But I had an update.

Okay.

I think I I think I'm okay.

Bill's in.

Mike's in.

Does it show up?

Yeah.

Oh.

I'm saying everyone's declined.

We have a path forward to either change it and then exit.

Is that why or do we need to press ahead somehow because this is beyond are you able to do anything in Zoom?

Are you doing anything?

I don't see myself here.

If I raise my hand, I don't know where it's raising.

Oh, it doesn't.

I'm I'm watching, but I'm not participating.

Audio.

Go ahead and minimize it.

I just want to see what's weird.

Yeah.

Did I do something?

I don't think you did.

Signing in wrong.

Oh see, because you're you're checked green.

I mean you're signed in, but here.

Do that again.

Try that code again.

Uh I I don't usually have this page.

This is a different page.

Uh maybe close and reopening.

Just leave and come back.

Okay.

Uh and then just open Zoom again.

And join a meeting, correct?

And then uh don't connect to audio.

No, leave that unchecked.

Yep.

Yeah.

Because that we want to connect.

That's just that's yeah.

Oh, you guys leave that on.

Okay.

Oh, here, hold up.

Do that again.

Hold up.

Okay.

And this and it again was letting me in it, I thought.

Just isn't showing what's up.

My camera.

Yeah.

So I'm gonna tell them the camera on.

Oh, could be.

I don't remember seeing that.

Uh waiting for the host to start the webinar.

Okay, Mayor and Council.

We're gonna give it one more time as a restart.

If that doesn't work, we're just gonna go without Zoom tonight.

So sorry for the complications.

So that's there anything they need to do on the restart.

Well, that's um with the three dots.

Close the whole thing, or no.

There you go.

Recording in progress.

Usually we would be able to see everybody because it would be coming uh showing the camera.

Now it's just whatever the big camera is, I guess up there.

Okay.

Well, at least we're all together.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um, I had it delivered to the library, so to be the library.

Yeah.

Um the bunch of books.

Uh I'm trying to think who the sponsor.

Uh turned off the video and the audio.

Yes, in that corner, toward the front in the corner.

Yes, exactly.

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, lots of books.

So, this is looking good, guys.

Looking good.

We do, I don't know.

Are things looking normal now?

Looks like maybe we figured out.

Good job.

We're we're uh I am now on as how are we doing?

Thumbs up, thumbs up.

Uh we've got a thumbs down.

There you go.

Now I think we're in good shape.

Everybody on this end in good shape.

All thumbs up, all thumbs up.

There you go.

I think that'll solve your problem.

All right.

Well, thank you, everybody.

We're all good.

Are we all good?

Chris, are we ready to get started?

I think we are.

It looks like we're back up and around.

Okay, I apologize, everybody.

Thank you for your patience uh through our technical difficulties.

Um technology is great until it's not.

Uh this is December 8th, 2025.

If you would join with me for the Pledge of Allegiance, and then I'll deliver our invocation.

Which stands underall.

Uh the invocation this evening is uh uh by me.

Um, and this is a little longer, so if you want to sit down at any point, please feel free to do that.

Um over the last eight years, I've offered almost uh 30 invocations as part of this esteemed body, but um this is my last invocation that I'll offer as mayor.

Before I do give our invocation tonight, I I hope that you'll indulge me for just a little bit while I provide a little background information on this tradition of having invocations at the beginning of our city council meetings.

As you might or uh might not know, many seat cities and governmental bodies have abandoned the practice of having a prayer or invocation at the beginning of each meeting.

Billings has not followed that path, and I believe that our invocations are still very valuable tradition for many reasons.

For example, they remind us that our city has a long history that goes back a hundred and forty-three years, and that the people seated here tonight are not the only ones that have sat in these seats.

Hundreds came before us and hundreds more will come after us by focusing at the very beginning of our meeting on religious tenants, fundamental principles, or just interesting thoughts.

We've are reminded that in the midst of our day-to-day work on this council that we should never lose sight of the people that we serve and the enduring universal principles that we all share and bind our community together.

And again, feel free to sit down any time.

These principles are bigger than any one of us, and they should keep us humble.

Uh, but as I said, many communities have abandoned this tradition because they believe that invocations in a government setting can become instruments of division and fodder for lawyers who want to challenge their constitutionality on grounds that they are a form of religious indoctrination.

Those concerns can be well founded, which is why our city has always tried to make it clear that these invocations are offered purely by the individual council members themselves, if they choose to offer an invocation at all.

And they may not, and not on behalf of the city itself.

Some invocations are overtly religious.

Many are not.

The content is likely to be as varied as the 11 people who sit up here each week.

The audience is free to stand, sit, bow their head, not bow their head or participate or not participate in any way that they would like.

This is important because our city is made up of 125,000 people of all different faiths and fundamental belief systems.

No government should dictate how the governed believe, either explicitly or by veiled means, including long held traditions that reinforce only one religious viewpoint.

As for myself, over the last eight years, I have tried to follow the principle that a mayor should not try, or I'm sorry, that a mayor should try to represent as broad of a spectrum of his or her constituents as possible.

Thus, over these eight years, I've offered almost 30 different invocations.

And typically they have not reflected a particular sectarian viewpoint.

I also read the first Hindu invocation in recognition and honor of the Hindu members of our community whose presence would otherwise be overlooked because none of us are Hindu.

But tonight is my last opportunity to offer an invocation.

And so I would like to do so not as the mayor, but as one member of this community who has tried to discern the will of Jesus Christ while trying to serve this uh serve his fellow community members over the last eight years.

You're welcome to join with me now in my invocation or not.

Dear Father, son, and Holy Spirit, I thank you for giving me this honor over all these years.

I pray that if I have brought dishonor on the cause to the name of Christ in any way that you would rectify those errors and make straight our path going forward.

I thank you for sustaining me, my family, friends, church, and most of all our community over the last eight years.

And I pray that you would hold our community in your hands and protect us from forces beyond our control and especially from our own selfish nature.

Watch your over watch over those city workers who watch over us every day and bless these city council members and their families who give so much of their time, emotional energy, and financial treasure to serve their constituents.

Thank you again, Lord, for this honor and your faithfulness over these eight years.

In the name of your lay of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, I pray these things.

Amen.

Thank you all.

And with that, Tony, you are on for the wherever you are.

Please call the roll.

Councilmember Shaw.

President.

Owen.

Rogers here.

Kennedy.

Aspener.

Tidswell.

Boyette.

Rapsis.

Mayor Cole.

Here.

We have the minutes from the 24th.

Those are still pending.

We'll get to those at our next meeting in one week from now.

Do we have any council courtesies this evening?

Any council courtesies?

Seeing none.

Proclamations, we don't have any.

We have one next week.

Council reports.

Any uh reports from organizations that you serve on behalf of the council.

Councilmember Shaw.

I apologize.

I should have added this during courtesies, but um for everybody here, there's an open house this Thursday at City Hall.

So if you want to come see the rest of the floors, please come back between four to six.

There'll be some food and some swag.

Very good.

Thank you.

And uh we'll ask the city administrator to expand on that in just a minute.

Um speaking of which, if there aren't any other council courtesies, Chris, uh, it's all yours.

Yeah, so uh thank you, mayor, get a few things.

First of all, thank you for your patience uh and indulging us with a little different setup.

This room is being used for a couple of different reasons.

Last week and this week, we're hosting leadership billings.

We've hosted some other meetings, and rather than having our facility staff take down, tear down, move in and out.

I've said it'll be okay.

We can choose to sit at a table or chairs here.

So thanks for helping us with that.

Um, as was mentioned, I'll reiterate yes, this Thursday, December the 11th from 4 to 6 p.m.

Please, any and all in our community come and see this uh fantastic facility of which you've invested in.

Um primarily, uh, we're certainly going to give tours for people to see.

The mayor and I are going to say a few words to get things kicked off at four.

Um, but some things I really want to focus on and remind folks that as time uh changes is just how important it was some seven years ago when we looked at the need to really lean into uh improving our public safety uh uh systems, that we literally didn't have any space to put additional resources.

So we have added some 70 personnel across the system uh thanks to our citizens, those police officers, those prosecutors, those victim witnessed victim witness advocates, that additional judge would not have had a place to go in the old city hall.

So they will see that all of second floor and fourth floor are essentially, I guess a minor exception on second floor dedicated to the criminal justice system.

They'll also see up here on the fifth floor that all things related to development, whether you've got just an idea for your land to develop it all the way through to the occupancy permit.

All those services are provided up here on the fifth floor.

So, whereas in the past you needed to go to several different buildings throughout the city.

That is all happening up here for your convenience as a citizen.

And frankly, for us who are working in that space, we can work together and solve problems now, shoulder to shoulder instead of uh scheduling meetings and things of that nature.

So there'll be more that we will talk about, but those will be a couple of highlights, and please come back uh four to six this Thursday and see this space that's working out so well.

And my last comment will be we did, right?

We did sell the old city hall.

We sold a couple of vacant lots, and we sold the retail one retail space at park one, so that all that property now is back on the tax roll, back in private hands, and can be uh put to good use for the community.

So that's Thursday.

Um, also a reminder that a week from tonight, as has been something we've done for many, many years in the month of December.

We got two back-to-back regular meetings tonight and next Monday, and then we will be off for the remainder of the year.

So next Monday night, same time, same place.

We'll be having a regular meeting here on the 15th, um, not a work session.

And then lastly, there was no ex parte communication to share.

And that's all that I have, Mayor and Council.

Very good.

Thank you, Chris.

Um we'll now move on then to our opportunity for public comment.

Uh, this is on actually all items one, two, and three tonight, because there will not be a public hearing later on any of those items.

So uh item one is our consent agenda and all the subparts.

Uh, item two is our technology uh plan and um, or I'm sorry, the uh uh TIFF financing uh uh project for Frontier Law Firm, and then three is our capital improvement plan, the CIP.

So uh we'll open it up for public comment.

Our uh pattern here is to ask people to keep their comments to three minutes.

Tell us your name and address if you're comfortable doing uh the latter, and uh help yourself.

Uh uh we ask that you speak uh loudly into the microphone so that everybody uh watching can pick it up and people in the back as well.

So uh welcome.

Hi.

Can you hear me?

Am I on?

Yes.

Okay, I'll speak up.

Um, I'm Myrna Les Tusky with Bear Tooth R C and D.

And here with me are my colleagues, Nan Knight, Finance Director and Brownfields coordinator, and Brad Ike, our food and ag director.

Uh, Mayor Cole, council members, thank you for our continued partnership.

Fairtooth RCND has served Yellowstone County since 1969, connecting communities and businesses with the resource they needed to grow.

In 2025, we helped secure over $846,000 in funding for billings projects, supported 37 local businesses and nonprofits, and assisted in creating or retaining nearly 100 jobs.

I want to just quickly mention a few of the programs that we offered that help make billings stronger.

Our revolving loan fund provides flexible financing when traditional lending isn't available.

We have nine active loans and billings and 16 total across Yellowstone County.

Beartooth loan investment in billings totals over 759,000, leveraging more than $5 million in business investment and 86 jobs created and retained.

Across Yellowstone County, Bear Tooth Loan Investment stands at 1.3 million, leveraging over 6.8 million in total investment.

Another program is the Food and Ag Development Center.

It strengthens billings food supply chain with funding and technical expertise.

This year we provided 262 hours of targeted technical assistance to 23 food and ag clients within Billings City limits.

Our support focused on securing funding and capacity building training, including three HASIP food safety trainings, two lean 101 trainings, and one good manufacturing practices training.

We also have a brownfields program that manages 1.46 million dollars to clean up and redevelop neglected properties.

We are coming out with a site selector tool, and you did have something, a little handout on that in your packets that you can take a look at to better market billings assets to attract new investment.

And our federally recognized SEDS document, our comprehensive economic development strategy ensures that billings priorities align with federal funding opportunities.

When we support businesses across our five county region, it cream it creates demand for services in billings.

That ripple effect strengthens the city's economy and builds resilience.

Your annual MOU contribution unlocks 70,000 in federal funds and guarantees billings a seat at the table.

Fairtooth RCND is more than a funding partner.

We're your strategic ally in building prosperity.

And our staff is here for the entire evening.

So if you have questions later or you'd like to speak with us after the meeting, we'd we'd love that.

Thank you for your time.

Very good.

Thank you, Myrna.

Um, other public comment.

Please come forward.

My name is Mark Severe.

I'm speaking in support of the uh keeping the uh yellow jacket trail and the stagecoach trail and the development of trails in the CIP.

Um 46 years of running dovetail designs, I have discovered that the most expensive thing you can buy is a cheap tool.

When you pay for it and you pay the price, it pays off incrementally for many, many years.

The trail that we have currently going to the top of the of the airport hill is an accident waiting to happen.

I've walked it many times.

I've ridden my bike on it many times, and it's a very dangerous trail.

Um we need a walking path developed from the valley to the top of the hill.

Stagecoach Trail is in development now.

We need to keep going with that.

Um it will be noticed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mayor Cole and City Council members, my name is Jim Nichols, and I reside at 239 Beverly Hill Boulevard.

I am in favor of keeping the staff recommended trails included as stated in the CIP for the following reasons.

Number one, we are competing with other cities for a qualified workforce in education, in enforcement, in health, just to name a few.

Such as the yellow jacket trail from the CIP would virtually eliminate being awarded any future grant funding.

And by the way, the Yellow Jacket Trail has a completed privately funded feasibility study, which I'm sure you're aware.

Keeping trails in the CIP reaffirms that the Billings City Council is committed to quality of life amenities that matter to today's workforce and families living in Billings, both now and in the future.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any further comments, Stephen.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Steve Shondra.

I live at 1109 North 31st Street.

I provided public comment a few weeks back when the city council first began considering the CIP.

And I'm uh back before you tonight to express my appreciation for your vote to retain the Yellow Jacket Trail as part of the five-year CIP, recognizing that this project is currently unfunded and is placed at the very end of the five-year CIP.

Retaining this project in the CIP accomplishes three important things.

First, it acknowledges that a safe, accessible, shared use path connecting downtown to the airport and the rims is desirable, and it recognizes that the current trail is inadequate and not safe for families with children, cyclists, people with mobility issues.

Number two, it acknowledges that the broad there's broad community support from individuals and organizations.

As indicated by the many letters of support that the City Council has received, including support from Montana State University Billings, Intermountain Health St.

Vincent Regional Hospital, Rocky Mountain College, the East Billings Urban Renewal District, and the Pioneer Park Task Force, to name just a few.

Number three, it acknowledges that individuals and organizations in the community have stepped forward and funded an initial feasibility study utilizing private dollars, and that the council greatly appreciates and encourages such private public partnerships.

Thanks for your thoughtful consideration this evening.

Thank you very much.

Good evening, Mayor and Council, Christy Drake, 2950 Weld in place.

There is something fundamental to responsible governance, and that is possibility.

Billing CIP allows our community to grow wisely and intentionally.

It reflects input from departments, boards, and most importantly, the public.

The planning department's chapter of the CIP works exactly this way.

It does not obligate funding.

It identifies potential funding sources, competitive grants, viable pathways for making projects possible, and it's not guaranteed, it's not locked in, it's not promised, and it's not on a whim.

Our city's planning department is comprised of professionals who are experts in their fields, just like each of you in your own fields.

Projects in the planning departments chapter of the CIP, such as the Yellow Jacket Trail, are not obligated projects.

They remain possible only if they stay right where they are in the CIP.

If we take the Heights downtown connection as an example, we know that people already want to travel by foot or bike there.

The informal trail on the south side of the guard rail on North 27th Street is consistently used by university students, hospital staff, exercisers, and even travelers hauling their luggage through the gravel, and they have no safe alternative.

A study conducted by the planning department in 2025 documented 151 people using this dangerous alignment, proof that residents are actively trying to move between the heights and the downtown without a vehicle.

They deserve a safe and dignified way to do it.

The planning CIP staff gives staff room to explore funding options to apply for grants, to be innovative and to respond when opportunities appear.

Removing future trail projects from the current CIP does not just move them to an out year, it removes them from the realm of possible.

And I can't imagine anyone on this council wanting to be remembered as the body that voted to limit billings' own future.

The proposal to move the trails out to some far-off year is not just a neutral adjustment.

It reduces the city's ability to pursue funding and sends a message that the city is not listening to its residents.

You've all heard again and again that your constituents want more trails and safer routes.

The CIP is working exactly as it should.

It identifies potential funding, not commitments.

Keeping up a project in the plan does not cost money.

It simply keeps the door open, opens, removing it, slams it shut.

And I'm out of time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Brandon Schmidt, cemetery supervisor for the city.

About a month on the consent agenda tonight is uh accepting a donation for Partners for Parks to help fund the um uh the Patriot Run that we had earlier or last month.

Um so last yeah, so we had our third annual patriot run um in partnership with Partners for Parks.

Um that fund helps fund helps people um inter their loved ones in the veteran section at the cemetery.

Um as well as pay for um ongoing maintenance in the veteran section, so the planting flowers in along central there and things like that.

Um we had 120 participants, uh many of whom donated beyond the race entry fee.

So we're very appreciative of that.

I just wanted to take a minute to uh recognize some of our more um the the folks who donated a little more.

Uh Shields uh was a great partner, Philip66.

Um our sponsors um who've been with us all three years, uh veteran owned gym alternative athletics, uh Billings Monument, Meadow Green Power Equipment, and Mayor Bill Cole and his wife Ann.

Um so like I said, I just want to take a minute to to thank those and recognize them as well as if you weren't able to make the race.

Um if you'd like a nice t-shirt, we got them in all sizes, selling them for $20 at the cemetery.

Just give me a call.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brandon.

We know that's an important uh project for you as a 28-year Navy veteran.

Mr.

Mayor, Council members, my name is Paul Clark.

I live on the South Side, the South Side Triangle.

I would like to thank all of you for you know putting in the year that I've been watching you up front.

Uh this last conversation did strike a nerve with me as a young boy.

I would be on my bicycle and I would try to climb 27th Street, which highway three, I believe it is, with your bike and four other buddies on that busy road.

We're talking 40 years ago.

It still looks the same.

We haven't done anything to it.

Help us help these people.

The Yellowstone stagecoach, yellow jacket, and a few others that I can't remember.

They're getting together.

They're trying to get something wider.

If you want to make it a non-motorized uh trail, we're talking horses with a trolley.

Maybe they can come from the airport down to town, make their way to South Park, stop at our future swimming pool, because I know I'll be in there.

You guys did a lot of hard work for that.

And I want to thank you for that.

That was tough.

I I watched that for years, even before it got to the vote.

So with that in mind, a nine million dollar pool looks nice.

What is a 20 million dollar pool look nice with the North Trolley coming down into the South Park area?

You know, kids get on, kids off, some sightseers.

It's a plus.

What there's what they're trying to get to us is a plus.

But we've got to build that road, that connection for the joggers, the kids that go to school that run up and down.

I mean, heck, let's put a mule on it, you know, with the trolley.

Anyway, that's all I got.

Love, balance, merry Christmas.

God bless.

Thank you.

Uh further public comment.

Is there any other public comment?

No one's standing up.

No one is coming forward, so we'll close the public comment period.

Uh move on then to item number one, our consent agenda.

Uh first, uh, are there separations?

Councilmember Aspen Liner.

Yeah, uh, Mr.

Mayor, I'd like to separate agenda item one and one oh one.

Um my firm represents the uh the applicant in N and we are in the payables for 01.

101.

Very good.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Ripsis, Councilmember Kennedy.

Thank you, Mayor.

I need to recuse myself from 102.

One of my uh close clients is uh payee this week.

Very good.

Uh Castro McKennedy.

Mayor, I would like to um segregate um one A one 21 through 27, which is the police uh advisory commission.

And I would also like to segregate um one E.

Uh one E is the member of Greenworth Beartooth uh R C and D.

Um Gene, I'll I'll defer to you.

Uh although the 49 uh uh positions are numbered separately.

I guess my inclination is we kind of need to pull that out as a package and then deal with them separately.

I've never I'm not familiar with separating out just one group.

And then Mr.

Kennedy could make his motion just as to those groups or that group of people or uh Mayor, thank you for the question.

I I guess I wouldn't care.

Maybe it just makes sense to Yeah, I would disagree with that.

I think each appointment is a separate appointment.

Okay, very good.

So um uh items or uh uh appointments number 21 through 27, all of which deal with the citizen police advisory board.

Okay.

Um other separations.

Oh, and yeah, and item one e the uh bare tooth R C and D, um MOU.

Uh Councilmember uh Nice.

I'd like to make a motion to are there any other separations?

Seeing none, go ahead.

Like to make a motion to approve the items of the consent consent agenda is submitted with the exception of the items move it for separations was one N, uh 101, 102, 1A1, uh one, I'm sorry, one A127 through 27 and 1E.

21 through 27, yes.

Okay, hopefully we got all those.

Council member uh Rogers has the second.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Councilmember Nees.

Gina, I have a question for you.

Um one um all right, now I got my papers all mixed up as I was doing this, but the um here we go.

One C is the cooperative purchase agreement with Axion.

We had that presentation last week, and I'd asked some questions about it.

Council mees, could you just uh uh direct your voice into that microphone a little bit closer?

Is that any better?

That's much better.

Thank you.

Okay, Gina, I had uh we had the um one it's one uh C the cooperative purchase agreement with Axion Enterprise.

We had a presentation, I think a week or so ago.

The um it indicates that the legal review was done on this agreement.

Have you was that you in your department?

Was that you?

Do you which I mean you're aware of the illegal legal review on this?

That's correct.

One of the deputy city attorneys agreement.

So one of the things that we're doing here is we're approving a contract that we know we don't have the funding for.

We have funding for year one and two, and we for funding in year three through five in some fashion, whether it's grants or some other things.

Um I had asked a question during the uh the work session, whether or not if we don't have funding, would there be any kind of penalty uh on that?

So can you confirm that there when you when they review this, there is no penalty um on this agreement if it's if for some for some reason we don't have the fund to continue it on?

Or if there is a penalty, what that penalty would be.

Um council member Nees, I'm actually going to defer to um Captain Captain Woolley.

He's actually more familiar with the contract than I am.

And as I said, I didn't review this myself.

One of the deputies did, so I'm gonna ask um Captain Woolley to address that issue.

Okay, and then before he comes, can you just comment on the fact that we're approving a document uh binding the city for uh the three million plus for a term that we know we don't have funds secured yet?

Is that can this council legally do that?

Sure.

Uh mayor, council, council member niece.

What I would say is when you say there's not funding, we would we would need to utilize other funding through our police department.

So it's not as if the city doesn't have the funds to cover ultimately the contract if if there were to change, but um I think it's literally that the city doesn't have any funding to complete the contract.

Curious what council member or not council member, but Captain Woolley can share relative to the guarantee part of the contract.

Yeah, okay.

I thank you, uh Chris.

I was asking the attorney for their legal opinion.

Is it legal for the city to approve contracts where we don't have secured funding yet?

Or are you saying that we would just it's it's secure because we have general funds, we would just if we had to, we would just reduce the police force to cover the contract.

Other cuts wouldn't I I'm assuming, unless what we hear from Captain Woolley is that some other cut or reduction would need to be made in the budget that we would use that or reserves that we would need to come to the council at that time for that fiscal year and and uh come to an agreement as to how we would fund it.

Okay.

Council Member Neese, why don't we invite Captain Woolley forward to uh uh tell us more about um uh funding sources and also perhaps the terms of the contract.

Captain Welcome.

Yeah, I'm mainly concerned about the termination if we have to terminate because there's not city funds um or we would have what we'd have to do if there isn't city funds available to pay this contract.

What would the police uh force have to do?

So we would either need to find those funds within the current budget from other whether they're other equipment, um, other costs, um, or the when you look into the piggyback portion of the contract, um, there is a clause in there, uh section three that acts on just basically says if you don't have money for this contract, then we can pare it down.

Uh so remember the contract is for soft software body cams.

So we could realistically, if we didn't have full amounts of money, which we we should have at least 40, 50 percent going into those out years, um, that we could pare it down to just body cams, not in cars, and we would give equipment back and stop the subscription.

So we have some of them.

There's any penalty to pair it down.

Nope.

Okay, great.

I just want to make sure we get on the record that that is the case because I'm and the my concern is I I wouldn't do that personally.

I would not enter a contract unless I knew I had funds.

And so if we're going to do that, that then uh I'm okay with that.

And I think this is a great uh opportunity for the police department.

I I want to approve this, but I'm concerned about having to go into a contract without the ability to either pare it down um without penalty or we didn't have funds.

So thank you for answering that.

Understood.

Thank you.

Very good.

This is a discussion on the non-separated items.

Councilmember Boyette.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um we always need to recognize people who give us things.

So uh we received a domestic viol violence grant to the police department.

First Interstate Bank has given a grant to the fire department.

Uh donations to the public library from Montana Arts for Senior Art, uh Brooklyn Public Library and Friends of the Library.

And the parks receive some money from parks, the partners for parks.

So I want to congratulate people who give us money.

Great for them.

Keep it up.

I would think.

Uh further discussion on the non-separated items.

I'll I'll just uh comment uh counsel on item one K annexation agreement with uh uh the Kramer family.

Um the the this um project is within the benefited area of Cottonwood Park.

And so um the the uh annexation agreement does not address any uh negotiations uh about possible contribution for Cottonwood Park, which I uh continue to believe is um inconsistent with the mandates of the Conwood Park Development Agreement.

So I will uh still vote in favor of the non-separate agreements.

I will not separate that just because we've had the discussion before, and I don't think I would prevail on that, but I just wanted for the record, um, continues just to be consistent.

Further discussion on the non-separated items.

Council member knees.

Mayor, I I um I have a question about that item because I uh I think you've brought this up multiple multiple times.

And it's I think all you're looking for is they talked to the the person who's coming in and they said no.

And not so much that they um have agreed to anything, you're not requiring someone to donate, but you're just saying have you negotiated with them, have you brought this up and have they done it?

Is that what you're kind of looking for?

Uh that on that part of the agreement, yes, because that's a requirement of the agreement.

The agreement goes beyond that, I think, and goodwill efforts to uh fund the park development more generally.

So I wouldn't say that's the only requirement of that 20 plus age agreement, but on that particular element, yes.

Okay, and so thank you.

Chris, do you know why?

Because this has come up multiple times uh in the and the mayor's recused himself.

And it if that's in the agreement, I sorry, mayor, I have not read the agreement yet on that.

But if that's the case, you know why um that's not being done as re in that agreement.

So I can tell you we did sit down, not with this one, I think the prior one that was in front of you, sat down and met with uh representatives of the property and the development side and the conversation was uh pretty direct relative to they would be open to a discussion if the city came up with some kind of a system that it would do, but literally negotiating piece one by one.

I it really was not a it was good to hear from them, but that was kind of that's where the discussion opened and ended.

Yeah, I I think I understand that you talked to it, that's the great, but this one again is it's not in the document saying they actually discuss it and they said no, or they said something similar to the other one, so that we can get an idea that this is actually being discussed with these the developers who are coming into the city so that we know exactly what they are telling us, so maybe we can develop a system.

Is that something that you can ask your staff to maybe do when we see these annexations in that area that they address that document that the mayor's talking about?

Yes, thank you.

Very good.

Any other discussion on the uh motion to approve the non-separated items?

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

If opposed, say nay.

Motion passes unanimously.

First separated item is item one a uh one, uh appointments number 21 through 27 relating to the citizen police advisory board.

Council Mr K, that was your uh uh separation, so I'll give it over to you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um we received a letter from the chairwoman of the Citizens Police Advisory Board about putting people that have been on the Citizens Police Advisory Board back on.

I feel that uh at this time I would like to pull all of these names off.

Um have it uh come back for a discussion if we're going to keep on putting the same people back on that commission.

I I think there's enough people that are taking the classes and the uh um that we should start circulating new people on that police advisory commission.

So I would make a motion that we remove items 21 through 27 and put them on at our second um um work session in January and discuss um do we want new people on, or do you want to keep on appointing the same people?

And all I'm asking for is to put it on our work session, our second one in January.

That's my motion.

Okay, very good.

Um so just the motion to uh delay until uh work session discussion.

Councilmember Aspen Leiter makes the second uh further discussion.

Uh you've already addressed your motion, I believe, but Councilmember Aspen Liter, you're second.

Um discussion now on the motion.

We'll start down here.

Councilmember Shaw, Council Member Gillick.

Uh yeah, I just have a question.

Uh we haven't had this commission for very long.

So it have these people been on for one term, four years.

Is that the limit of how long some have been on?

Most of our boards can do two terms up to eight years.

Yeah, this this uh of course uh expired the end of this year, and so we re-established it.

Yes, that's um so this is the a new board, and um uh most of these were reappointments of people who were on the previous uh board.

Um I believe uh uh Denise, Jordan Weber, Joe Stout, Gary Boiter are all coming over from the previous version of the board.

And um uh Michael Foos and uh Derek Grimell would be new people.

And then of course there is one application uh empty that we didn't get an application for, that'd be number uh 23.

Carrie's uh letter, my recollection was the importance of remember right reappointing the people who were already there, not making a pitch for new people.

I'm just trying to understand the distinction of this board versus uh yes, I yes, we had to re-up it.

But if they've only been doing a term of four years, I guess I'm just confused as to why it's an issue for this board, but not other boards for people to be on for two terms in a row.

Okay.

Uh it is if council, do you look if it's okay?

I can recommend Councilmember Ripsis and back to Councilman.

Just an extra extra bit of context of those four that are being reappointed.

Only two of them have been there for the full four years.

Joe Stout and Denise Boggio were original members.

Yeah, uh Carrie Boiter and uh Jordan Wember uh were newer members.

Uh Carrie came in about two, two and a half years ago or so, and Jordan is relatively new in the last year.

Um, so I don't I don't think there's a whole lot of you know, just people sitting on this board forever and ever that we really need to be concerned about, just um stagnation.

Okay, councilmember dealett.

Yes, I just noticed that there's one that's there's no applications.

I just what what is the process?

Is is the process here any different than any other ones?

And and is there not interest or is there uh I think council member Kennedy mentioned there's another training and more people who are coming on.

I guess we'd be interested in hearing a little bit more about that.

Yes, Councilmember Gullick.

There is a training twice a year.

You get about 30 to 36 people each uh in the in the fall in the spring.

There's a lot of folks, and they do have an advisory meeting uh once or twice a year.

And I would say it's time we uh we had other people know that these openings are coming up and that given that opportunity.

But I would like that full discussion at the uh at a work session so we can talk about it because this is only re-upped for another four years.

And um, so this would be a new board and looking at it.

It's not the same as every other board that's on here.

And if I can just answer the question on uh uh Kevin Ifflin also had his hand up there.

Answer your question is this this uh the same requirements as any other board?

Yes.

Um, but there is a resolution where we've identified certain uh skill sets uh for these board members, and it's always important to look at uh how applications uh match or don't line up with those uh skill sets.

And then um I think Councilmember Kenny's probably referring to the citizen police advisory uh or citizens police academy, which is a great opportunity.

Uh doesn't have anything to do with the citizen police advisory board technically, although it'd be it would be great training for somebody to participate in the police academy, but there's no requirement to doing that.

Some people have done that, I'm sure, and some people have not.

But uh Kevin, what did you want to say?

You said exactly what I was gonna say about the citizen uh police academy.

So very good.

Uh any further discussion before we proceed to a vote.

Any further discussion?

Okay.

Um the the motion is to uh uh delay appointment of item or uh positions 21 to 27 until the council has an opportunity to uh discuss the issue uh at a work session, presumably in January.

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

Aye.

Uh voting in favor, council members uh uh Kennedy Aspenleiter, Rogers, uh Tidswell, and uh Boyette and Owen.

Okay, if voting in opposition, oh, and also Nice, okay.

And if an opposition say nay, council members uh Shaw Gullick, uh Cole and uh Rupsus.

So the motion passes 724.

Um so staff, that'll be your job to find a uh a spot on a uh future work session.

Um then item one e uh council, that was also your separation.

Uh that memorandum of agreement with Bear Tooth uh resource conservation development area inc.

Yes, I pulled this out um to vote against it.

So someone wants to make a motion, that's fine.

I will be voting against it.

I do feel that with a tight budget, and especially next year, as we start looking at a real tight budget.

Um, we're gonna have to look at all of these programs.

So I will be voting no.

Very good.

Councilmember Rupsis.

Thank you, Mayor.

I would make a motion that we approve item one e memorandum of agreement with Bear 2's resource conservation and development area incorporated.

Very good.

Uh second by councilmember Boyette.

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

Uh Councilmember Boyette.

Um, I guess um, even though I said I go on this board um every month or every two months, I was amazed at what happens for Yellowstone County in Billings.

There's quite a bit of activity for our city and our county.

So, and and I think this is relatively uh cheap $13,000.

The county gave $37,000.

My thought is if be honest with you, if if we didn't prove it tonight, I would do it myself, pay for it.

So I'm gonna vote yes.

Very good.

Uh any further discussion for we proceed to a vote.

Okay, uh motion is for approval of item one e.

If in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

If opposed, say nay.

Nay.

Uh voting in opposition, council member uh Kennedy and Aspenlighter.

Um all other council members uh voting in favor.

Um motion uh passes nine to two.

Um then our next separated item is item one.

Councilmember Aspenleiter will be recusing himself uh on this.

Is there a motion?

Councilmember Neese.

Mayor I make a motion to uh approve item one and one uh oh one.

Uh is there a second council member or council member Kennedy?

Um motion is uh to approve item one and one um one correct correct um yeah is there any discussion then uh if in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

If opposed, nay.

Motion passes.

That leaves us uh one final item one oh two bills for November 10th.

Uh, Councilmember uh uh Rupsis was going to recuse himself on that.

Council uh council member uh Gielick.

Yeah, I move to uh approve item one oh two.

Um second and second by council member uh niece.

Uh any discussion.

Okay, uh if in favor of the motion approval one oh two, please say aye.

Aye aye.

If opposed, say nay.

Motion passes unanimously with exception of council Rupsis, who did not vote.

That concludes our item number one, our consent agenda so brings us to our regular agenda item number two.

Tony, would you read item number two, please?

Item number two, tax increment financing assistance from the downtown urban renewal TIFF district for frontier law firm for building facade improvements at 2923 Montana Avenue, up to 14,194.64 cents.

Downtown Billings Partnership Board recommends approval.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Memet Casey, Development Director of the Downtown Billings Partnership at 102 North Twenty Ninth Street.

And tonight I am here before you for a downtown Billings Tax Increment Financing Project presentation in regards to the property located on the corner of Montana Avenue and North 30th, or the address is 2923 Montana Avenue.

See, I was trying to maximize the screen here.

Let's see.

Okay.

So a quick refresher on the uh facade incentive program.

Um these are the three uh main points that are uh designed to be deliverables out of this project.

Uh one is obviously to attract uh new customers into the downtown area based on the um the efforts of the restoration of the facade buildings or the the build the facades of the buildings, two is to stimulate new new business and economic development, three is to positively promote um commercial space revitalization.

The picture that you have there is not of the project.

This is just a fun picture that uh is uh paired with the introduction or the explanation about the facade incentive.

This is the BAPGOC building, uh showcasing what it used to look like after the historic um uh brickwork was covered up at some point in time, and then it was restored back to what it looks like now today.

Um the building that we're talking about.

Uh this is uh a brief timeline of the previous tenants and occupants of the building.

Um we have uh started conversations with the current owners and the um uh Western Heritage Center to connect and uh learn more about this building.

There are archives and city uh city directories and uh other details that they can dive into and learn more about it.

But these I realize also after compiling this and made making this presentation, these are also available in the one of the sheets that were provided in the staff memo as one of the attachments.

There's a document that was pulled out of the program that was done a while ago in partnership between the downtown buildings and Western Heritage Center and designing these banners that you see along Montana Avenue and the history, a little bit of history about each building.

So it was neat and fun to explore the journey of that building and put out the timeline of what used to be there, who the owners were, uh, what are some of the businesses and operations that were in that building.

And then it continued a little bit to this second page, um, all the way paving to uh paving the path to the current owners and the current occupants.

So the second floor right now is occupied by the uh property owners frontier law firm.

Uh, and I have uh representatives with me here today.

If you guys have uh further questions later on for them specifically.

Uh and on the four first floor, couple of tenants.

Uh one is an art gallery facing Montana Avenue, and then the other one opened just this Friday, past Friday on holiday stroll, uh, which is the blueprint Montana uh tenant.

And that's the one facing North 30th.

Uh this is the breakdown of the uh expenditures and eligibility of those and the main uh items that we're focusing on are obviously all within the facade projects and uh the eligibility of the facade project.

Uh so we're looking at work involving the sidewalk and curb um in front of the building.

We're looking at uh doors, those garage door um or coup there's a couple of them uh on the side that faces north 30th street, and then there we're looking at some lighting.

You've got the total facade project cost there, and then you've got other improvements and investments that the property owners have done on the property, both internally and externally.

But the green number is what you're looking at as the size of the grant in comparison to the facade project overall uh expenditure.

And then a little bit about the project merits and uh what we're working with.

So in the pictures here, and hopefully the squiggly arrows will make sense.

The picture that says inspiration, this is kind of the idea of what it will look like.

This is not the exact same building.

Um, although you might think it is the same building because it's also red brick against red brick.

That was kind of a question that came at the partnership uh presentation.

If it was the same building.

So that's just an inspiration of what the building or the doors would look like.

Currently the doors are that maroonish reddish color.

Uh they function just like a garage door.

They open up all the way and down.

Uh so the idea is that these will be replaced with more energy efficient doors that look like garage doors, similar to the picture with the inspiration, but they function like you know, a double door open and closed type of door.

Um they're better sealed that way and lockable, and um they're still wide enough to be able to move in furniture in and out.

Uh, and then they look aesthetically like the previous doors.

Uh along that, there's also the pictures of the sidewalk and the curb uh repair.

So there are several cracks and uh missing chunks of the curbs.

There is an uneven side of the sidewalk that you see closest to the building that they're gonna smooth out, and then um the entrance into both of those garage doors are elevated uh and they're working on work uh creating a more smooth transition between the doors and the sidewalks so that they're they don't have to create a ramp for ADA accessibility and that it all uh changes the level gradually into the door and out.

So those that's and the project merits, obviously, working with the guiding documents that um this fits within the MCA and the urban renewal plan and the strategic priorities of downtown and the city's TIFF policy.

So downtown building uh partnership recommends uh the award not to exceed that amount, and then it will be a one disbursement in fiscal year 27, assuming the work will be completed in this current fiscal year that we're in, and to sign a development agreement.

Traditionally, those development agreements are a a lot less intense than your usual uh development agreements with larger projects because obviously there are fewer items, uh fewer awards, fewer schedules of disbursements.

So, but it still follows the same pattern, it's just a little bit shorter.

A few things to remember the facade program is a pre-approved uh program by city council, but it does not have its own annual budget like you see in your septet program and the signage program, where we allocate the same amount every year as long as there is uh uh enough demand to manage those programs.

Um and funding is available within the downtown TIFF forecast and budget.

And one of the attachments in the staff memo was also the TIFF forecast.

Um, so you can see that there's capacity for this.

And with that, I'll open it up to questions.

Very good.

Are there questions for Mehmet?

Council Member Ripsis.

Thank you, Mayor.

Actually, not a question from Amet.

Um, Chris, on a night when we're going to be contemplating hundreds of millions of dollars of capital projects.

Here we've got $15,000 on a facade improvement.

Um, is this something that council should in the future maybe have a limit of anything under $25,000 should come through on the consent agenda instead of making Memet come up here and take all this kind of stuff?

I'd love the presentation.

I support the project I say I'm gonna go for it, but I just for the future.

Yes, we talked about it is similar to the I think the sign program that exists downtown and that we would develop next year's budget with that kind of a proposal.

How many how what are the funds you want to put into that pot?

They recommend you put it in that bat and then run the program and then put these on consent for review and approval.

And so Chris, you'll start work on the new budget here in the next couple of months.

So I assume that'll be an element, it sounds like.

Very good.

Are there just questions for Memet?

I don't see any.

And and or do the developer or anybody else want to say anything about the project?

Uh don't know obligation, but up to you.

Just make it quick because you can only go downhill.

Put it that way.

So very cool.

Council members, uh, just thank you for considering this project.

Whoa, man.

That's good.

Leave it to a lawyer to be uh uh council member Shaw.

Uh thanks.

I'd like to go ahead and make a motion for approval.

I move to conditionally approve tax increment financing assistance from the downtown urban rail TIFF district for Frontier Law Firm for building facade improvements at 2923 Montana Avenue, up to 14,194 and 64 cents as recommended by the DBP board.

Uh we'll give it to the uh person whose district it is or more very good.

Thank you.

Made and second.

Any discussion?

Okay, if in favor of the motion for approval, item number two, please say aye.

Aye.

If opposed, nay.

Motion passes you unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Good luck.

Um Tony, uh, item number three.

Would you please read item number three?

Resolution approving the FY2027 through FY2031 capital improvement plan.

Staff recommends approval.

Andy.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

I'm here to present the 2027 to 2031 capital improvement plan.

Uh if you got the copy off the staff memo, you have the most current version.

If you're unsure, the title page should say proposed 1117 2025.

Then you know you're looking at the correct document.

So the capital improvement plan, just as a reminder for the public, it's a five-year plan for all capital projects at the city.

Uh identifies city infrastructure needs, facility needs, and prioritizes high impact projects really through through this process.

This year's CIP is 128 projects totaling 502 million dollars, uh, 103 million for the first year, which will roll into the next year's budget.

Uh the CIP does assume future increases in utility rate assessments.

Uh new this year is a future projects list that includes uh projects with not necessarily identified funding sources uh or outside the five year window.

Uh, if you wanted to add a gondola from the rims to downtown, I put a rendering there for you.

It's it's not in the future projects list or five-year plan yet.

This year uh we've been in front of budget and finance committee uh city council work sessions.

It only gets better from here.

Uh uh we have gotten input from you folks uh and made those adjustments, obviously then tonight here for the uh for plan adoption.

I promise that's my last AI generated video.

Very cool for tonight.

Um just so you're up to up to date on what changes have been made.

Uh originally we came to you in October, presented the proposed CIP, had those work sessions.

You guys directed some changes.

Uh Fifth Avenue Corridor and 25th, 21st Street underpass improvements are removed from the five-year plan.

They are added on the future projects list.

Uh evidence facility.

Funding source was changed from South TIFF to the public safety fund.

And then the Cottonwood Park Project, uh, it was on the future projects list.

It is still on there.

Um, but the funding for that is more closely aligned with phase one costs than uh originally.

I think it was just in there at what was available for cash and loo.

You guys had asked, well, we included this this year, uh estimated rate increases that the CIP was built upon.

Uh just not that you're setting rates.

You're not approving these rates, but understanding that future councils, when they make decisions about rate setting uh and how the CIP plays in with that um and potential decisions that may need to be made if rates aren't increased in the future.

Adjustments in the CIP likely would need to occur.

I would reiterate these are estimates only at this point.

Uh rate studies will be conducted to further refine those in the future.

I gave this to you is that last work session, one of the work sessions.

Uh this was the those rates and the impact on the average homeowner.

Um again, I believe this was emailed to you as well in the last presentation.

So you should have that.

I just wanted to have that available for you again.

Uh finally, a reminder the CIP is available online along with additional uh information that you might find helpful or the public may find helpful.

Uh specifically, there's an interactive map where you can see where these projects are identified and get more information.

Uh, there's an Excel document with all the projects listed and by calendar year, if that's how you would prefer to view it.

The current adopted CIP is on there as well as the proposed version.

Um, and there is a project request form that I get about one every two or three years from citizens who can submit them if they would like.

And mayor, with that, I will get out of the presentation and open up the proposed plan in case there are things that we need to refer to.

Um, but I will turn it over to you to consider any amendments and vote them up and down and then approve the plan.

Very good.

Thank you, Andy.

Council, uh, we'll open up for questions.

Um, and after that, typically the way the process has worked, and you're not bound by this.

I'm just talking about uh uh typically there's been sort of uh call it a base motion for approval, and then we receive individual uh uh motions for amendments uh to that, if that uh is what you would like to do.

But uh we can proceed how you'd like, but let's at least start with questions for Andy, Councilmember Kennedy.

And Councilmember Boyette.

Andy, I'm looking at the services, waste uh water, wastewater, storm, solid waste, and street maintenance.

Could pull that up.

Are you in the PDF?

Uh the No, I'm on the uh I'm on the line with the out of our packet.

But if you would can you pull it up so it's up here?

The staff memo.

The yeah.

Yeah.

I sure can since this is a planning document, I have some real concerns because as you plan for the next year and the year after and the year after, there may be some changes.

And then we hear staff say, well, you've already approved of this.

So what's going to happen is we've already uh designated dollars for it.

So the question I have for you, Andy, is the water is too high at 7.5.

I'd like to see it cut in half.

Um, the wastewater, this um the storm can come down.

Uh the solid waste can come down in the street maintenance.

And I just want to say this because I will make a motion in the future to cut it in half and extend the length of time to be able to do these projects.

Um this is a lot of increase for a lot of homeowners.

And I think we need to be very much aware of the people paying the fees and to be able to cut these down.

I know that as people have planned out, they wanted to get it in a certain timeline.

But I think the longer you expend it out, um, it's easier for people to be able to afford it.

So I'm bringing it up tonight because um even though this does not come up until next year.

People are going to be planning.

So I'm going to ask you the question do we make the motion to make the decreases on this or keep you aware of that?

So next year you don't plan at all and assume that you're going to get all this money.

I'll I'll take the first crack at it and then Andy, please join in.

I the most direct way to handle it, Councilmember Kennedy, would be to make cuts to the planned capital investments.

You you are correct.

This is a planning document.

What we're showing that we haven't shown in the past is what we estimate the rate increases necessary to fund the capital side of it.

And what I hear you saying as a policymaker is look, it I'm not comfortable raising rates to that level.

I'm comfortable with about half of that.

I am so so candidly, I I would follow your if I were in your seat, I would follow that with a motion to make reductions in the planned expenditures in each of the area to half.

That way you've got a plan that's consistent with what you anticipate supporting on the rate side.

Thank you.

Let's just uh ask our finance director.

I don't know that he'll disagree with his boss, but on the chance he has any motion.

Okay.

Well, we'll come back to regulation.

Let me do it.

Did but Daddy, did you do anything you want to add?

Well, only maybe for uh councilmember Kennedy's benefit.

This was a slide from one of the work sessions that I think tried to approximate what 1% per year would be.

So if you were going to try to make a reduction of, for example, where are we at?

Water uh of one percent, we would need we would need to make a reduction in capital of about 380,000 per percent.

So I just wanted to have that available.

Okay.

That's all I had.

Okay.

Uh and I do I do understand that, and I do understand it may um push out a few years, but I'm trying to make it so it's affordable to a lot of people, especially a lot of people in my district.

So I would I would make a motion that we look at the um the water, the uh um wastewater, um, the uh the solid waste, the street maintenance, and then um to cut in half and the storm to cut down to eight percent.

That would be my motion.

I'll second that.

But we don't have an underlying motion, but if unless I was gonna call it true.

So my interpretation is that this is a motion to change the draft.

Okay.

Um second that is my interpretation.

So to be clear, uh these are by uh can you be specific by the the page of the CIP and the number in the CIP that you would change?

I think I understand the concept, but we have a specific document in front of us.

So is there a way to be more specific because there are maybe dozens of impacted lines on the CIP.

Mayor, this would be starting in fiscal 27.

So I would say that I would like to see the water rate um at 7.5 to be down to 3.2.

The wastewater would be 2.5, the storm water 8%, the solid waste would be 3.5, and the street maintenance would be 3.5.

And out of that, then the change would be in the CIP or 27 would decrease um by that amount and push some of those projects um into 28 and 29.

It and and uh council, just to be clear for the benefit of the public, we're not approving rates.

Uh anything we do doesn't have any impact on rates.

We're talking about how what our uh capital plan looks like.

So but you're setting the but the premise of assuming less money.

If this happens on this draft, then staff is not going to say, well, you didn't uh make any changes this year, and we're weren't we weren't aware of it.

So we assumed that in 27, this is what we're planning on.

I just want everyone aware that I would like to see these reductions um when we when we go back and finally approve next year.

So so council McKinney, again, I I understand the concept, but on the screen that's ahead of us, for example, we've got eight wastewater projects.

We're talking about a red uh assuming a reduction in in revenue.

Um how does that impact each of these eight projects, for example, proportionately, whatever that's you know, mayor, the new public works director is gonna have to figure that one out.

Okay, so the motion is to Mayor.

Okay, so the motion is to Mayor, the motion is to um lower these in half, except for the stormwater to eight percent.

Again, Council McKinney, I'm gonna rule that motion out of order because we are not changing rates here tonight.

We're talking about a plan of of uh money.

Now it makes sense if we don't have the money, we want to change the plan, but we're not doing anything about rates.

We could direct staff to change the plan proportionate to the 50% reduction that you anticipate in rates, if that's what the goal is.

If you would like me to make the motion that would say that I instruct staff to make these changes um on water, wastewater, storm, solid waste, and street maintenance with a direction that we had so they can go back through fiscal year 27, so they don't anticipate that they're going to have seven and a half and five and thirteen, seven and seven percent increases.

I just want the staff aware of that.

I know this is a draft mayor, but by next year, what's going to happen is there are going to be department uh departments and people anticipating that there's this money.

And I want to make sure loud and clear now that we will listen to the taxpayers and make that reduction next year.

So that's why I'm bringing it up today.

So if the motion is to instruct staff to make those changes in this draft, so and make the recommendations on 27, 28, 29, and 30 in the future.

That's my motion.

Okay.

And that makes that makes sense to me.

Direct staff to uh change the draft according to those uh expectations of reduced um income on the percentages mentioned by council member uh Kennedy, and then come back with the uh staff's recommendations of those revisions.

If that I've stated that uh approximately, um is there a second to that motion?

Yeah, that's actually thought I was seconding is something like so with just to clarify it's is it is not coming back for approval.

That is that is that is that the case you expect that to come back and then we approve that next okay, so the whole public work section is it needs to come back.

Yes, Councilman Nees.

The reason for this is this is a draft.

This will go into next year, and then we will have to vote on these rates next year.

I just want the anticipation that we're not going to look at these rates to be what is in front of us today, but the staff is fully aware that there will be a reduction and they'll have to move some of these projects out a little farther.

Uh very good.

And just clarify for the benefit of the public.

This is currently a draft.

That's absolutely correct.

Um the recommendation of staff is to approve it tonight, so that it is not a draft, but this, of course, would um affect at least that component, and that would remain in draft form if the motion uh prevails.

Um anything further, Councilmanise, before I yeah, so so this motion is only addressing the public work section of the draft.

We can still approve the rest of the draft uh tonight.

That's my understanding, although there is no motion on the floor to that effect.

This is okay.

That sounds good to me.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh, we recognize um hands down here, and then uh council members uh Ripsis, uh Boyet, and Shaw.

I'm sorry, Mayor, you just confused me.

You said there's no motion on the floor.

No, I said there's no motion to approve the remainder of the uh plan.

I'm just clarifying this is only pulling out that portion of the of the public works uh uh element.

Thank you.

I I guess I'd like to ask staff.

Um, do you think like by next week we'll have something ready to come back with with all the public works uh projects over the next five years scaled back to meet that kind of inflationary target or growth target over the next five years?

Are we gonna be prepared to see that next week, or are we gonna be punting this to the next council who is really just trying to find their seats at this point?

Yeah, you can't.

Yeah, we'll be back.

This is why I stepped up here.

Um so I want to be clear.

Uh, we were asked to look at what it would take to manage our programs to a level of service that we talked about.

And then we were asked what those rates would be.

There is no one in public works that thinks these rates are going to be what we present or what would be approved.

It was simply to show the types of projects, the amount of projects that need to get done at the pace that needs to get done to keep up with our system responsibly.

So that's what this was.

Um, the idea also was during rate making this last year.

We had a lot of options of, you know, if you need to reduce 500,000, what does that look like?

So we wanted to show all this so that when we do have those rate conversations, we have projects here.

We have discussions that we can have.

That's why we put it in here.

Um, we can take that out.

I think we had a lot of conversations last time uh that took quite a bit of time with budget and finance committees saying, do we want to lower extensions?

Do we want to not do as much replacement?

I'm not sure that um, I mean, I can take a stab at this.

We gave the numbers, we said this much per percent.

Um we can do that, uh, but it'll be outside of this conversation.

Obviously, we'll just do it and bring it to you.

I think the better time to have that is during rate making.

I guess I'm confused by that.

Okay.

Uh, is is the plan as presented in this draft um what you think you're actually going to use to plan the projects and the cost that those will take?

Or um are you saying that if we do these, these will be what we're estimating the rate increases.

So you, council, give us some direction on how to scale this back to hit your whatever your targets.

Yep.

So this year at budget and finance, a lot of you may remember that we were asked to bring a couple of different percentages.

Um, and I anticipate that this would be a very similar thing, where we bring something that says, okay, if we want to have this level of service, this maintenance frequency, you know, get to this replacement frequency, this is the number it looks like.

However, if we're shooting for half of that, then this is what that looks like.

Um, so we would we would bring multiple ones like we did this year.

So I guess the question is do you want to have this conversation during the CIP process or during the budget process four months from now?

I we had anticipated it during the budget process because I think there's a lot more discussion time during budget and finance, but um again, this is a plan.

I think it's important that everybody sees that this is what it will take to maintain our system.

And I I think that's important to know.

Um we can certainly reduce it if we want.

Uh we could do a futures project thing like we're doing on some of the transportation ones.

Um, or we could leave it there knowing that when we come, we'll be asked to do a half rate.

I would like to remind you that water and sewer already approved for this year.

So and Debbie, it's Christmas season, so I want to put this in terms that I can understand.

Uh the CIP represents your list for Santa.

Yes.

Yes, you're nodding.

Um, you know you don't get everything from Santa.

Right.

And you're being realistic about that, and that realism will hit in the budget process, uh, with the exception of what'd you say water and sewer that were already approved.

Right.

And I I would say this is the first time we've done this, and it was in a response to the conversations we had last year, where I think council felt like we didn't bring enough of the big picture, and there was more request to kind of see what all was out there.

So this was kind of a response to last year's conversations.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

Uh uh, Chris, Councilmember Boyette.

Council Absolute.

I I would add kind of on the practical side, and I know some of you get kind of tired of me saying it this way, but I it's something I can understand.

And I think the general public can.

I I recognize these rate adjustments are significant.

It's also the case that a pipe won't last 150 years.

And we know that every dollar we invest in street maintenance saves five dollars in reconstruction.

So ultimately the tough decisions are ultimately what do you guys decide?

You want that investment level to be.

How do you want to phase to get to that ultimate point?

And so tonight, I I guess I just want to steer away from the idea that this is a Christmas list.

I think it's fairly simple.

If you want to have the rate adjustment be half of this, I would suggest you be clear about which projects you take off the list.

And they're just gonna get pushed to further years.

I mean, these projects aren't none of these projects are dream projects for future development.

They're all predominantly maintenance or reconstruction of the transportation system or the pipes under the ground.

So okay, thank you.

Uh, I think I'd recognize counselor uh Boyad, Casper Aspenager.

So I'm sorry, we I directly council member Shaw long ago.

Go ahead.

All right.

Uh I I guess I was gonna just add my comment that I I think this conversation is more appropriate when we're setting rates.

Personally, I find it difficult to vote on we're cutting an arbitrary amount, but I don't know what projects are gonna be moved.

And that is the important piece to me is I want to know how the rates tie to the project.

So I really liked what public works brought this last year of kind of some different levels that we were able to look at.

I thought that worked really well.

I'd like to see that continue.

I I'm very confused about any direction we would give to just cut a certain percent, even though I understand the goal and support the goal of excuse me.

Councilman, that's that's not that sorry, but go ahead.

Are you counseling?

Um which is to say that I I think we're getting a little cart in front of the horse, and I would definitely need to know which projects we're talking about before I could give direction to staff.

So for that reason, I think I'm a no on this, but I think it's a worthwhile conversation to have when we're actually setting the rates.

Very good, Councilor uh Boyet.

Um I thought the budget committee worked this out.

Is there a change in the budget committee's opinion on what and why didn't we know about this before tonight?

My thought is that's what was your position is to figure this out.

And and Councilman Kenny, if you're we're part of that.

Councilman Boyette, these rates went out to a letter to taxpayers.

We didn't look at these until later on.

And at the budget committee, yes, that happened.

And I received these in an email a while back.

And so what I'm saying is before we get into next year, and before anyone assumes that all these projects are gonna go forward, I want to make sure they understand there will be a vote on the reduction of some of these rates, and so the staff can prepare accordingly.

Um, or you can delay the inevitable, and then you're gonna have staff say, Well, we prepared all these things for these rates, and you're not approving them.

So I'm just I'm just giving a um beginning year um to let you know that we'd like to go forward and reduce these in a draft form.

So as we go through and we finally vote next year on what those rates will be, then um then the staff has some acknowledgement.

I just don't want staff to come back and say, well, we planned on all these projects and we have all these people lined up, and you're not gonna do them.

And I don't want to be put in that corner.

Very good.

Thank you.

Uh Council Ashplader, and then uh Council Member, you're like you're head of the budget committee, so I don't know if you later want to comment on that.

Councilmember uh Nice uh after that.

Uh Councilmember Aspler.

Yeah, I think we made significant improvements in the way that we did we approached this with public works this last year.

And that included coming with a suite of options in which we looked at the rates at the time of rate setting, understanding what was in the CIP.

And I I think that worked really well.

And I think that that is the best path forward.

Now, when we talked about that last year, and and I'm I'm a hundred percent supportive with where councilman Kennedy is, and I'm gonna struggle to to support what these rate increases are shown to support this CIP.

I I've made no bone, no, no bones about that, and that's that's no secret to anybody.

I am not interested in spending six hours tonight and and next week to talk to argue about projects, what should or should not go, what could or could not stay.

I mean, we spent two months going through that, which was the appropriate amount of time in budget and finance to talk about the the merits of these projects, how public works gonna bear these things out.

And I think we have the opportunity to do that when we when we talk about rates and set rates um with but with the new budget and finance committee here in in the coming months.

Um I'm not gonna support the motion for that.

I think the point is to staff that we're gonna have to have that conversation and and the expectation is that we're gonna have those suite of options with ranges of where these rates were gonna lie, and we're gonna make the same decisions based on the informant in information presented by staff.

Like that that's how this worked, and it worked well last time.

And not everybody got what they wanted, but that was that was an efficient and effective way to do it.

And I think it allowed us to digest all this information.

Doing it tonight or doing it over the next week.

Doing it tonight or doing it over the next week, the we're gonna make bad decisions and we're gonna we're gonna put ourselves in a in a place that we got we gotta box our way out of again.

So I'm with councilman Kennedy in the in the intent in the in the passion of the motion.

I'm gonna I'm gonna oppose it tonight because that's my expectation is that we're gonna do this through rate and and that's where I think we should.

Very good.

Uh council member Gillick, do you want to comment on anyway?

And Councilmanice, and then uh I suggest council we move to a vote soon.

Um so I was not at the council or the pardon me, the budget and finance committee meeting in which um this part of the CAP was discussed.

So I I can't speak to that.

Um, you know, I think maintenance is is very it's critical, uh, maintaining our systems.

Uh I think it's actually opinion-wise pound foolish if we don't uh maintain our systems and and and but I think there is room for for uh potentially reducing um the scope uh of uh I mean th those are large percentages that we're looking at.

Um but just to just to give a that's their counterpoint on on stormwater is what I'm most familiar with.

I think um it's we are looking out for the public's interest and their investment in the systems when we are doing proactive work and not just reactive work.

We pay a lot more for reactive work uh than proactive.

Um so for instance, uh I think it was um in in June of 22.

We had a uh a stormwater incident that that blew out uh a culvert and and gable road.

That took up our whole budget for stormwater that year because it was rebuilding the whole street.

It wasn't just a matter of replacing a culvert or something like that.

So just there's some examples.

Um we're not gonna be able to deal with that tonight.

I think what can uh council member Aspenleiter uh said, I I think our system did work pretty well last year.

Um for that reason.

I uh I think I will I will also oppose this uh motion.

Okay, very good.

Council uh council, are you ready uh did you have something further or ready to vote?

Yeah, I I'd like to see speaks on motion as well as the um I I think it's been said here that I mean the CIP is is a plan document, it's not the Christmas list.

I think mayor, there's wishes on there.

They hope to get it because we see things when it comes to budget where things have been moved forward or backwards, and it and it's it's a fluid document, but that it's a planning document.

And so the plan at this point in time is it's too aggressive.

And what council member Kennedy is and I support on this is to tone it down a little bit and bring it back to the the council for approval.

This can still be increased during the budget time if projects come forward.

And so those topics that you you're talking about about um bringing or talking about in budget time, that can still be done during the budget period, but this is at least setting the expectation to staff.

Don't bring us a bunch of projects because it what's you know, I've been on council now seven years, and if it's on CIP, it's gonna be presented to us in the budget.

And so that means we're gonna have to take a lot of time to actually cut out of the budget instead of having staff bring this back to us because they're the experts, other professionals bring this back to us with what they expect the vision is if they do in a three half percent increase or an eight percent increase.

What can you get done over this period of time?

And then that's is the plan again.

That can be modified.

Um, but that's the plan that because they're the ones who can come back best come up with that with their priorities, not the council uh in and and at this time because it's just a plan document.

And so I would urge you to support this so that it does set the expectation for the budget cycle that it's gonna be less of a increase, and then that's address those specific issues at the time of the budget.

Thank you.

Very good.

Any further discussion on the motion?

Um, I guess I would have been uh more inclined to vote for this if I had seen it at the first work session.

That this has been um I'm concerned about the process.

This is kind of a nuclear bomb that in my view should have been dropped a month ago when the uh rates were first public and this came out.

But um it uh we'll go ahead and vote.

I think the the motion hopefully is clear to remove from the draft CIP uh the public works portion that's dependent upon those rate increases.

Um then we proceed with everything else if the motion passes.

So in favor, if in favor of the motion made by council member Kennedy, second by council member niche, uh please say aye.

Aye.

Council uh uh voting in favor, council members Kennedy, Nice and Rogers and Owen.

Uh if voting in opposition, uh uh uh please say nay.

Uh nay, all the other council members.

Um and uh so the motion uh uh fails.

Uh council members Kennedy Nees, Rogers Owen in favor, all other council members voting in opposition.

So uh back to where we started, which were questions for Andy about his presentation, um, or underlying motion.

Council member Aspenwater.

Uh I'll make an underlying motion so that we can start the process.

Um Andy's directions.

I move to approve the FY27 through FY31 capital improvements plan as recommended by staff.

Very good.

Councilmember Boyette indicates a second.

And um questions uh for Andy, either by council member uh Aspler, go ahead.

I want to make a motion to make a modification to the plan.

Uh okay.

Uh well that's up to you.

And um we'll have an opportunity for questions.

I don't know if anybody had any questions, but we I don't want to I've not seen anybody jumping at questions, so go ahead.

If Council Ashley, it would be okay to entertain some questions first.

Okay, I just have one quick question for Andy on the 25th Street Bridge.

Um, or maybe it's Wyatt if he's here.

But um, I I guess I have kind of lost track of this project.

I didn't realize that it was still kind of moving forward, and it's only three years out.

But I'm I'm and I'm looking through the spreadsheets just trying to make sure I understand the funding source for this.

It's not listed as transportation alternatives, it's listed as potential grant funds.

Is that is that accurate?

Yeah, this one I I believe if it's classified correctly, and I think Wyeth may be on Zoom, he was earlier.

Uh perfect.

All right.

But yeah, there's this one's just potential grant funding.

There's no specific grant identified.

Um, I believe we did pursue uh a grant for it a couple of years ago.

We were unsuccessful.

I don't know if Wyatt has more he wants to add to that.

Um I guess Wyatt, I'd just jump in.

It just surprised me to see it only three years out with without a funding source.

Yeah, council member Shaw and Mayor and Council, uh, thanks for for um the opportunity.

So yeah, we we have that um we pushed it out further.

We did as as uh director Zeller mentioned, uh we did pursue a grant in the last two years, uh two years ago about uh federal grant that fit really well with this project.

Uh when we had our grant coordinator on staff, he assisted us with putting that together.

Uh we didn't we didn't receive it, but it was a good match.

And so I think what we were anticipating, and obviously, you know, the federal grant climate is pretty unpredictable right now, but was you know to continue to look for matches like that because that one was a good fit for that project.

Um, but yeah, that's that's why it's still there.

Um, and it is several years out because that would be the the type of approach we would take again uh with finding the right fit.

Okay.

Uh Councilmember Boyette.

So Andy, for the sake of the people in the audience, look you know, we have a lot of things that have moved to the future CIP project over five years.

Does that mean we'll never look at those again?

Does that mean that if we trip over some money, we won't bring them back in?

And if we do, how much trouble is it to move it from the future CIP to the current CIP?

Can we do that in a reasonable amount of time if we trip over some money?

Mayor and council, council member Boyet, uh I envision the items on the future CIP projects primarily consisting of those that are planned, probably may even have a fine a funding source, but are beyond five years from construction.

So not just uh make believe projects.

Um there would also be projects on there that don't have identified funding sources and are outside of that 10-year plan.

Um I think when I think of those, I would assume that we would pursue or if grant funding came along and there was something there that met um met that criteria, you know, come to before council.

Do you guys want to pursue this?

That that and then for getting it into the five-year CIP, obviously, every year you'd have that opportunity at the CIP process.

Um traditionally don't amend the CIP during the year, but I think I mean you could technically um if if there was a need to, but I don't know what that need would be.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um now, Council Ashler.

Um just a general comment and then then I'll make a motion to make some amendments.

Andy and I talked about this, and I thought as we as we talked about it through the two work sessions, one of the things we were gonna do was add a sixth column.

And I understand that's hard to do in like all the different variations of how you show these projects by funding source by so on and so forth, whatever, um, showing those those projects that are in the out years.

What I what I what I was hoping we were gonna see was an out years column or a greater than 2031 column in the department tables.

That's probably the easiest place to do that.

And then as it cascades out in to the by fund, by whatever the six different ways that you've split this out for us, which is great uh as a spreadsheet guy, I appreciate that.

But in the department budgets, I think it's the easiest and probably the most appropriate way place to put a call a sixth column in there between FY31 and the total.

And and I'm not gonna make a motion to do that this year, but I hope can you please do that next year?

I will do that, yes, to to locate those projects that we're kicking out into the future years.

It's easier at that point for us to see them without going to the very end of the document.

I think for people looking at projects, grant funding, so on and so forth.

They're identified in the department, but in the department plan, it was our compromise, I thought, as a council to add that column.

And that was the intent of this body.

I don't want to make motions to try to modify this and bring it all back.

Please just do it, would be my comment so that when we go there next year, that in the department budgets, those things that are identified in your future year tables and pages below, have those those projects identified in a greater than FY32 would be next year's.

So please make that adjustment for us next year.

Um so with that, I'm gonna make a motion to um put the 25th street bridge, and I'm I'm looking at the transportation projects under the planning department specifically.

So my motion's gonna encompass a couple, and then I'd like to speak to my motion if there's a second.

Move the 25th Street Bridge, the Alkalide Creek Trail connection, the downtown Heights trails connection, the trail corridor from King Avenue West to TransTech Center and Yellow Jacket Trail from their proposed years to the proposed out years, and remove the the TA and other funding sources outside of those that are that are committed outside of TA urban and C Mac dollars.

Okay.

Um that's a lot of pieces, but okay.

Um and council member Kennedy makes the uh second.

Do you want to uh speak to your motion?

Yeah, so councilman Rups is asked which ones are staying.

So the ones that would stay would be Aronson to Annandale, down to and and council member uh asplater uh this is the okay.

This is what what's now up on our screen.

Uh yeah.

Okay.

On page eight.

So the projects that would stay would remain as proposed in the same locations are Aronson to Annandale, Downtown BBWA, Corridor Trail, On Street Facilities, Highway Three Underpass.

Those are the three that would stay.

My my purpose in doing this is those three projects all you could argue have some safe routes to school's components and and provide some safe routes to school's benefits.

Um much to um much to some's opinion, I I'm not against all parks, and I'm not against all trails.

I mean, some of the best conversations I've had are actually with Mr.

Chandra, who has come to my office, I think twice to talk about Yellow Jacket Trail.

And we've had a great conversation about about that.

And I appreciate and understand his passion, and I hope at some point we can get that done.

Today is not that day from my perspective.

So what I'm trying to do here is to try to thread a needle, acknowledging that there are some trails that that can be done that provide some safe routes to school's benefits, while also acknowledging, hey, we we are we have spent a lot of money in the last five years.

We've built over 10 miles, close to 12 miles of trails in the last five years.

When you look at the beltway, the Skyway Drive, you add in what we're gonna build with Stagecoach Trail with the trail up on the on the rims, plus some of the stuff that we've done down at Riverfront Park.

We have spent a lot of money in that same amount of time, we've spent very little money on Safe Ross to schools.

And we have TA dollars that can help us get through at least phase one over the next couple of years.

Now, mind you, the TA dollars are not available because they're already allocated.

They're not available even in this budget until FY29.

So what I'm asking is for some reasoning with this community to say, hey, can we can we find a balance, please in supporting and pumping up the execution of our Safe for Us to schools to keep our kids safe in and getting these projects done while we're still leaving some trails projects on the on the list.

And those trails projects provide not just the trails benefit, but they also provide a safe rest of schools benefit.

And that's what I'm asking.

And what I'd ask of of Trailnet is meet me somewhere in the middle, please.

Somewhere in the middle.

There are a multitude of projects identified in those Safe for Us to Schools plan.

Find them.

Let's put them on the list.

I will happily support those.

But Yellow Jacket Trail isn't that.

The King Avenue West of Transtech Center isn't that.

The Alkali Creek Trail Connection isn't that.

Help help meet me in the middle somewhere.

I'm trying to be reasonable here without yanking everything and just asking you to meet me in the middle somewhere so that we can provide some safe rest of schools projects for this community, which desperately wants them.

If you go to the same task forces that I go to on the West End, people are clamoring not for trails, they're clamoring for safe rest of schools projects to get completed in this community.

That's the number one thing that I hear when I talk to people that I talk to.

So that's my proposal.

That's what I'm trying to accomplish here.

And I'm not trying to kick these completely off the plan.

Okay.

Um further discussion now on the motion, uh, Council River Kennedy and Council Shaw.

Uh Councilman Aspen Lender.

Um, as I look at the urban funds and the congestion mitigation air quality, that means we will take um move the yellow jacket trail to year six um out of there, but that will give the council in the future an opportunity to use any urban funds that may come for a project that the council decides to fund.

I never had an opportunity to, I don't think in fiscal year 2030 for both can uh C Mac and urban funds, any of us had the opportunity to vote to put that in there.

So I uh um I appreciate your motion so we have that opportunity to allocate urban and uh C Mac funding in the future.

And all it's doing is taking it out.

And in the future, if a future board wants to allocate those dollars to a specific project, they can do that.

But I think that that was a place saver in there, but it never was approved by it by the board.

Council, thank you.

Uh, very good, Councilmember Shaw.

And then I'm gonna have a question for whoever our planning department representative is, or maybe Debbie or maybe Andy.

Director Fred is raising his hand, but I have a on on Zoom.

I have a question for him though, actually.

So I don't know, um, Wyatt, if you want to go first, or I I can hit you with my question, which is um I I appreciate the spirit of the collaboration and the trying to meet in middle ground.

I think that's really important.

I'm I'm glad to hear that.

I my concern is if is there a distinction when you're going out for a grant for one of these things between this one to five years and the six plus year category that we're um talking about is when you're writing a grant application, will that make a difference?

Um, council member Shaw and Mayor and Council.

Um, that's a really good question.

I think uh one of the things that uh the way the language has been written in this future projects list sort of description and the mayor had brought this up earlier today, you know, kind of that it's a lesser, you know, that the staff won't spend time on it.

I think that's a really it's very challenging because I think and and I think uh director Zeller described it pretty well, which is if we found a grant that fit one of these projects like really well, like the one I described for 25th Street Bridge that we didn't get, but we applied for.

If we found one of those, we would talk obviously internally with staff if it was if it impacted parks, we talked to parks, et cetera, et cetera.

And then we would come to you if it's in the future projects list or if it's in, you know, on the CIP and say, here it is, and here's this match, and you know, we're recommending we go forward if it looks like a really good fit.

And then you would have to make that decision.

So I think from my perspective, we're gonna treat it pretty similarly as long as it's in the CIP somewhere, because to pass up those opportunities and not come and tell you and give you that opportunity to make a decision would, you know, in my would not be, I wouldn't be doing my job.

So I think we're gonna look at it very similarly from that perspective, but it is going to be something that would come to you just like grants would come to you anyway.

I mean, that that has to happen regardless.

Um, and that's how we'd approach it.

So if I could follow up.

So it if this distinction is important for council because we're you know trying to get our heads around these different money sources.

I just don't want to lose sight of these projects.

And I don't think that's what's being advocated for.

I just want to make sure that there isn't some, you know, distinction if you go out for a federal grant.

If it's not in the first five years, forget it.

You know, that's that's my concern.

Yeah, no, I think Councilman Roshaw and Mary Council, I I I understand, and I think that's like I said, I think that's a if there's a different thought process that the council's having, I don't know how else we would.

I mean, if these if there's something in either the five-year or that six, you know, out out year at this point, we would still, if we saw something that was a good idea to recommend to you, we would still do that.

And and I maybe, you know, maybe I'll get different direction, but that's the way right now I think we would approach it.

Hey, Wyeth Walla, we've got you uh signed up there.

I'm looking at um uh this years 27 and 28.

Uh we're talking a hundred thousand dollars in those two years.

Uh uh uh no dollars in fiscal year twenty-eight and a hundred thousand between three projects and twenty-seven.

Um, I guess those are just planning dollars, all the construction money is out in multiple years.

Is that the way to interpret uh though that hundred thousand dollars, those three projects?

Yeah, mayor, uh thank you, Mayor and Mayor and Council, and that's why I raised my hand.

I wanted to draw your attention to those.

We're actually doing feasibility work on those three projects that you see the 30,000, 40,000 and 30,000.

Um, we're doing those in this current fiscal year work program through the MPO.

Um, and we're doing that because through multiple work sessions um and actual action by this council over the summer and when we developed the work program, we were directed to those were included because we were directed to do that.

In fact, the Erinson to Annandale project was one that was added by the council in the one that goes under the power lines there and is a as a future pedestrian connection.

And so the this is feasibility work that we then were directed to to conduct.

So we're actually spending that those dollars in the fiscal year that we're in, um with 27 because that's if I can clarify my counsel that'd probably answer a lot of these.

Okay, if you're done, why if Casper Rashlock?

Just want to, yeah, nope, thanks.

No, and and to clarify what I'm what I'm talking about is the construction dollars.

So I'm not proposing to stop the feasibility studies that are our planned for fiscal 27, particularly on Aaron Sonadale, because that's one that that I in my motion kept in the plan.

Um, but as it relates to the Alkali Creek Trail connection and the downtown Heights Trail connection, my my motion was not to to eliminate the planning, it was to take those projects out of the fiscal 29 uh and fiscal 30 budgets, the construction dollars.

So just so that we're clear, stopping the planning was not my intent.

Okay, then we should ask uh the uh party uh council member Kennedy, you made the second, we'll call that a friendly amendment because I don't think that was specified in the original motion.

Is that consistent with your second?

In other words, uh no change fiscal year 27 in these this list of transportation projects, 27 or 28.

That's fine.

Okay, uh clarification now.

Further discussion on the uh motion, council member Gullick.

Um yeah, I I appreciate that there's some interesting in meeting somewhere.

I mean, we where we meet is probably different points.

Um I hear from a lot of constituents that like, you know, I I have my kids or grandkids, I want them to be able to come to a play back to billings, but they aren't as interested as a small business owner trying to attract and retain really quality uh staff, you know, quality of life is is really important.

We have had some good wins in the past few years um with trails.

That was after a 10-year drought as well.

Um during those past few years, we've also made some good progress with the safe routes to school program.

Um, I think we can do both.

Um I also know that major employers are also really counting on us to be able to be paying attention to uh quality of life.

Um I hear frequently from uh from medical administrators uh that they have a very difficult time uh attracting uh talent here.

It's not just the doctors um and nurses, but it's their spouses.

Um if we want to be able to be uh served by by quality people in this in this community, we need to be able to attract them.

So um I won't be supporting the motion, but I do approve uh support the interest in in moving um somewhere close to the middle.

I I I guess the other thing is I don't see uh the harm in keeping them on the CIP.

Um, even if they don't have uh identified funding sources yet in some cases.

Very good.

Further discussion on the motion, Councilmember Nish.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh I will support this motion.

Thank you for bringing this because this is something that I have wanted to see for a long time is to really focus on safe routes to school.

Yes, we've done a better job or good job in progressing on safe routes of school, but we we our kids are important.

If one kid gets hurt because our our routes to school are not safe, that's too many.

And so I think it's very important that we look at the the studies we've done on what the safe routes of school and get it complete.

And so my my focus is on to make sure that this is not just the start of moving safe routes to school, but to really get this going forward um in the years to come to complete that.

And I I appreciate you keeping the trail portion of it in there because there are some trails that kids use for safe routes at school, and I think that's very, very important.

And and that also you're not eliminating the fact that these things can stay on the out years because if funding happens to come along, we can bring them off of the CIP and bring and get them done.

And so funding doesn't have to stop on these uh grant writing doesn't have to stop on these, they're still available.

Uh if uh a lot of support from the community comes for some of these, the ones that are not safe routes of school, but we're we have the dollars here in the transportation uh funds.

We need to really dedicate those to safe routes of school.

So I will wholly support this, and I hope everyone else does because we want to keep our kids safe and this on the streets and the sidewalks and the trails that we build to so they can go to school.

Thank you.

Very good further discussion.

Sweet before we proceed to a vote, Councilmember Ripson.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'm obviously not going to support this.

Uh we dedicate throughout the course of this five years, $700,000 a year to safe routes to school programs.

It's not like we're doing nothing.

Uh and in fact, in the first two years of the CIP, we're not changing taking anything off, and we're not adding additional safe routes to school dollars.

Um, so in effect, this is this is just a political show.

Um, we're not actually changing anything that's going to matter here tonight.

Um if if it were just to move the 25th Street Bridge off, I I can see that.

That's something that's been you know pushed forever, doesn't have any kind of you know, wishful thinking uh thing on the horizon to help fund it.

Um but yes, our our kids getting to school uh safely is critically important, but we have people of all ages in the community, and it's also important for people to be able to get at work to work safely or to visit their family safely or to what recreate safely.

These are not uh things that have to be mutually exclusive.

And and this approach of saying that we're only going to use transportation alternative dollars for safe routes to school is just short-sighted.

We have to manage a portfolio of different projects.

Um I appreciate that they're just moving on to the six plus years.

So, you know, they're not off.

And hopefully a future council will uh think differently and and pull them back on and allow us to prioritize things other than uh uh just that one particular uh type of project.

But again, we're not doing anything here tonight that's gonna change the next two years uh worth or certainly FY27.

Um so I don't know, maybe we feel good about ourselves, but uh I guess I'm gonna lose this vote, so it doesn't much matter.

Uh Andy, would you mean mind just uh going to the bottom of that page?

Uh so the public works transportation project section.

This is on page eight for anybody who might be watching, it's just another uh CIP.

So thank you very much.

Um I'll be voting against it, and it's because um I think we've already come to the middle.

Uh we don't have to go to the middle, we were already there.

This is too broad brush of an approach.

I like Councilmember Ripsis, happy to think about individual projects.

Um taking them off trail projects, or similarly putting safe routes to school specific projects, making them eligible for grant uh dollars or or focusing on them when we have specific projects.

So this is much broad broader brush than that.

And and to me, critical, we don't want the public to lose sight of the fact of what this council has done and staff has done to promote safe routes to school um every year and what we'll continue to do.

So the reason I asked for this screen to come up, I just wanted to point out the sources of money for our safe routes to school program um in our C CIP now.

So if you go down the third line, you'll see the annual ADA replacement.

Uh that's not specifically a safe house to school project, but it does provide 260,000 year after year after year uh for replacing the corners that can be prioritized as the city wants to prioritize them, including four safe routes to school projects to save uh significant money.

Uh the next one is uh uh three lines down for math, the annual miscellaneous curb gutter and sidewalk program.

That specifically is uh highlighted for safe routes to school projects.

That's a million dollars and fifty uh thousand dollars uh this year, it'll increase next year, it'll increase the year after that, it'll increase the year after that.

That is a safe routes to school program, not 100% of it, but a lot of that dedicated money uh is there for this purpose.

Two down from that is your annual pedestrian crossing.

That's only 115,000.

But again, that can be uh prioritized as we see fit for safe routes to school uh projects and often uh is the next project or categories annual SIDs.

Of course, those are not specific to safe routes to school, but it reminds us that the main way we build sidewalks in this town is by assessing the adjacent landowner.

If you live, if you have a sidewalk in a newer part of town, you probably paid for that, and that's good.

And that's what we can continue to do to build sidewalks is get the adjacent landowners to make a significant contribution through the SID program.

And then lastly, is the actual annual safe house to school nine non-sidewalk project.

So intersections, um, that is the $700,000 the council member Rupsis was referring to.

In all due respect to Councilman Sorupsis, he was correct about that, but he missed all of those other categories.

And when you add those things together, just the three categories of the million fifty, 115, and 700, you get 101.865 million dollars each year of basically guaranteed money for projects that can be used at least in major part for safe routes to school.

Over five years, that's $9,325,000.

Um virtually guaranteed eligible.

By contrast, the trail dollars that we're talking about are hope and a prayer dollars that may or may not ever materialize.

So to ask uh uh uh the trails community to give those even those dollars up when the safe routes to school projects have a dedicated source of money year after year after year, I I don't think is uh meeting in the middle.

I think we've already been at the meetle, the middle or someplace else.

And so um that's why I'll be voting uh against uh the motion.

So um with that further discussion before we proceed to a vote.

Okay, let's vote.

Um the motion again is um uh councilmember as the uh motion.

Hopefully it was clear enough.

Um if I uh does anybody need me to restate the motion?

No.

Okay.

So if in favor of councilmember Astmire's uh motion, uh please uh raise your hand.

Voting in favor are council members um uh uh uh niece Owen uh Rogers, uh Kennedy, Aspen Liter, uh uh Tidswell, and uh Boyette.

If voting in opposition are council members uh uh Shaw, Gullick, uh Cole, and Rupsis.

And uh that means the motion passes uh seven uh to four.

So um that uh provides some clarification on the uh trail components of the transportation projects under the planning department category.

Um there was an underlying motion by council member Asmoleiter for approval.

This is then an amendment.

So now you have before you the amended underlying motion of discussion or further amendments.

Uh back to council.

Uh Councilmember Owen.

Nope.

Um, no, I was gonna suggest something, but I can do that later.

There's no hurry.

Okay.

Uh Andy, I just have a couple questions before I think about an amendment or a motion.

I'm curious how we landed on the public safety mill levy dollars as a source of funding for the evidence expansion.

Uh the motion that evening was uh something not specific wasn't specific.

Well, it was actually general fund or something the finance director recommends, I believe was almost verbatim.

So I'm just allowing you to tell us why you recommend this.

Uh it was it's ultimately the general fund that will fund this because that provides the substantial portion of funding for police and fire.

Um, but because it's a police department asset, I said the public safety fund made more sense.

But specifically it says a public safety mill levy.

We have three.

I'm just wondering which one allows us to make capital investments.

I'm not aware that any of them prohibit capital investment for police and fire related items.

Okay.

I feel like the 2021 one was not represented to the public as something that would make capital investments more.

So it would be the direct personnel.

But could it could be, but Chris or Gina could feel free to correct me if you think I'm misstating it.

I guess I would I would say the public safety mill levies, all three of them do not provide enough for operating police and fire.

That's why we have such a substantial portion from the general fund.

So you can make it the general fund.

It will be the general fund ultimately anyway.

Um go ahead.

I I don't have anything to clarify just off of memory of what did we specifically have in the two that we did together.

Okay.

So and then Andy, I guess my follow-up is are we really still at 1.3 million dollars for a gravel lot.

I have no update on that.

Um I was sort of hoping we were narrowing that down.

That was a conversation in budget.

So we were going to bring that back to a realistic number, particularly now.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to cut you off.

Particularly now that we're talking about taking this directly at the same set of money that we would need to fund a still unsigned police contract.

I'm really nervous about where we're going here.

So I split it into two years as the uh recommended or the recommendation to you is now split into two years.

The idea being there would be some design done in year one to really nail down what that cost is in year two, with the expectation that it's less than 1.3 million.

Um, but I don't have any reason at this point to pick a different number um other than your comments.

But I wouldn't have an educated guess on that, if I may.

Uh council is Council Wood, Councilmember Rasmander want to comment on that.

Is that um yes?

But I just I'm I I want to do something about this tonight so we can keep having a conversation about what to do.

And you might have some thoughts, but to me, 1.3 million dollars out of the police operating budget for a gravel lot is not something I can get on board with, even for planning purposes.

So, mayor, with that, I'm happy to concede cede my time to council member asman light.

Okay, and we can come back to this issue.

Uh says who?

Uh no, not dollars time.

Oh but maybe maybe that the lot will be 745 too.

I don't know.

It might be before we're done tonight.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Um, that's fine.

We'll let's try to address this and then we can talk about a break.

Councilmember Absoler.

Ms.

Marin and Councilman Owen I uh you ask a great question.

We talked about this in budget and finance.

We talked about it in the in the planning, and I guess I would offer to Kevin like I'll give you my staff's time for free to get you a number that has a basis in something to build this into a tighter box.

And we will do that pro bono for nothing so that we can tighten this up.

I don't think we can get that done by by next week, but I mean, we can get we can get that number, and I'm happy to do it with my staff to to come up with a real number, but it I can't imagine in a million years that it's gonna be 1.3 million dollars for a parking lot.

So on this issue, we do want to deal with it tonight.

We're being asked to approve the plan.

How would you propose we do we have an option for how to move ahead?

Um I I think I would respect Councilmember Boyet's suggestion that we take a recess, which I assume was what you were suggesting.

He was and so we can chew on it uh over that.

Uh typically we take a break at 7 30.

We're a little bit beyond that.

Uh 747.

Let's come back um 755-ish.

Um the parking lot issue.

Okay.

So I think you had a solution that you talked about, right?

Councilmember Owen has a really exciting announcement.

Okay, so I'll recognize you, Councilmember.

Okay.

Hope you uh enjoyed your uh uh brief uh break.

Went to Hawaii during that seven minutes, probably.

Um, but Council Member Owen, I think you uh and uh Andy had a bit of a discussion uh when we left off.

We were talking about what to do about the one point three million dollar item uh for the Evidence Center a lot.

Uh Council Member Owen, uh, why don't you take us from there?

Great, thanks, Mayor.

So I do, I mean, I think all the indications appear to be that there is a need to expand this lot.

Uh, cases are m not moving through our judicial system as fast as we want them to be, so we are having to hold evidence for longer periods of time.

Um, but one point three million dollars out of the police budget is not something I can support now or at any time in the future.

So I'm going to make a motion to in every place in the CIP where the evidence facility lot expansion is mentioned to uh shift all funding to fiscal year twenty-eight and to reduce the total amount to five hundred thousand dollars.

Uh again, uh those items go to fiscal year 28 and the 1.3 million dollar changes to 500,000.

That's correct, Mayor.

And the this gives us the council budget committee time to find a better source of funding, and it gives staff a time to get the estimates precise.

I do not want to nick even 100,000 out of the police budget for next year.

There are simply too many unknowns.

So I think this gives us adequate time, keeps it on the planning horizon, gives us time to sort things out, both source of funds and the overall amount, um, while recognizing that we do critically need this.

So that is my motion, Mayor.

Very good.

Thank you.

Uh we'll proceed to a vote if there is no discussion.

Is there any discussion?

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

Aye.

If opposed, nay.

Motion passes unanimously.

Um other discussion.

Um council, I want to raise with you.

I put this question in an email this afternoon concerning the language of that introduces the future CIP projects list on page 176 uh of my copy anyway.

Um there are three sentences up at the top here, and the uh uh third sentence says, quote, it should be assumed that projects included on this list are not priorities, and as a result, are not being focused on by city staff at the current time.

I think the intent of that was to give some protection to staff uh when they're asked to vote significant project or staff time or allocate money uh that they can point to this, but it's false because these are still priorities, they're just not as high of priorities as what's on the CIP, otherwise they wouldn't be on this list.

So my suggestion, if you agree with that, would be instead of saying they are just are not priorities, just saying they are not the highest priority.

So the words the highest would go uh into this language um in the uh uh uh report here um on top of the list.

Um I don't know if we need to vote.

Uh do we need to vote on that?

I guess I'm happy.

Let me make that motion.

Um is there a second?

Councilmember Gullick indicates the second.

Is there any discussion?

Councilmember Shaw.

Um, I just wonder if this would also include language to the phrase are not being focused on by city staff.

I think you those two should go together.

There should be a slight change there too.

And I'm sorry, state again, what's your change would be?

The phrase these projects are not being focused on by city staff.

I think if you're changing it to on this list, are not the highest priorities and as a result are not being focused on by city staff should change too.

Because you're you're saying they they will still be a focus.

I would just eliminate or eliminate it.

Eliminate that or just eliminate it.

That's easier.

Um that I'm happy to eliminate it if that's okay, then uh if we'll we'll call that a friendly amendment if it's okay with Councilmember Gullick.

Okay, so it's just to say that the projects included on this list are not the highest priorities, period.

Councilmember Owen.

Yeah, so Mayor, I just wanted to provide a little context from the budget committee conversation to make sure that that's consistent with what council member Shaw was talking about.

I think the concern was every year staff have to review cost estimates and they have to you know think about narratives.

And we wanted to make sure that they didn't have to do that kind of work.

Um, and so I I think we're still accomplishing that, but I think it's important to put on the record why that that sentence was in there was to give staff the permission to say don't forget these.

But also when we do the CIP every year, you don't have to go refresh everything or prepare summaries or be prepared to answer questions on them.

So just as long as we have on the record why that was there and that that is not changing, then I'm fine with the friendly amendment.

Okay, I think that's I see nodding heads.

Uh is there any further discussion before we proceed to a vote?

Okay.

Uh if the motion is clear, uh, if in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

If opposed, nay, motion passes unanimously.

Unanimously.

Um, other discussion uh from council before we proceed to a vote on the underlying now amended motion for approval of the CIP.

Any further discussion?

Uh Gavin's having a heart attack back there in a pleasant sort of way.

That's good of a heart attack can be, you know, it's a fiscal.

Okay, then uh, Councilmember Nees.

Yeah, Mayor, um, I'm I'm gonna vote against the the overall motion.

I believe that what's on the CIP will come back as budget.

I think um uh this is something that uh the future council is gonna have to adjust heavily uh unless they're gonna pass those higher increases into uh the residents.

There's other areas with throughout the CIP.

I think it doesn't have um, as I mentioned in the work sessions.

I don't believe there's a lot of projects coming into the heights as I look on the maps.

Um and so I I generally don't like the overall uh CIP.

Um I think it's better than what it was before we went came in tonight.

Uh but I I will be voting against it.

Thank you.

Okay, very good.

Uh any further discussion.

Okay.

Uh if the motion is clear, we'll proceed to a vote.

If in favor of the uh customer national iders now amended motion for approval of the um uh CIP, uh please say aye.

Aye.

If voting in opposition, please say nay.

Nay.

Council member uh niece voting in opposition, all their council members voting in favor.

That concludes item number three.

And um brings us to public comment on non-agenda items.

Is there any public comment on items that were not on our agenda tonight?

If so, please come to the podium.

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

No one is coming forward, so we'll close the public comment period.

Uh there are no council initiatives, I believe.

So thank you, everybody.

We are adjourned, I think.