staff recommends approval.

Very good.

Uh, there's no presentation on this item.

Council member Tiswell.

Very good.

Oh, thank you.

Yes, this is a public hearing, and the item is whether this property should be added to Ward Four.

Is there any uh public comment?

This is a public hearing.

So please come forward.

Is there any public comment?

On item four C.

No one's coming forward.

We'll close the public hearing.

Uh back to council.

Um should have done that before getting the motion, but I don't think it's a substantive uh error.

So um any discussion on the motion.

Okay.

If in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

If opposed, say nay.

Uh no uh Council members voting in opposition motion passes unanimously.

That concludes uh item four.

Council, it is uh seven forty.

Normally we take a break at seven thirty.

We've got two items left.

Um, with that, Councilmember Aswider's initiative.

I think that might take a while.

So let's take a five minute break and uh be back here as close uh no later than seven fifty.

Or do it?

And for tonight, is there anything proper?

You're okay with it happening tonight?

Yeah.

Okay, well, let's let's deal with it.

Yeah.

Okay, if we're all back, uh, we will get started again.

Uh, welcome back, everyone.

Uh, looks like uh nobody went home during the break, which is good.

A little discussion up here about uh uh that item four and the uh uh possible future zoning change that we talked about.

Council Raspberry, do you want to address that?

Uh yeah, uh Mr.

Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to initiate council council initiated zone change for the twenty-foot strip.

I I heard lots of seconds, so uh council Bernice, I heard.

Um discussion.

No, we'll proceed to a vote if in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

If opposed, nay.

Okay.

So uh staff has the direction on that.

Okay, uh, we left off with item five.

Uh Tony, would you read item number five?

Item number five, South Billings Boulevard Urban Renewal District, Water and Sewer Utility Connection Program.

South Billings Urban Renewal Association Board recommends approval.

Very good.

Uh Wyeth, are you our presenter?

Dick is Dick is L.

I use this one.

I'll go.

Good evening, Mayor, Council guests that are still here and city staff.

Um the South side, it's been brought to our board attention many times that there are 72 homes in our district that are not hooked up to either city water, city sewer, or a combination, but one of the other.

So we would like to do something to help them.

Uh the Sabur Board is approved up to 5,000 per applicant to assist in the cost of hookup.

The maximum the war uh TIFF award would be 10 or a total of $50,000 annually.

This would come out of our uh from our residential and community enhancement budget, which is a 250,000 for our fiscal year this year.

Maybe take one fifth or 20% of that.

The Sabor Board would receive applications and a written bid from an approved and licensed contractor for the installation of this hookup.

Property owner would pay the current system development fee, currently about $2,442.

A licensed and bonding contractor approved to work in the city, applies for the connection permit from the city engineering and pays the fee, currently $139.

A contractor would perform the work, request an inspection, and the city would inspect the connection.

The city inspector would sketch the service layout for city records, possibly a self-certification by the licensed plumber that the work was performed to code.

The Sabura Consultant would uh present the documentation to the Sabura Board or the Advisory Committee.

When completed, the Sabura Consultant would present the documentation to the Sabora Board or advisory committee for approval to release the funds to the applicant.

This documentation would be sent to the City of Buildings Finance and Finance Director Andy Zeller for payment.

The documentation would be paid invoices, proof of approval of the city, and a certificate of satisfaction prepared by the Sabura uh or the advisory committee consultant.

These applications could be approved by the Sabura Board and would not require billing city council approval as they have already approved the concept.

Don't want to bring every $5,000 one to the city council.

And we'd have annually 10 of them is what we're looking at.

Uh if we got more than 10, which I would hope that we would, but I don't expect it, then we'd come back to make an amendment on that to get it more if we could on that south side.

The TIFF award would not pay for any of the permitting fees, just the connection work done by the approved plumber or the contractor.

Very good.

Thank you.

Dick, questions uh for Dick.

Council member uh Kennedy.

Mayor, it's not a question, it's uh Dick had the Sabura board meeting last week.

We also on Thursday night had the um expansion of Sabura.

It was very positive at both of those meetings from the people in Sabura and the folks that attended the Thursday night meeting.

It's something that really does need to happen.

And it's a real incentive to get a lot of these folks off of the uh um septic and on to the uh the sewer system down there.

One thing I might add, I got this from Matt Fogle Swong.

Most of the stuff that I wrote there.

Um we would like to get it done and help out the south side.

Very good.

Uh any other questions uh for Dick.

Uh we will not have a public hearing, so uh you can vary into comments as well.

Councilmember Shaw, Council Bernice.

I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion.

Um, since we don't have to know, uh we had a request earlier from the district.

Oh, well, this is your district, I guess.

No, it's not.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Did one of you want to make a motion?

Totally.

Okay, yes, for more different.

Spoke up, I apologize.

So is that if that's okay?

Yeah.

Um anything before we have a motion uh that's appropriate that's necessary before we have a motion, uh, Councilmanice.

I'll let you make the judgment on that.

But council member uh Rogers, uh, but I have questions for Dick.

Uh okay, why should Councilmember uh Roger?

Just so we have something on the table.

Go ahead.

I move to approve the S.

Bird water and sewer utility connection program as recommended by the Sabura Board.

Yeah, Councilmember Kennedy.

Very good.

Either you'd like to speak your motion before we turn over, Councilmanice.

I would just uh reiterate what uh council member Kennedy said.

It's been a long time coming and it's uh well well needed down there, and I'm happy to support this in any way possible.

Very good.

Council Bernice.

Thank you, Mayor.

Dick, um am I correct?

This is only for residential uh properties.

Yes, we're we're uh I got a list of them presented to me, and we had to look up the names of the people we got the addresses, and they're all those are all residential that we were talking about today.

Okay, and if they're combination residential, commercial, do they qualify?

Uh we'd look at it and then I'd have to, you know, I guess that one I could bring the council if it was a commercial.

I think the little uh maybe I'm I didn't get a chance to fully read this, but nothing here says it's strictly residential.

Is the board is the board said only they want to do that?

I guess we would be open to the commercial as well.

So it could be commercial.

Let's do that.

Let's do so.

I'm just asking, I mean, because it I think the memo said residential, but I didn't see anything in these kind of outline from you saying that it's going to be only it could be it's a floating program and it's five thousand per ward.

Yeah, maximum ten thousand a year, up to fifty thousand.

Well, fifty thousand a year, ten awards.

Okay.

And uh what's the actual cost to get something?

Uh we've gotten estimates all the way from ten to fifteen thousand dollars to get that done, you know, depending on what they have to do to get it to the house.

Are you recommending anything like a 50% share on this?

No, we talked about that at great length, you know, about you know, we want them to have an investment in it as well, but we're hoping that this will be an incentive to well, yeah.

Maybe we can do it, you know.

But we did cap it so we could get more people involved in it.

Yeah, I sure would like to see some kind of share.

I mean, I think the programs we have approved in the past for the TIFF districts that they kind of just go run with them is it has some kind of share, share ratio in there uh where they share, uh whether it's the fencing or the science and stuff like that.

Um and so I I I'm not so sure I like this program, the at least outline of it.

I mean it's a good idea, don't get me wrong, but I I don't think I can support it without being a shared cost.

Thank you.

Uh Conserva Kenny.

Dick, on this, we talked at the Sabura and they voted that it would be for residential.

And that was the intent of the uh um coming forward to the council.

I would hope that we would stay with that.

And if there is commercial or whatever that um want to come back to the Sabora board, but that's how we sold it at the uh at the uh Sabura uh committee meeting, and that's how we talked about it at the uh at the meeting on uh Thursday night.

So I would I would hope that we would stay um what we had uh pushed forward.

I'd be more than happy to bring a commercial request to the council.

Uh okay, we just to have some clarification on what the motion was.

The motion was to uh uh approve the uh connection program as recommended by the Sabora board.

Council member Kennedy has said that was the board's recommendation looking at the staff report.

Uh the first sentence uh refers or says quote to help residential properties.

So just to clarify, Councilmember uh Rogers, it was your motion, Councilmember Kennedy, your second.

Was your intent to restrict the program to residential properties?

Yes.

Yes, at this time.

Okay.

Uh so that clarifies residential only.

That is what the motion is.

Okay.

Um other discussion uh now, Councilmember Ripsis and back, Council Bernice.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Dick, I just curious.

Do you actually have indications from resident these property owners that they will actually take advantage of this?

Like are is this going to be enough of incentive to actually make it happen?

Because there's still gonna be on the hook, like the five thousand dollar, you know, between the water and the sewer you know, system development fees, that's another five thousand plus whatever over uh over and above on the construction cost.

I haven't had a lot.

No, I've had a couple is all, but uh the board wanted to try to do something for the residential areas down there and see give a chance.

Uh if this passes, I've got all the addresses, and we'll send a letter out to all of them, let them know that it's there so that it's available to them, and hopefully we'll get some applicants out of it.

But I don't think we're losing a lot if we don't, but I would hope we'd get some.

I so thank you.

I think I think we should, and and and hopefully there are people that take advantage of it, but we might want to think about time bounding this um so that it doesn't just go on forever and ever and people can just you know I mean it it should be a three to five year program, and this is your opportunity to get you know a subsidy from Sabora to do this.

Um, and and then otherwise, if you don't take advantage of it, I mean I mean you're gonna have to bear the full cost of it at some point.

It would be timed out because we're doing it tied to this year's capital improvement or uh budget.

You know, we have 250,000 set in that.

So if we don't get 10 this year, maybe there is no next year.

Maybe there is no next year.

All right, thank you.

Uh very good, Casper Rupsos.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor.

Sorry, Councilman point out there is actually some cost share in there with the what with the with the program.

So I apologize.

It's about a 30 uh 34% share.

So that's that's fine.

I I understand that.

So thank you and appreciate there being a share in that.

I miss your comment on that.

No problem.

Very good.

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

Okay, the motion is for approval consistent with the staff recommendation in your packet.

If in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

If opposed, nay.

Motion passes unanimously.

Um that concludes item five.

Uh, we'll move on to public comment on non-agenda items, things that were not on our agenda tonight.

If there's any comment, uh please feel forward, feel free to come to the podium.

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

Is there any public comment on things not on our agenda tonight?

Any public comment on items not on our agenda tonight?

Mr.

Clark.

Mr.

Mayor, Councilman, my name is Paul Clark.

I live on the South Side, Ward one.

Uh, again, I'm going to come back to the beautiful, and you guys are doing great.

It's it's it's a very long process, especially when you're trying to get zoning to come in.

It seems like it would be a no-brainer.

Oops, 20 feet, skip that.

Let's go on.

But we can't do that because of the steps we've taken in the 23 years of time, and how far the how far the sugar beets have not grown and more people are there.

One of the things that I don't hear about is parks.

And it seems like I even had to ask the man, where's this Cottonwood Park at?

You know, I don't know of this development.

So again, let's not forget when the people live in these areas.

I'm fortunate I have South Park.

It's beautiful.

I love it there.

If I want to go and relax, I walk in the park.

If I live in a development where there isn't any parks, and the only thing you have is people doing 45 miles an hour down Grand Avenue to get home or try to pull out.

There's no relax point.

Now you're, you know, you can make things, a trail on a 20-foot white variance, of course.

But these are small things you've got to think about with the developers when they come in with the 54-acre property.

Hey, it's not that hard to make 10 acres, five-acre park for kids for grandparents, to walk your dog to go visit the neighbor.

That's one.

Okay, the other one is we have to keep bringing it up to with the state.

Again, it bounces off of the city of Billings, bounces off the state, bounces up Burlington Northern about the underpass and the beautiful smell that they left us with this water that is not being drained out.

I don't even think there's turtles in there.

It's such bad water.

It it stinks, you guys.

Now, I know Mr.

Nelson was here last week with me and said, uh, let's move on with that idea.

But if I keep bringing it up to you guys, we still got to issue it.

We have to do something with this stinky water.

It thank you that it's not draining down in the well or in the South South Street underpass like it used to.

Every time we got half an inch of rain, there was two feet of water.

Thank you for pulling it out of there at least, but we're not done.

I don't care if we put a you know, welcome to City of Billings Monument with a water flow, get the water to circulate.

Right now it's just stagnant water, it's not being done with anything.

So again, I'll bring that up.

I'll keep bringing it up to you.

Maybe I'll get tired, but I'm down to 20 seconds.

The other thing is the sugar factory, the Western Sugar.

I know we've gone in there with uh environmental protection agency, department of quality.

We've we've find them, nothing happens.

They pay the money out of Denver, it goes away.

We just keep sweeping it in the rug.

That is a very bad site, and you want to put an animal shelter right behind it.

The ground is bad, the water's bad.

We we got to come up with something different.

Perhaps a pre-existing building building with 25,000 square foot, namely Costco, you know, somewhere there's a building here in Billings that's already done.

How hard is it to do that?

Now I'm not a donor.

I don't have Wilson Park to donate to the billings to do that.

I get it.

I understand that.

But there's already other people and other places to go besides trying to build an animal shelter on a contaminated site.

It's bad.

Take pictures of people's homes when they water the yard.

It's brown.

And the grass is green.

My chickens drink the water.

I've drank the water, but I don't know what's in that water.

Now I'm trying to find out from someone in the city, and I was here today, and I got four five different locations about who to ask.

I guess I need to go and get a request form to someone so I can find out who has access to what's in that water.

How bad is that water?

So again, you'll see me next week.

I'll be here until I find out.

And you guys, election, keep it positive.

Don't sling mud, be safe.

Move forward.

Let's all get along.

Okay, blessings.

Very good.

Thank you.

Former Councilmember Crouch, welcome.

Good evening, Council and Mayor, uh, Reverend Kenneth Crouch, uh, 1642 Wembley Place.

Uh thank you for acknowledging indigenous people's day and not Christopher's Day.

Thank you for as I read it.

If you're running for office, it has to be two consecutive terms and not one and skip a few years and come back in.

If I'm wrong, I read the material uh mistakenly.

Uh I ought to be talking about the NDO because I hear people talking about it.

Why is billings?

Why don't you have one yet?

I thought they had one, and other cities have been doing it without any discussion, let alone going to six in the morning.

But that's not what I'm here for.

We'll go to another council meeting for that.

Thank you for the council members that are ending your tenure.

And we'll thank you for what you've done, accomplished.

Now, why I'm here is that there's four or five groups, some are small, some are larger, that are concerned about members of the ice coming to town.

I understand they're here and that they've already, as I have heard, picked up two people.

But these people are concerned uh we are all concerned about what they're doing and what they do with the people that are members of our community.

We know that the the uh Yellowstone County Commissioner said, hey, you can't use the arena, so we know that they're in conversation with them.

Is ICE in conversation with you at any rate space?

Are they asking questions or just here and think they can do whatever they want to and not realize that in some respects they are guests?

Uh I'm a member of a member uh the a large clergy group, religious leaders who say we have signals that if there's something happening, we want some of our people to be there, take pictures, and be supportive to anybody that's being arrested and seeing how they are being arrested.

There's been a lot of violence in the other parts of the country, and we've heard of some cities saying, hey, we're taking you to court.

There are some things you can't do, and Chicago says you gotta stay out of town.

Uh well, as we talked about it, I'm a member of the clergy group.

Uh what do we expect from ICE?

Have you talked about it?

Is it something that's not important?

Well, uh, we have some things that we thought would be good to at least discuss.

No masks.

Our enforcement people don't wear a mask except if there's a poison gas or something.

Uh present their ID, read their rights, no entry into schools or houses of worship or federal buildings where they're going in to do something legally that they're required to do.

No entry into homes without a permit, without a warrant, no entry into places of business, treat our citizens and their property with respect.

Limit yourselves to truly violent offenders, the criminals that you're supposed to be taking care of, working closely and coordinating with our uh uh police and sheriff enforcement people.

Uh let them help you find the people that are ought to be a part of your agenda, and to allow visits with religious and family.

Don't take them out of town hidden during the night, which is such a violation of human dignity.

Uh I don't know they would even if they had just laugh at these things, but we ought to have some kind of kind of responsibility.

Do you think?

Uh I leave these with you and trust that uh very good.

Yeah, just give them to Chris or to Gina, and uh they can circulate them.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Council River Reverend Crouch.

Any other public comment on items not on our agenda this evening?

Any other public comment?

Uh no one's coming forward.

So Wyath, I assume you are not here as a member of the public to give comment.

I can close the public comment, period.

Okay, close.

Wyatt.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Mary and Council.

I just wanted to really briefly, I won't take on much time.

I just wanted to follow up.

Um two things really quickly that this seemed like the only spot in the agenda to mention.

So first, um appreciate the work and the patience and everything tonight.

Apologize very much for that for the zoning issues and the challenges we had there.

We're we're gonna go back and we have a lot of work to figure out there.

So appreciate how it was handled and that we can move forward, but um, not the way we would like these things to come forward um ever.

Um, secondly, um just wanted to clarify.

Councilmember Aspenlighter had mentioned the IPC and and you know, zoning code amendments and such.

Uh so the I just to clarify that.

So the IPC, the interim planning commission, their real function right now at this point in their life is uh working forward with implementation of the Malupa, the Montana Land Use Planning Act and the process we're going through.

Absolutely correct that when we get into the spring here, we're gonna be looking at zoning code and subdivision amendments because of what comes out of the larger land use effort that we're on that's underway at this time.

So we are going to be looking at those things.

IPC will be, they'll be making recommendations to you to that level.

Um, but I wanted to mention so the a couple of the meetings when we haven't had them, that they haven't had action to address on the larger effort where we're collecting the information from the community right now.

But we are hearing from folks all the time about code issues, and we are totally open to hearing from anyone at any time.

Our it doesn't have to, it can be our zoning commission, our planning board, it can be staff.

We just actually were working with a a pro a property owner and business owner in town on a code uh issue that we're gonna have to look at in the spring regarding food trucks.

Um, we have a list.

I don't even know how long it is right now of code amendments, both from staff and from the community.

So absolutely just wanted to reiterate open at any time to hear concerns.

We have our home builders association monthly meeting as well, but it doesn't have to be that.

It can just be something that's brought up.

So please, if you hear something or you're talking to someone and they want to share that.

We just can't, we're not trying to do them one off at a time.

We have no capacity, obviously, to do that right now, but we are gonna have a collection of items in the spring that are going to need to be addressed.

Very good.

Thank thank you.

Okay.

Uh last item up is our uh council initiatives on our agenda.

Um Tony, I guess you would you read the council initiative item.

Subdivision and development traffic impact study requirement modifications and impact fees by council member Aspenlighter.

Very good.

Thank you.

I'm gonna uh turn it over to um uh Council Raspenlighter.

Just as a reminder, counsel, you received a copy of his uh proposed initiative form as well as an email with some background on Friday, September 26.

Uh, if you're looking for that email, Councilmember Aspenlighter, you want to take it away.

Yeah, it this is something we've talked about and impact fees.

We're talked about in association along with fire and police impact fees.

And we talked about it when we adopted the budget.

Um, I think council member member Nice has brought this up at various points in my two years here and before I got on council.

That we we've got to look at at different ways to make sure that as we're building on our community, we're addressing these issues properly.

Um I I've had conversations with our public work staff for two years about the way we do traffic studies, the one-off nature in which they're completed, not coordinating with the development going on directly next to it, not necessarily accessing this supposed big network of information and data that we have inside public works engineering department, and then what comes out of this is an impact fee on an intersection.

And so a developer makes an impact fee contribution in the subdivision improvements agreement, and it gets tied and it sits on that intersection and it can't be moved and it can't be used on anything other than the impact that they theoretically create on that impact or on that intersection.

We have, I believe, you know, six or eight months ago, I got the spreadsheet from Debbie as to where all of the contributions are and what has been made over time and what is still sitting in the bank.

And it's I think it, if I remember correctly, it's close to $2 million in impact fees sitting in a bank that's that are not tied to projects that are directly going, you know, programmed or scheduled to go.

Um I point to the development on Zimmerman Trail, the Zimmerman home place development.

I think we made a $10,000 contribution to the intersection of Colton Boulevard and Zimmerman Trail.

That will never be a lighted intersection.

It does not warrant a signal.

It won't ever warrant a signal.

And there's already a flashing beacon there.

But there's $10,000 sitting in the city's bank account tied specifically to that intersection that will sit and die on the vine, losing value every day, forever and ever.

Amen.

Um that is not the best process.

Staff even acknowledges that that's not the best process, but it's the process that we had, and it was an improvement when it was created way back when.

What the public sees and what the public hears when we do these traffic studies is that we're creating an impact.

We certainly are when we develop in this community.

But what they hear is that they're gonna be there's gonna be an improvement made.

The reality is the developer rarely makes an improvement unless it's to the intersections that they're building to access their properties.

They don't go down to Grand and Zimmerman and do turn lane improvements or signal improvements.

That's a city project.

But what they expect is that stoplight at Avenue E at you know the children's clinic to be put in when the apartments start going up.

That's what they hear.

And so when it doesn't, and the apartment buildings go up, they're mad at everybody, as they should be, because the expectation is that the project's gonna get built as a result of the development.

So we set our staff up with this process to also be battling the public unnecessarily when in reality we we need to come up with a streamlined process.

I mean, we're paying anywhere from 15 to 30 to 40,000 per traffic study per development, which is just blown soft costs.

It doesn't benefit the developer, it doesn't benefit the city, and it doesn't benefit the public.

That that money should be paid into an impact fee on the development and rolled into actually doing work that the public works department can project it, can program and put forward on improvements on our transportation network.

So what I'd like to do is start a work, a work session and put this on the priority list for public works to actually start working on.

Um we can make a nod to it all we want, but until there's directive from council to start moving this, we're gonna forever chase our tail and just not get there.

So that's that's where I'm at.

Um Castro Cash Espanna, your initially really dealt with uh uh two parts of this problem, the timing of the traffic pack study as well as what you were just describing.

Can you address the other part of the the timing of of submittal of a traffic impact study has changed this year um forever?

We have submitted a traffic impact study at the time of preliminary plat when we submit the plat.

That's what the regulations say.

And I attach that in the email that I sent out.

Um in the checklist, the checklist indicates that the traffic impact study should be done at the time of completeness and sufficiency review, which is weeks before we're ready.

Um it's still while we're working through comments.

It's still while we're working through issues with the staff and trying to address the development.

To force that to be submitted early on in the process like that, just sets the developer and the staff up to go through multiple iterations because we're not there yet in the timing of how these things develop.

The reality is these traffic studies live and they morph and they iterate all the way until we get to final plat approval.

At final plat approval, we need to have a final approved traffic study which delineates what our impact contributions are.

That's when the contract gets signed with the developer and the city.

All along the way, we can indicate what we think is gonna happen.

And and most consultants can tell you before they even start the traffic study what impacts we're gonna have, what intersections are gonna be impacted and how that goes.

What we've tried to propose to staff is to do a memo indicating that very thing without a completed traffic study based on those submitted by other consultants and ourselves.

That was met with a no.

Um the checklist says you have to have a traffic study, so we need a traffic study at completeness and sufficiency.

What it does is it's just slows the process down, it drags development out, it extends the timeline, and it's a nonsensical way to approach development because it does not need to be completed at that point in time.

It's gonna continue to morph, it's gonna continue to change all through the process.

So we've tried to propose an alternative.

I didn't come to this with a problem without a solution to fight to fight.

We proposed alternatives.

Those alternatives were not acceptable according to the staff.

So I'm gonna go back to what our regulations actually say, not what our checklist says, but what the regulations that the council approved say, which is the traffic study is due at the time of preliminary platal.

So we can talk about that at work session.

I just want clarification from the council that our regulations are actually what our regulations are, and that the checklist doesn't override what the actual approved regulations are.

That's the other part of the conversation.

Council Rasplider, just for uh clarity purposes, would you agree that uh we should split these two things?

Um and uh if we could try to deal with these whatever you think the simplest one, which I suspect is the timing issue.

Can we do deal with that one first?

Yes.

Okay.

And would you like to make a motion or at some point we're gonna ask staff what do they think of this?

Do you want to hear from staff, or did you want to make a motion first?

I'll make the motion and then we can start the discussion.

Okay, go ahead.

So I moved to dedicate work session time to discuss clarification within the subdivision regs that a traffic impact study is due at the time of preliminary plat submittal, not at the time of completeness and sufficiency review by planning and to discuss implementation of a traffic impact fee system to replace the TIS requirements in our subdivision regs.

Okay, so you're and staff can split those into two work sessions as they want.

Okay, but the motion is both of them.

So we're talking about both.

Okay.

Okay, so council member asked uh Kennedy and the kid, you want to make the second.

Okay, and um uh is it okay if we ask uh staff to comment?

All right, I think that's everybody's gonna want to hear from Wyatt and Anna, if you want to.

Um, just remember there's two issues here, and just be clear for us.

It's up up to you, but but uh uh I guess I'd still like to hear from staff if they think uh we shouldn't approve this.

I mean, this is the initiative, so it's a motion, it requires discussion.

That's the nature of these this piece.

So, Wyatt, um free to comment, recognizing that if this passes, you'll have plenty of opportunity to get into the details at a work session.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor and Council.

And yeah, we I mean, I think the expectation public works isn't here.

I think we were expecting most of the discussion actually at the if you decided to advance this to have a discussion at a work session.

So we're probably somewhat limited because of that.

I can't speak to the impact fee.

I've I'm not even gonna speak to the impact one at all.

Um, the other one is is the one that planning is more tied into.

But yeah, I guess whatever you want me to do, uh, we were expecting more of a discussion.

Okay, well, the ultimate question here is do you think this is such a bad idea we should not approve it?

Then that matters.

If you think it's okay to uh bring it on to work session, then that sort of answers our question for tonight.

Well, I guess uh so again, just on the on the issue with the the traffic impact study submittal and completeness and sufficiency review.

I guess the issue we have there is that if there's a if there's a uh the council believes that there's an issue in the regulations about what it specifies of when that is supposed to be submitted, then we can certainly look at changing the regs to clarify that further.

I my reading in this in the code is that it talks about very specifically in 23 through 02B that you submit that TIS as part of your completeness and sufficiency review at that point.

So that's why we got to that issue.

That's where we're at.

Um, but if there's a decision to further clarify that throughout the code, yeah, we can certainly have that discussion.

But so that's that's the part on completeness and sufficiency.

And I guess the only other thing I'll say about completeness and sufficiency in general is, and I've had conversations with some of the consultants on this as well.

That that whole the whole purpose of that, and that's in state law for subdivision submittal is to try to make sure that before the clock starts on a subdivision application that all the materials are complete and sufficient to start that review because when the app the pre preliminary plat is submitted, the clock starts.

And then everybody's on the hook to make sure we're following that.

And so that's why you submit there's a whole bunch of things on that that's referenced in that section that have to be submitted.

And it's for that very purpose to ensure that before it shows up at the at the application that we're we know what we've got, and everybody, you know, someone didn't submit their plat on a napkin, and oh, that's not sufficient or complete.

So that's the kind of thing that we're dealing with.

We can talk about that more at the work session, but that's that's where where I guess I'm at is just trying to clarify how you want to proceed with the way it's specific.

Okay.

All right, very good.

Thank you.

Unless somebody had questions for them.

Uh further discussion or questions, Council Brasshaw.

Sorry, what I just have a quick question for you, which is um, how much can you give me a ballpark of how much time it's gonna take you or your staff to prepare for a work session on this?

I mean, I can't imagine it's like 40 hours, but um, I mean, I yeah, I guess it's gonna take several of the planning staff with me, obviously, and the plan some staff just to go through the code and try to bring you information regarding what I'm just saying in terms of where it already says what's required.

And then if there's other references, as council member Aspenligator pointed out, do we want to make, you know, add something to those sections or what do we want to do to be clear?

That's and that's totally again, if if there's that may be a short-term thing, if there's this bigger conversation on impact fees, which is gonna take you know a year or whatever, then that's fine.

Like we can deal with the short term and the long term.

But yeah, it's gonna take our staff just some time to go through and be able to bring you in the code.

Here's how it's referenced.

And also looking back, we've we've started, we've looked back at applications in the last two years and like what's been submitted.

So we can bring you that information.

So yeah, there's some work to be done there.

Absolutely.

Okay, I just I'm trying to get a sense of it.

I also have a question for Chris when we're ready.

Um, Chris, I I flagged this for you during the break.

Um, can you please tell us how many outstanding council initiatives we have currently?

I we need I think we need to be talking about this every time one of these comes up.

We're not we're we have about a half a dozen initiatives.

And I would remind you of you have goals and objectives, keep both those things in mind.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Further discussion on the motion.

Could I make a comment?

Of course.

Okay.

Um I'll say I, you know, I'm trying really hard to support these initiatives on their merits, the ones that I think are merit-worthy, even though I do feel like, again, we are throwing things at staff out of the blue.

It feels like I understand Councilmember Asmular's been having these conversations for two years.

There's a lot I obviously need to learn about this process to understand even how I would vote on it.

So I I think it makes sense to move forward for a work session.

I will support it, but I just am gonna continue to hammer that I do not think this is the most efficient way for us to support the city's goals and priorities.

And I feel like it is changing direction of staff constantly, and I don't like that.

But on its merits, I think it's a worthy discussion.

Very good.

Further further discussion, Council McKendy.

I'm gonna make one comment on um council initiatives.

Um we were elected to look at different issues with the city.

And the only process that we have is initiatives and the initiative process to bring up go to the um uh work session, talk about it and try to bring something back to actually um make better changes in the city.

And if people stop, and the first thing that always comes out, Chris, is how much staff time is it and we can't address this.

Um that's not what the people put us here for.

They want us to look at the issues, they want us to talk about the issues, and they want us to make some changes.

And so really looking at all of these issues and limiting the initiative process.

I have a real tough time with that.

So where I'm at is yes, if council member wants to bring an initiative forward, we should be doing that.

If it's going to take five hours or 50 hours or whatever of staff time, then it's up to the city administrator to figure out how that's gonna do.

But it's the council needs to address these issues that they're having.

And they're not frivolous issues.

It's things that we hear out in the community, and I'm out in the community all the time.

So I am going to fight against anyone that tries to limit the initiative process.

We're good.

Further discussion on the motion.

Um Cast Bernice.

Yeah, I'll support this motion.

I think this is a long time overdue.

So thank you for bringing bringing this forward.

Uh you're right.

We hear so much about traffic, and it's like, I'm sorry, but you can't traffic is not one of our decision making processes.

It's it's taken care of by the system, but it's not.

And so we have got this this change has got to come out with a solution that is going to solve that problem where traffic is taken care of after development.

So I look forward to the work session and the time involved, not just in the timing.

I think again, one of the things you brought up about that.

I think the staff needs to know is let's find a way to make the timing work for the developers, you know, without in impeding what what's how it's gonna impact what needs to be done by the city protected community to make sure that it's it's uh it's not inhibiting developing the city.

So I hope we find a solution for that, as well as I like the idea of the EDUs that as we did the set with the stormwater, and it worked out really well so far.

So let's see how that works with us.

Very good.

Any further discussion before we proceed to a vote.

Uh I'm just gonna comment.

I I support uh the concept actually.

Um I didn't I I started thinking about it a little bit more.

And um part of the problem that what we have now is it it's a legal issue.

We're now governed when we ask a developer to contribute toward uh mitigating the impacts they're gonna create on the street in front of them.

Uh the legal standard is uh a case called uh Dolan versus City of Tigard, Oregon.

And what the Supreme Court says, yeah, you can do that as long as they're creating an impact.

But when you get money from them, it has to be what's called roughly proportionate.

You can't put 100% of the burden on them if they're only creating one percent of the problem.

Makes sense, right?

Well, the problem with that is that you get 1%, and then maybe a couple uh the next year you get another 1%.

Now wow, you're at 2% of 100% problem, and you never get enough money to really go out and solve the problem.

It's a contribution.

You're still gonna need some sort of supplementary source of funding um in order to comply with that legal standard.

Now, the developers may regret council member Aspen Leiter uh opening his mouth on this because the alternative is a standard that's called the the uh Penn Central standard, which says, well, okay, uh not the Dolan case, which is uh an exaction from a single developer under Penn Central, if you it's a much so uh in the the what I was described before that Dolan standard, often the developer wins because it's in a lawsuit because it's hard to, you know, they're they're really limited there.

Um, but under a Penn Central case where you have a standard that applies for the entire community, all developers, i.e.

like an impact fee, the standard is much easier, much more protective for the city as long as you don't deprive the developer of all the useful value of their property, as long as it's not completely arbitrary, you can do pretty much anything to the developer.

And um, and almost certainly the city is gonna win in a law uh lawsuit on that, but allows you to capture more of those dollars and not be left with this one, two, three percent problem.

And so I support it because um I I think that's a way to uh raise more money in a more predictable fashion.

I'm not sure the developers are gonna like it at the end of the day, but I think it does make more sense.

So we'll we can get into those uh uh details at a at a later uh at a later time.

So um are we proceed?

Are we ready to vote?

Okay.

So uh if the motion is clear, if in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

If opposed, say nay motion passes unanimously.

Um more thing for staff to do.

All right, very good.

Um I think uh that means we are adjourned.

Thanks, everybody.