Calling this meeting to order, and if you would please all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance and remain standing afterward for the invocation.

Loving God, thank you for your many and abundant blessings.

Thank you for the ability to be involved in this important and purposeful work, and for the honor of bearing these responsibilities.

Thanks as well for the freedom to embrace you or the freedom to reject you.

Thank you for loving us, even so, from your boundless and gracious nature.

I pray for our mayor for the various levels of city officials, and in particular for this assembled council.

I'm asking that you graciously grant us wisdom to govern amid the conflicting interests and issues of our times, a sense of the welfare and true needs of our community, a keen thirst for justice and rightness, confidence in what is good and fitting, the ability to work together in harmony, even when there is honest disagreement, personal peace and joy in our task.

I pray for the agenda set before us today.

Please give an assurance of what would please you and what would benefit those who live and work in and around our beloved city of Billings.

In your name we pray, amen.

Thank you, Councilmember Geary.

Will the city clerk please call the roll?

Yes, Mayor.

Councilmember Shaw here.

Nicholson.

Here, niece Present Pittman.

Here.

Aguirre here.

Kennedy.

Aspenlighter.

Lindley.

Here.

O'Donnell.

Mayor Nelson.

Present.

Thank you.

That brings up the minutes for March 9th, 2026.

Do we have any changes or amendments or corrections?

Councilmember Neys.

I make a motion to approve the minutes of March 9th, 2026.

Second.

Second.

Any discussion regarding that?

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, please say aye.

That was unanimous.

Are there any council courtesies?

Okay, seeing none, we do have a proclamation for today, and I'd love to read it.

Whereas children are an invaluable and key to our city's future success, prosperity, and quality of life, they are our most vulnerable.

And whereas child abuse and neglect can be prevented by supporting and strengthening families, thus preventing the far-reaching effects of maltreatment, providing the opportunity for children to develop healthy, trusting family bonds, and consequently building the foundations of communities and whereas we are a part of a helping community, providing services to family in need.

Where providing a safe and nurturing environment for children void of violence, abuse and or neglect ensures that they will develop into their full potential, and we become leaders of local, national or international communities of future generations.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Mike Nelson, Mayor of Billings, Montana, do hereby proclaim April 2026 as child abuse prevention month, where all citizens are encouraged to help prevent the abuse and neglect for all children.

Is there anyone here to speak on that?

Mr.

Kennedy.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for reading the proclamation.

I'm representing with my different hat, the Family Tree Nurturing Center.

April has always been child prevention month.

It's always uh pinwheels for prevention.

On April 10th, we will have at noon.

We will have the mayor, the commissioner, and the Breakfast Exchange Club present to do their proclamations at 11 o'clock.

We'll be placing on the courthouse lawn for the month.

Pin wheels for prevention as a reminder of we're preventing child abuse and neglect during the month of April.

We ask you on Mondays to please do Blue Monday and wear blue.

And later on in the month, we will have our pinwheels for prevention awards.

Um people that have been outstanding in the prevention of child abuse.

And on the last Sunday in April, the churches will be having Blue Sunday, and they'll be talking about prevention.

April has always been a prevention month.

The governor will be proclaiming along with the cities across the state.

There's many programs to help families with the prevention of child abuse and neglect.

So thank you, Mayor, for the proclamation today.

Yes, sir.

You're welcome.

Council reports.

Any council reports.

Okay.

Mr.

Kennedy.

Mayor, the legislative committee met last week.

We had uh two legislators, um, Senator Yakovich and Representative Schomer that came and spoke to us.

We uh had our lobbyists from Helena speak to us, and right now we are in the process of coordinating the council priorities.

So next month we will go through council priorities and start working with our legislative uh lobbyists as we lay out for the next few months.

Next month, we will have a couple of senators coming, and um, and they will be speaking on what are some of the uh outstanding um issues that will be coming up in the next legislative session.

So that was that's always the third Wednesday of the month.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Kikulski.

Yes, Mayor and Council, a handful of things here.

So, first of all, on the zoning change request this evening.

So we did receive receive enough uh valid signatures for a valid protest uh petition uh that was received by the city.

City council will need to make a two-thirds majority vote in order to approve that zone change 107, uh regular item 5B.

So I know Mr.

Aspenlighter is recusing himself, so even I can do the math on 10.

Two-thirds of 10 is 6.66, which is we're gonna round up to seven.

So you need seven or more to approve that item.

Uh another special work session is scheduled for this Friday for the uh planning uh 2045 in the Malupa state um uh requirements.

That will be in this room, noon to two.

Um also on that same date, if you would please fill out the you've got a link in your inbox.

We've sent it a few times uh for the survey as we get ready for strategic planning in the fall.

But the first uh session, May 6th and 7th will be on relationship building and setting a vision, mission, and core values.

I can tell you doesn't take a lot of time.

We don't know who, but I think three or four, actually, five of you have done it.

Sorry, I don't know which five, it's anonymous, but six have not.

So please, by Friday, take the time.

That will help them do their job and help our day be more productive uh then.

Um next Monday is a bye week, fifth Monday.

So we get next Monday off as a fifth Monday.

Happens a couple times of the year, holiday for us.

Um then uh last or no, I'm sorry, critical component is that on this Wednesday, our new development software, City View will launch on Wednesday, um, the 25th at 9 a.m.

The new software affects planning, engineering, building, code enforcement, and business licenses.

We'll stop taking applications into the current system at noon on Tuesday as we prepare for the transition in the new system, which has been a couple of years in in the making.

We expect our customers will experience minimal interruptions and delays in permitting and inspections, though.

There's always some level of glitches that can happen.

The public notice efforts to date have been over 2,500 emails have been sent out to customers who use the system.

Information about the transition has been on the website, city hall public displays for a couple months now.

The home builders association, who are primarily uh a communication link for us with the building industry, they've included the announcements on their newsletters.

Um, and we've invited some of the power users who do a lot of applications.

They've been testing the system for us and giving us feedback on it uh before this go launch.

So um the steps have been followed.

We did have a little delay here a few weeks ago.

We were wise enough, I think the team to stop at that point and not do it, but they are ready to go this Wednesday.

Uh so that and then last but not least, there's no ex parte communication that came in late this afternoon.

So that's it, Mayor and Council.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mr.

Kikulski.

All right, this leads us to the first public comment section on non-public hearing agenda items.

So if you have want to speak to items one, which is the consent agenda, or item eight, which is the budget item.

Um please come forward and uh state your name, where you're from, and you'll get your three minutes.

Any public comment?

Seeing none, let's move to the consent agenda.

Are there any separations?

Mr.

Mayor, Mr.

Aspen Liter.

Um I'd like to remove agenda item one c for purposes of recusal.

Okay, Mr.

Lindley.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, I'd like to separate item one H.

Anything over here, Mr.

Nees?

I'd like to make a motion to approve the items that consent agenda as outlined with the exceptions of the item one C and one H uh for separation.

Thank you.

Do we have a second, Mr.

Boyet?

All right.

Any conversation or discussion regarding the consent agenda?

Mr.

Boyet.

I'm the one that always talks about donations.

Well, we received a donation from Doug James, who used to be our attorney, our staff attorney here years ago for a donation of a public park bench.

So kudos to him.

Thank you, Doug.

Thank you, Mr.

James.

Any other conversation or discussion?

All those in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, please say aye.

That's unanimous.

All right, Mr.

Aspen Leiter, tell us a little bit about 1C.

Um I'll be recusing myself as my firm is up on the cotton.

I'll be recusing myself as my company is is up in this contract.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Nees.

Like to make a motion to approve item one C.

Second.

And moved and seconded.

Uh Mr.

Aspen Leiter is recusing himself.

Is there any discussion regarding item one C.

Mayor?

I'm sorry.

Who seconded that?

Mr.

Pittman.

Thank you.

All right.

All those in favor of approving item one C, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

That is unanimous.

Now, uh item one H.

Uh, Mr.

Lindley, would you like to talk to that?

Yeah, thanks, Mayor.

Um, yeah, this is actually an item that I've been working on, an initiative of mine.

Um it's gone through quite a bit of uh changes uh as it's reached this point, this draft resolution point.

Um there's a couple things that I'd like to just adjust slightly though.

Um is that the currently it reads that the commission should last for 24 months.

I'd like to suggest that the language be updated to say 24 months or sooner if all objectives are met.

Um I think in the spirit of the initiative that council member O'Donnell has going on reviewing committees, um, you know, as soon as we can get these things accomplished, the better.

In the private sector, I would hope we could do it in 24 months.

We'll see how it works here.

Um the second thing is from a minimum requirement standpoint.

I'd like to make sure that um it's indicated in the resolution that to be considered to be a part of the commission.

You should have 10 years of experience in corporate IT or post-secondary education.

Um that's to just ensure that we have the right makeup on the commission to make the right kind of recommendations.

So your motion then to make the changes.

Yeah, so I would move that we make those two adjustments that I just mentioned to the second that.

Okay, so we have a motion to change the uh uh add wording to change the sunset and reauthorization to 24 months or less unless reauthorized by city council.

Is that correct?

And then secondly, provide an amendment that requires 10 years or more in corporate IT or postsecondary education.

Post secondary education.

All right.

Is there any discussion regarding that?

Okay.

All those in favor of the motion with the amendments, please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

That's unanimous.

All right.

We'll move on to regular agenda items.

Number two.

Would you like to read the uh public hearing and special review 1003?

A special review to allow a daycare center at 2291 bench boulevard zoning commission recommends conditional approval and adoption of the findings of the nine review criteria.

All righty.

Hello.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

I'm Karen Husman.

I'll be presenting.

Um we have four items from the planning division tonight.

And this is a special review on which is required when we have um a daycare center that um provides service to 13 or more children within a residential zone district.

So the surrounding zoning includes um mid-century neighborhood to the north, N2, um suburban neighborhood to the south, and three.

Um to the east is also N2, and to the west is a heavy commercial, which is CX.

The property is located on the corner of bench and caroline.

And the zoning commission held their public hearing and is forwarding a recommendation of conditional approval and adoption of the findings of the review criteria.

This application meets the um goals of the growth policy for strong neighborhoods, um, provides essential services, um, and minimizes neighborhood impacts.

Conditions of approval can be um added, which the zoning commission has provided six.

This is looking north on bench to the south to the east and west.

As stated, the zoning commission recommended six conditions of approval.

The condition one, they're basically the standard conditions we offer.

The special review is allowed to allow the state care center at 2291 bench boulevard.

There's no other use intended.

Um, the applicant shall apply for and obtain necessary permits, including local, state, and federal, um, which would include um DPHHS um licensing, uh a change in use with the building division and their local city business license.

Um daily operations at the facility facility will not occur prior to 6:30 a.m.

or after 9 p.m.

Um and I want to make a note that and my staff report reflected 7 a.m.

and the zoning commission um modified that at their meeting to 6:30 at the request of the applicant.

So I apologize for that.

Um is a six-foot site obscuring fence will be maintained between the properties to the east and the south.

Um the daycare center will comply with all other limitations of the city regulations, and as long as these conditions are met, the special review will run with the land.

Um I did an expanded aerial so that you could see the surrounding zoning and its proximity to main street.

Um, currently, the properties that are zoned um heavy commercial actually immediately across the street do house residential dwellings at this time.

I did want to add one more thing.

Um the city council does have the ability to add, change or modify any of the recommended conditions of approval for this application.

That concludes my presentation.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

And I believe our applicant is in the audience as well.

Uh go ahead, Mr.

Boyette.

Do you have the map again of the house?

Can you this one?

So the street north is is what is that Caroline?

Caroline.

I notice that there's no sidewalk in front of that property.

Can we require that they put a sidewalk in?

That council has the ability to add any conditions of approval they choose to.

Would that be wise to do that at a daycare center?

I don't have an opinion, but I know that I did come uh converse with the applicant, and so she's aware that that might be a request of the council, so she can talk more to that if you'd like.

Thank you.

Mr.

Pittman.

So you you say that it runs with the land.

So what happens if they cease to be a daycare, then that becomes locked in at that point?

If if they cease to be a daycare um as stipulated in our zoning code, any use that ceases for a year will no longer be valid.

So they would likely, if someone else came back in in the future, they would have to reapply for a special review again if they chose to do a daycare center.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, Karen, um Councilmember Boyette brought up the issue of the sidewalk because I noticed on the on the um notes of the during the zoning commission, the applicant was asked how the drop and pick-off is going to be.

It's gonna be around Caroline, the north side Caroline Street.

So there's gonna be a lot of uh traffic on there, which there is no sidewalk.

Um so that is concerned and so um I you said the the applicant is aware of that issue.

She is aware that there is no sidewalk and that you might be requesting that that she would have to put that in.

Okay.

Did she have an opinion to that that she wanted to address the council or counsel on that?

Or I I will let her address that if she has.

Yeah, if we could hear here from her on that would be fine.

Okay.

Shaw.

Thank you.

Before we do that, I have a legal question for Gina related to the sidewalk, which is um, can this be rolled into an SID program so that it's not just an upfront cost to the applicant?

If council does choose to make that a condition, they could have it on their taxes as we do with other sidewalk projects and pay it off over time.

Is that possible?

Uh Councilmember Shaw, I believe so.

I think that um somebody from public works might want to chime in on this issue, but um if council yes, if council wanted to create an SID for this area.

Okay.

I just for the applicant before they come up.

I just wanted to know what all the options were for them.

So also um with a change in use, the building division um will require a permit, and with that review, um engineering and planning and building will all review it at that time too.

So that may also be addressed at that point.

Mr.

Esminliner.

Yeah, uh to the sidewalk comment.

I'm not a big proponent of putting a single stretch of sidewalk in that goes to nowhere.

I mean, I I get pick up and drop off, and those things are are fine.

However, I'm not I'm not so inclined to try to require this of a small business trying to get started in an industry that's not known for being lucrative, but is certainly an essential need for our community.

I mean, if if we were going to go forward and look at an SID along Caroline and take care of the neighborhood, I would support that, but I don't know that I'm gonna be supportive of trying to require a single piece.

Go ahead, Mr.

Pittman.

Can you can you show the picture of that side of Caroline?

So to Councilman Aspenwhiter's uh question.

It's it's the only part that's not has a sidewalk, it would actually connect the the existing sidewalk of the neighborhood to bench boulevard.

Okay, thank you.

So Mr.

O'Donnell.

Thank you.

Uh as I understand it, uh, I I don't know where I heard this.

I uh don't think I read it.

It is uh how is the property currently being used?

Is it a daycare center now, but under 13?

Um it it as far as I know, um they just got their licensing for um more than the 13 or actually the state is their border is 15 children.

Again, the applicant has more information on the property and can provide that detail for you.

I would like to hear them talk about that.

But and the other thing uh for the applicant is that uh 13 or more.

I wonder how many uh kids are actually planned for that.

Uh the 13 or more is the state condition or the uh special uh uh use permit.

But uh I'm I'm curious as to when a car comes in, drops the kids off right there.

Are they gonna try and turn around and get back on the main road?

Are they gonna go all the way down that block?

Uh is is it gonna be a problem with cars blocking other cars while turning around on that street?

It seems awkward.

I I don't have that information.

Unfortunately, I I can't provide feedback for that.

Um I don't believe a U-turn is legal, but it it's an engineering question.

I don't have traffic flow information.

I apologize.

So I'd like to hear from the applicant on that.

I don't know.

Just one more thing for planning.

I highly hold on just a second.

We have one more question for Karen.

Can you come back up?

Yeah.

So I I guess the other thing would be that there's no parking on bench.

There, there's no place for people to pull off there to let their children in.

Uh do we need to post that to make sure that that doesn't happen and someone tries to to park?

And and uh I'll leave that up to the applicant to have a discussion.

I think they have a plan.

Yeah.

We do.

So hi ladies.

Can you can you introduce yourselves for the record?

I am Jeanette Myers and this.

I'm sorry.

I am Jeanette Myers and I am um an owner with my sister.

Oh I'm short.

I'm sorry.

Is that better?

That's great.

I am Jeanette Myers.

I am uh co-owner with my sister, uh Jessica.

Um do you want to introduce yourself?

I'm Jessica Robinson.

So as you can see on this picture that we do have two options for drop-off bench.

Um I do not like bench.

I have a special needs child.

So they could pull all the way into the driveway if they want to, or use uh Caroline as well.

That's a second a sec a second option is Caroline.

Um the for the drop-off on Caroline, not everybody comes to drop off their kids exactly at the same time or pick up their kids exactly at the same time.

So there's not 15 people showing up at one time.

So it's not like a huge traffic.

So they do have two options.

If they feel safer pulling all the way into the driveway to drop their kid off, there's a um a gate that they can go into the business that way, or Caroline too.

There's a second option for drop off for Caroline.

So it's up to the parents wherever they prefer safer for their child.

If they have a special needs kid, I would pull all the way into uh the driveway and not use Caroline, but um we were thinking about doing stepping stones just over the snow that we had um trying to shovel the snow away from the grass.

So we were thinking about laying some cute stepping stones from Caroline to where the gate is where the business is at.

So we did think about that before after this heavy snow that maybe getting stepping stones.

And it's about maybe five to eight feet, I think, from the curb to our fence where they enter.

So it's not a huge um stepping stone area is what we were proposing.

Mr.

Boyet.

So if we approve this and put a condition that you finish the sidewalk, do you have a problem with that?

Um well, budgetary-wise, we have a huge problem because we don't have a like um Scott was saying that we don't have a huge profit margin.

Um so I mean, if that's something that you're requiring, then that's some bridge we're gonna have to cross.

But no, we do not have the money to do that at this point in time.

Thank you.

Mr.

Dunn?

Yes, uh, the one question uh how many kids do you do you anticipate?

What would be the maximum?

So be DPHS will only allow us so many per square footage, and I think the max is 30.

Um I don't anticipate us getting to that size anytime soon just because we're you know new and it sometimes takes a long time to build up to that, but I think the square footage requirements is 30 is the max that we can have.

I I did notice that it seems to be the lot size with all the empty space, seems to be ideally suited for playground for kids and that type of thing.

There's two different areas, the one directly behind the house and then one south of the house.

So we have that separated by age groups, so that's kind of a safety concern too.

The little kids and the big kids aren't always mixing together, so that's kind of ideal.

Um previous to us owning it, which it is currently being used as a daycare, um, years past, there was a daycare there.

So this the neighborhood is used to it being a daycare.

I think it had two private owners in between us and the other daycare.

So it's been an established daycare facility for a while.

Okay, thank you.

For us, Mr.

Kay.

Uh Mayor and Council, I can answer the question relative to we we do have an assessment program where if uh ordered in a sidewalk, they and it's the cost of the sidewalk exceeds 500, they can choose to have it added to their tax bill for five years.

So take the total cost uh and have it covered uh over a five-year period versus all at once.

I do have a question on what your um expectations are for the sidewalk.

Are we thinking from where it is on Caroline to bench or from the curb of Caroline to our um fencing drop-off area?

Is it like a pathway to the street, or is it a sidewalk for the street?

Mr.

Pittman, Mayor Council, um thank you.

Um I I would suggest that we just complete the sidewalk from where it ends because you're gonna have parents lined up all along there anyway.

So keeping access um there would probably be pretty important.

Um so would be the I would just complete the sidewalk.

It's the only spot on the entire street right there that isn't sidewalked.

So I think rolling it into two year S as an SID would be a great way for you to not have to put a lot of capital up front.

And I'm just naive to the process, but I'm wondering how come that portion hasn't been covered by the sidewalk already by the city.

So I can answer that as well.

Because that's not your property is not facing that, so they only require it when a property is facing in front of them.

This with access on the side, um, somehow they just it's one of those unique properties where it faces this way, but there's nothing on that side to force a sidewalk.

So at this point, since you want to utilize that, which I think would be the best option because people backing out on the bench would be a nightmare anyway.

Um, but that's why that's not a current sidewalk right now.

Is there already existing gates that lead out that way for us?

Right.

So it would be it would be beneficial to you and to your to your families.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

I'll I'll just add because it's a really common misconception in the city, but we all actually pay for our sidewalks.

It's the city doesn't put money into paying for sidewalks, so it's a set of the property.

The only time when the city does put money is you've got two frontages, and then we would maybe only make you pay for one, which is would be the only requirement that I think we're even talking about putting on here.

So it there is a perception that the city puts in sidewalks and the city does actually install them, but property owners are who pays for them.

Right.

Yeah, I just didn't understand why it wasn't currently there when the rest of the sidewalk in that neighborhood was done.

But this isn't an unusual requirement at this point.

Right.

Or or something that is extra onerous for any individual.

It's it's it's how we deal with sidewalk citywide.

And I've already submitted an application for a business license.

I have emailed the building um department to ask what are the requirements for the change of usage, so that is in the process.

Mr.

Pittman.

So being in the daycare business for 15 years, doing both group homes and a center, uh, I'll just tell you be prepared.

Um there's a there's a lot more requirements getting into a center and exceeding that um the 12 plus four phase.

Um there's the 35 square feet inside per person, and then the 75 square feet outside.

Um where are your employees gonna park?

They park in the driveway currently.

Okay.

So it's not um a burden to the city streets.

Okay.

And we've been in contact with our licensor.

She we just got licensed in December, and we have been told her that eventually we want to become a facility or center, so she's aware of the transition at some point if you approve this request.

All right, anything else?

Thank you, you two.

Thank you.

Thank you, guys.

So we're gonna move into the uh unless there's anything else.

We're gonna move into the public hearing uh portion of this uh this item.

Um do we have any public comment regarding item two on the agenda?

I'll ask one more time.

Do we have any public comment regarding item number two on the agenda?

All right, hearing none, close that part and uh entertain a motion, Mr.

Pittman.

So having conducted a public hearing considering written and spoken testimony and the review of the zoning commission's recommendation for conditional approval and adoption of the findings of the nine review criteria.

Um I would move that we approve the special review one zero zero three with the addition of the sidewalk on the Caroline side.

Second who's seconded?

Mr.

Nece.

All right.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any discussion regarding the motion, Mr.

Aspenlighter.

I just want to clarify are we are we directing public work staff at the same time to roll this into an SID program or are we allowing that to be the option of the applicant, whether they want to pay for it or go SID?

Um I would assume that that would be their option, whether they want to privately pay for it, but certainly leave it as an option.

Do we need to include that in the motion that that would be available to them?

I think I think it would be safest just to be clear that the those options are that A, you're ordering it, your sidewalk needs to be it's a condition of the approval, and whether the applicant chooses to do it at their own cost or chooses to take advantage of the city's program.

I'd I'd make that a part of your motion.

So I'll amend my motion to include that.

And I'll second that.

Thank you.

So Mr.

Pittman and Mr.

Neese was second.

Any discussion regarding that motion.

Then let's move to a vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

That one is unanimous.

Item number three.

Ms.

Bowman.

Great.

Public hearing and special review one zero zero for a special review to allow a drive-through use for a proposed seven brew coffee facility at um 533 South 24th Street West.

Zoning Commission recommends conditional approval and adoption of the findings of nine review criteria.

Hello.

Good evening.

Let me share the screen really quick.

All right.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Tonight we have special review 1004, um, which is occurring at 533 South 24th Street West.

This is a request to allow a drive-through service adjacent to a residential zone district.

Um, Michael Walker and iBusiness Properties is the property owner, and Brian Evans with seven brew coffee is the agent.

So here is the overview of the zoning.

The subject property is zoned CMU one, which is corridor mixed use one.

Um it's kind of surrounded by a mix of zoning.

To the south, we have neighborhood mixed use.

To the north, we also have CMU one, which is that corridor mixed use one.

To the east, we have the residential zoning, which is our end to mid-century neighborhood zoning.

To the west, we have CX heavy commercial zoning, and then to the south, there's some more residential and some P1 and two zoning as well.

So here you go.

You can just see a kind of uh overview of the development in the area.

You have residential to the east and pretty heavy commercial uses to the west, as well as some lighter commercial uses to the north and south that are just kind of multi-tenant use uh office buildings, as well as a retail store to the south.

So here is the proposed layout of the seven brew coffee facility.

Um they are just kind of a bigger coffee kiosk, so they don't offer any inside seating or dining.

Um, it's just primarily a drive-through.

They will have the double kind of stacking internally, and they also are going to be consolidating the access off of Lampman.

Um, right now it currently exists as two access points, but they'll just be moving it to one, which is a little bit farther from that intersection of 24th and Lampman Drive.

So the zoning commission is recommending conditional approval of the adoption of the findings of the review criteria.

They found that this application meets the growth policy through essential investments by using an infill property located along 24th Street, which is an established commercial corridor.

Um, it also meets the strong neighborhoods growth policy by uh providing safe and attractive safe and attractive essential services to the neighborhood.

And it also meets the prosperity growth policy goals by providing a diversity of available jobs and a strong economy for the city.

And then also kind of like I mentioned, it's located along an established commercial corridor.

Commercial exist uses exists to the north, south and the west of this property.

And it minimizes neighborhood impacts.

There's no an external speaker system.

All ordering is done face to face.

And it has the already required screening in between the residential property and the proposed commercial.

So here is a picture of that subject property.

Here's a view to the north where you can see that multi-tenant office uses.

View to the south, you have DXL, which is a retail store.

And then to the east is where you have that residential zoning, and you can kind of see to the back of the property that six-foot site obscuring fence that already exists.

So these are the conditions that the zoning commission recommended.

I'll go through them pretty quickly.

The first one is just that the special reviews for a drive-through coffee facility located at 533 South 24th Street West.

The second one is that no outdoor speaker or amplified ordering system shall be audible at any property line, should should one be added in the future.

Any new lighting on the building or within the parking lot shall have full cutoff shields so that light's directed to the ground and not to adjacent property.

Number four, the existing screening, which I showed you, that fence shall remain in place and maintained.

If it's ever removed or altered, a new one must be put back up.

Another one is just that the limitations and requirements of the zoning code will apply and that all conditions are met, it will run with the land.

So following kind of a request from the council to ensure that the term audible was properly clarified in the conditions.

Staff with the help of legal proposed and drafted a new kind of edit to the condition number two, just so that there was some consistency and more explanation as to what audible really meant.

So we proposed that it will say no outdoor speaker or amplified ordering system shall be plainly audible at any property line, should one be added in the future.

Plainly audible means sound that can be clearly heard, including base reverberation by a person of ordinary hearing with the without the use of a sound level meter.

And that so that is our kind of drafted one.

And then here are the special review criteria.

And I, if you have any questions, I am available.

Thank you.

Any questions?

We'll have sidewalks.

Yeah, the sidewalks already exist.

And there's no plans of removing them.

I wanted to ask that.

Yes, Mr.

Nees.

Thank you.

I noticed from the uh the drawing here and the location of the residential areas that the traffic will be pulling in in along the residential side, kind of coming around the back end where the back end of the residential side, then it'll get into the commercial by the time it gets to where they're going to get their coffee and stuff like that.

Um vehicles can be a little bit loud, rumbling, uh, and it looks like they're gonna be open till 11 o'clock at night.

Is there anything within the sound or current ordinances as far as these type of businesses with sound uh uh disturbances, not so much the speaker, but anything else that would disturb the neighbors there.

I'm not sure off the top of my head.

Is there not to my knowledge?

Not specifically to auto um noise as far as, but as far as conditions, you can also put a limit on the hours of operation um to mitigate some of that later evening.

Our standard noise ordinance should handle that if it's I think it's 50 feet off the fence or something like that.

There's a correct.

I'm not sure of the measurement, but there is something in the noise ordinary.

Okay, so if there's complaints, then our nor our other normal order, kind of like what we do with daily stadium and some of those issues.

It would be this okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

O'Donnell.

Um, I'm impressed that from the diagram right here that the ordering place, the actual restaurant part of it is away from the opposite side from the residential.

So it's if any noise is generated there, it goes on to 24th Street, which is noisy enough anyway.

Uh but uh uh in terms of all the parking spaces right there.

And I imagine that on a on warm summer's day that they're going to have their windows down and the radios on.

So in terms of the noise generated from that, uh I don't see how that is going to be uh blocked by a six-foot fence from the neighborhood.

Um just a point of clarification.

The the parking provided is for staff and their shift work.

So you have a turnover, so they were allowing for parking for their staff and their shift work changeover.

That's the primary reason for them.

Um I don't have an answer to your uh concern about drinking your car their coffee in the parking plate.

They might have it um signage that said they can't park there, but I do believe the applicant is here.

Um he might be able to address those concerns for you as well.

Well, and my my uh suggestion is that because along with landscaping comes along with this, uh as I read on there, is that in that strip along the uh the uh property side of the fence that there might be some trees or some type of noise blocking natural yeah.

So when this comes in for a building permit, it's gonna have to have the required buffer yard between a commercial property and a residential property, okay, um, which will require trees.

I'm not sure exactly how many off the top of my head, but it's it will require trees.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

All right, do we want to hear from the agents actually online virtually?

So if you have any questions, name is Brian.

Hello, Brian.

Good evening.

Thank you for having me tonight.

So uh just tell us briefly about your project.

Yeah, sure.

So seven brew is a uh drive-thru only, drink only concept.

We don't serve food.

Um, it is coffees, teas, energy drinks, smoothies, Italian sodas, um, things like that.

And like the staff said, um, it is a drive-through only, it's dual drive-throughs.

So when you come in, the drive-through, you can pick which lane you want to order in.

Um, instead of pulling up to a traditional um speaker box and menu board, you're gonna be greeted at your vehicle by one of our employees with an opad, similar to the new kind of Chick-fil-A model.

Uh, they will take your order directly at your vehicle, and then you will pull up to the building um and a second employee will bring that drink out to you.

So um we do open at 5 30 every morning.

We're open till 10 p.m.

Um Sunday through Thursday.

We are open that extra hour on Friday and Saturday till 11.

I will say that um typically the 530 to 7 um a period is pretty light traffic.

And again, the 9.30 to 10 or 11 also tends to be pretty light traffic.

Our our peak hours tend to be um kind of eight to 10 in the morning through the week and then um 11, 10 to 11 on Saturdays.

Um the parking um as discussed was for employees as it is a drive-thru only uh establishment.

There's no um opportunities for guests to um come inside the building.

So we typically will have four to six employees per shift.

Uh so we like to get 10 to 12 parking spaces for when we have shift turnover.

Um those that are going can come and and have space.

Um so we would see uh, you know, especially with our proximity here to both uh South 24th Street and Lampman Drive.

Um if somebody wanted to pull out of the drive-through and park on Lampkin and drink their coffee, it would probably almost be like they were in our in our property.

So I don't know that there will be a whole lot um that we could do about that.

We will, as said, um abide by landscaping requirements and buffering requirements.

We do have the fence that's there uh that we're agreed to keep, or if it becomes damaged, replaced.

So um I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have specifics about the operation or the site plan.

Thank you, Mr.

Evans.

Any questions?

Nope.

Sounds like we're good, sir.

Thank you for your presentation.

Thank you.

All right, we'll move to the public hearing section of item number three.

Um, if you have public comment around about uh the zoning for seven brew coffee facility, please come forward, state your name and where you live, and you'll get your three minutes.

Any public comment regarding this item?

All right, seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and we will move to motions.

Ms.

Aguirre.

Having conducted a public hearing considered written and spoken public testimony and review of the zoning commission's recommendation for conditional approval and adoption of the findings of the nine review criteria.

I move to approve special review one zero zero four.

Second.

Oh, who seconded?

I didn't.

Mr.

Nece.

All right.

It's moved and been moved and seconded.

Is there any uh discussion regarding the motion?

Mr.

Neys.

Yeah, Mayor, I just wanted to say that it's exciting to see a new business, new franchise, nationwide franchises coming to Billings.

And I don't know if you guys checked out their their product online and stuff.

I as I was reading through this, it's like it's quite interesting and kind of exciting.

So I look forward to having this type of business come into Billings and in that area.

So I do plan on visiting it.

It sounds like I I want my drinks there, so it's uh and I'm not selling it.

I'm just telling you, it's it's really interesting when you get on and look at what they offer.

It's a big variety of drinks.

So uh quite exciting to see that kind of franchise uh Nancy Went franchise come to Billings.

Thank you, sir.

Any other discussion regarding the motion?

All right, we'll move to a vote then.

All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

That's a unanimous vote.

Good luck, Mr.

Evans.

Go sell some coffee.

All right, and drinks.

Good night.

All right, item number four.

Public hearing and resolution for zone change 1076, generally located at 715 Commerce Way.

Zoning Commission recommends approval and adoption of the 10 review criteria.

Thank you.

I think I've seen you before.

I'm back.

We're excited about that.

Thank you.

Okay.

So zone change 1076 is a city initiated zone change to change uh almond park and the uh recreational facility area that's under construction from uh P1, um, which is the parks and open space, to P2, which is public, civic, and institutional.

Um this outlines the area that they're proposing to change.

And I did an outline of almond park as opposed to the um recreational campus that's currently under construction is in the yellow.

Um I did want to review their surrounding zoning, is is very diverse.

Um to the north, there's industrial um public uh corridor mixed use one, um mid-century neighborhood and two and residential manufactured home.

To the south is uh corridor mixed use one and corridor mixed use two, um, which the quarter mixed use one is the pink and the red is CMU two.

And then to the east, there is public, which is the Newman School, to the north there.

Um, then uh N2, which is the mid-century as well as residential manufactured home, and then to the west is the mid-century neighborhood as well.

Um photos.

This is looking south um towards King.

And then this is looking east towards South Billings Boulevard, and then to the west.

The zoning commission held their public hearing, and they are recommending approval and adoption of the proposed review criteria.

Um and it meets the growth policy uh for strong neighborhoods, walkable communities, safe and attractive and essential services, um, essential investments, lacemaking, um, successful businesses and employment, job, um benefit the community, and then community fabric, the development of parks and recreational amenities.

Um I'm going back to this aerial for a little bit.

I just wanted to um point out the reason for the change was to allow um a restaurant with um service of alcohol.

Um the P1 doesn't allow alcoholic beverage service.

Um, the P2 allows it, but it's very limited.

It's limited to what's called craft alcohol, which is by definition the production of small batches of wine, hard cider beer, or distilled alcoholic beverages as licensed by Montana law, which is sort of like your brewery or your tap room.

So it's a limited allowance.

They wouldn't be allowed to do an all-beverage license or a bar or a casino.

It's simply associated with the restaurant itself.

Um that concludes my presentation.

I know Gavin is here from parks if you have any other questions.

Do we have any questions for Karen?

I just I have one.

Um so the the presentation shows the block in yellow, but uh the information you gave us just had the whole section.

So what are we doing?

So the entire uh the proposal is for the entire site to be um P2.

So not that yellow won't be separate.

So it'd be almond park and the recreational facility.

Mr.

Nees.

Thank you, Mayor.

Karen, why can't the if you can go back to the other?

What can't we just do where the ice rink or the or it's just the yellow area, the new area where the the campus is.

Um well, as just discussed with staff and city administration um moving forward, that was the determination that was made.

Um I think that Gavin can speak more to that.

Um if you would choose to make a reduction in the area, we can certainly do that.

If um the the code reads that you can't expand or change the request, I believe you can make it into a reduction, and I'll defer to uh the attorney to clarify.

So what's the driver of this request?

I'm gonna refer to to Gavin to explain that.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Hold on, Gavin, just a second.

Any other questions for Karen before we ask you to have a seat?

All right.

You're on.

Did I miss somebody?

Okay.

Good evening.

Um to your question, Councilmember Nees, uh, the impetus for all of this.

About two months ago, two and a half months ago, we we in conversation with the Signal Peak Ice Arena uh folks, uh found out that they're gonna have a full restaurant, not just what we have in the courts complex of a concession type of area.

They're actually having both.

The request was to serve alcohol um at their restaurant facility.

Uh I saw no reason not to honor this.

Um think of it this way uh to your second question about why the entire area.

Uh we already allow alcohol permits through our office.

Um that is an additional charge if you were having an event.

Um we work with PD and everything else through that.

Um, this does not mean that it's just opened for anybody to uh you know bring alcohol to these areas.

Um, as we figure out this campus large wide expansion of activities, I think this gives us a little more maneuverability for different events uh held at that space as well.

Eric, if you don't mind, go ahead.

So, Gavin, um it was the the driver of this was the one restaurant in the ice rink.

That's great.

Do you think expanding it to the entire AM Park, the soccer fields in that would be beneficial because I mean we already allow alcohol through permitting process.

How will it be beneficial to allow alcohol sales um over at the A-man part?

I don't know how maybe the exchange club would get some craft beers together and say, hey, we're gonna sell it here.

So does that uh bypass the permitting process now because it's automatically allowed.

That's a really good question.

Uh mayor and counsel, well, this is what I would say that what this would do with let's say we wanted to have some type of craft beer fare out there.

Um this space would allow that.

Um, this would not be just an alcohol permit, as if you were having um symphony in the park, let's say they require an alcohol permit to sell at that space.

Right.

Um, this new designation would allow these events to not have to have that secondary permit because it's already zoned for that space.

Okay.

And so they would just be able to do it and then okay.

And that's what we want to do in Amin Park is have more alcohol craft beer type festivals.

Uh Mayor and Council and Councilman, that's a great question.

I think what this does is it opens up for the opportunity.

By no means does this mean that we're gonna be selling beer at soccer games or nor the courts complex.

This just gives us the flexibility to expand to that at a future date.

But they wouldn't need a permit anymore.

So they could roll up in or eight-man park soccer instead of they could they could have a second section there where they maybe sell beer to those who are legal to buy.

That would be correct.

Okay.

Mr.

Kakulski, you got some clarifying.

Yeah, uh, Chris Kikolski City administrator.

I I don't know that it changes anything regarding the permit side of the equation, but when we first had the conversation internally, the process of a zone chain is zone change is pretty lengthy and cumbersome.

So the idea was this came up as a part of this hockey facility.

We also have Dealer Park.

Dealer Park isn't only used for the Mustangs.

It's also used for uh American Legion baseball and other baseball events.

They haven't been a problem.

So as the community came with the innovative idea of saying, could you create uh pad sites for us to figure out not having the city build all this, but have the private sector and nonprofits do it.

We thought, why would you just do it for ice?

Why not resolve this issue relative to zoning now?

Um that that was my primary motivation for suggesting let's not just go with one parcel.

We got horde courts, we got soccer, may have other sports.

We don't know what those are, but I don't know why from an administrative standpoint.

We didn't, I didn't think it was appropriate to say, well, this sport and this sport can have these opportunities for fundraising, but these sports are not.

Okay, hold on here.

Uh Ms.

Hagiri.

Just a question for clarification.

Um, with uh the zone change, if it were to pass, does that allow spectators to have containers, alcohol containers while they're spectating?

Uh so mayor and council and councilwoman, I think it's an important clarification that the the ice hockey facility, how they operate inside of that will be up to them.

Um it does not mean that they would be able to bring necessarily you know a beer outside of that facility.

We're not going to allow that into the courts complex area.

Um I would assume APDC would not want that in the soccer area, uh, but I don't want to speak for them directly.

Let's see, Mr.

Kennedy, then Mr.

Boyette.

I would just say all you're doing is allowing an expansion.

People need to get licensing and a restaurant license.

They need to get the Department of Revenue license to be able to sell as a restaurant.

That does not allow people to bring in alcohol to the soccer fields.

But if they got a if they had rented out that facility, and they would have to get the permitting or um the catering license to be able to serve the alcohol there.

So this is just um something that you're approving of that there could be, they still have to go through all the certification, all the hoops to be able to do it.

And um, I think, Gavin, all you're doing is having that opportunity.

So if anybody asks, or if you have a balloon festival, or if you have something else there, and they say um we would like to our event is an adult event, and we would like to have alcohol there, then um they would have to get the caterer or the licensing place to come there and do it.

Even at uh I have to say, even at Metro Park, I have to have licensed people come in to be able to serve alcohol or whatever.

And so um, this is just so someone doesn't come back and say, City, you're not permitted for that.

You are permitted for that, and then they have to jump to the hoops.

So it will be fairly regulated on Mr.

Boyet.

Hi, Gavin.

Could we just approve the restaurant and not the booze?

Is that is that could we do that versus doing both?

If that's what they need as a restaurant.

So, mayor and council and councilman, I would say this, and this is again how that facility operates internally, restaurant, everything else.

Um, that is not what under my domain.

Um, so I'm not sure.

I'm not sure if they would want the restaurant without the alcohol.

I can't speak to that.

Now, as far as what you can and cannot approve, um, I guess I would be up to the 11 of you.

Yeah, because we only get one shot at this, you know.

We can either do it now or we don't do it.

So I wanted to go it right the first time.

So, staff, could we just approve the the restaurant by itself?

Yeah, I think we need to be careful, and Karen will probably clarify what we can do relative to a zone change.

So tonight the uh the ask is for the zoning change and playing within the rules of that zone.

That's the basic answer is the zone change in request right now is from P1 to P2, and that's what you would be voting on.

Um, the restaurant itself is something specific to the development of the site.

Um the reason this came forward is because of the alcoholic portion of it, and that's why the P2 is being requested.

So you can either approve it or deny it, and that would eliminate the alcohol if it's denied, Mr.

Aspen Later.

I I'll support the the motion as is.

I think it it makes sense to approach this as a park and open the door for potential so we don't have to come back and do this again in the future.

The concept is the concept, and I think it's a a good opportunity for the community.

All right.

Um I would just say this, Mayor and Council is that I I support uh this zone change.

I think it does allow uh one thing to keep in mind is that the the audiences for the different areas are very different, age groups are different, the courts complex is obviously a younger clientele in some regards.

It does not omit older uh groups from utilizing that facility.

The hockey is built for the youngest to the adults.

All right, thank you.

Anything else?

Mr.

Nece.

Thank you, Mayor.

Gavin, does this mean they will see more of these changing from P1 to P2, for instance, like um uh Pioneer Park that has the symphony in the park, and maybe they have alcohol, things like that.

Is that are we gonna see more of these changing that so alcohol can be more readily available in our parks?

Um, mayor and counseling councilman, I think that's a really good question.

I think it's very speculative, though.

Um, I think this was a one off.

Uh to be honest, this is something that probably should have been in conversation at the beginning of everything.

Um, this was one of those that kind of not gonna say it's an oversight or a blind spot, but it was missed.

Um, and someone, you know, during the construction, during the planning of this.

Uh again, this is a unique space with two different owners, two different groups working kind of simultaneously.

Um I would say I would not anticipate a lot of these rezonings just for alcohol purposes, though.

Yeah.

Alcohol and restaurant, I believe it's even if they weren't alcohol, they'd have to have a P2 for the restaurant, correct?

Correct, thank you.

Correct.

Uh yeah, but I think I I have something.

Um I understand it.

Uh Pioneer Park already has you you have permits for liquor.

So when Symphony in the Park is there, there's copious amounts of wine sold there.

Um I know I've been there.

And so um, and I am sure that uh, well, no, I'm not, but I am sure that what this would change only is that we would have a permanent structure there able to sell craft beer and wine anytime they were open within the limitations set down by the law rather than requiring them to get a catering permit for every day they're open.

That is correct.

Is that a good summary of what we're at?

That is correct.

Okay, all right.

Um, anything else for Mr.

Gavin?

All right, we're gonna open this up then to a public hearing.

This is item number four, uh request for zone change 1076 is 715 commerce.

If you guys, anybody out there has anything to say about this particular item, please come up, state your name and address, and take your three minutes.

Kevin Nelson 4235 Bruce Avenue.

No, no and no.

This is a you know, we started off.

This is gonna be a kid's youth, now we're serving booze.

Uh if you were gonna do it, you ought to limit it.

You know, when you walk you go to Metro Park at the AAU wrestling, the beer garden wasn't open when you went to state basketball, beer garden wasn't open.

It's only open during, you know, sort of adult times.

I don't know if you could criteria this to say you can only serve it under certain circumstances.

Uh I don't know if that's possible.

But I don't I think it's just a slippery slope to go down.

You got a bunch of youth kids running around, dad's drinking in the stands.

That's not the image that the city of buildings ought to be portraying.

That you can come and watch your kids skate and drink beer at the same time.

No, in hell no.

But I just wonder are we doing this?

Because maybe one of the fifth board members' kid got the restaurant deal.

Don't know.

Might ask.

Any other comment regarding this item?

Good evening, Mayor.

Council.

Jeff Canning 3230 Country Club Circle.

Uh, good to see many of you again.

As you recall, we had a nice week-long session, the lunches where we first proposed the idea of creating these pad sites to make this whole thing possible.

And you've seen it's been a great success with the courts facility and the hockey facility, which is a privately developed facility.

Parker Phipps from Signal Peak was able to get them the six million dollar initial grant to get that uh even moving.

Um during the course of the development, we're also I'm with collaborative design.

We're also the architects for the hockey facility.

And they're working with the Murray family from the Billings Convention Hotel Center to put a restaurant in there called Andes.

And it's a great spot.

It's up on a mezzanine level.

You can sit there and look down.

You know, USA hockey, things are going pretty good right now for these guys.

And so it was just a proposal from that that that family to come in and be able to offer a restaurant with great seating to watch hockey games and be able to serve beer and alcohol while they're there.

And with that, to expand it to uh the rest of Amenda Park, I agree with Councilman Aspenlighter that it should be done for the whole park.

Um, there's a tennis facility being proposed, and I think this is a great thing for billings.

It's going to be a huge draw for sports tourism and for leagues and facilities that this city so desperately needs.

So I would urge you to pass this.

Thank you.

Any other public comment regarding item number four?

All right, seeing none, I'll close that portion of our item and move to a request for a motion, Ms.

Cha.

I'll make a motion for approval.

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

I move to approve a resolution for zone change 1076 and adopt the findings of the 10 review criteria as recommended by the zoning commission.

Thank you.

Uh second, Mr.

Lindley.

And I'd like to quickly speak to the motion.

Please do.

Okay.

Um I I hear the comments.

I I think as a parent who's been at sporting events, if alcohol's not offered, they're gonna sneak it in.

It it's going to happen anyway.

To me, it makes sense for a restaurant to be able to make money doing this in a responsible way.

I'm glad it can't be an all-beverage license.

I think that could get us into trouble.

This seems very reasonable to me.

Um, and I think it's I think it's a smart way to try and offset some of the cost of operating the facility.

The other important piece for our community to remember is that this is a public-private partnership.

So the city is not in control of what happens inside the building.

We're in control of the zoning, as we're talking about here, but it will be a private facility on public land.

That's a very different dynamic than parks coming and saying, hey, we want to start a restaurant and run alcohol through it.

That's a whole other thing that we're not talking about.

So I just these are two very different things, and that's why I'm supportive of this, and I hope it passes.

Thanks.

Anyone else?

Mr.

Neese.

Thank you, Mayor.

I I won't support the motion.

I I think this is overreaching as far as uh allowing too much alcohol in all of that apart.

I I can understand, although this was never discussed when we were approving these these concept of this ice rink of having a restaurant in there and then alcohol in there.

That's this is all new, has come up in the last month or so.

That that I can understand we've already signed the contract.

It's it's that's bridge, you know, water under the bridge that we can't change because we signed the contract, they can do what they want to do inside that those four walls.

And so um, I think it should just be the ice rink because they're the ones who need it.

Um, if someone else needs it later on, I think we can look at approving that that down the road.

But to to blanket this entire area that is primarily set aside for kids' use.

I think this is not the way to go.

I'd like to make a substitute motion to approve only the area of the restaurant um area that's been with this, which is covered by our lease.

You understand that when I'm saying if you know the leak, you know, we have a lease that they are at least, they have the four walls around their building that they yeah, that would be the area to it.

I guess uh councilmember mayor and council and councilmember Nice want to just clarify if we're talking about the pad site that we have the lease on because I hear you saying that versus just the restaurant.

Right, the pad site.

Yeah, not the restaurant, but the pet site, because that's that's what they control.

And that's who's asking for it.

All right, do we have a second for the substitute motion?

Mr.

Boyette.

Okay, we have a substitute motion.

Could we look at this map again?

Would it be more clearly as an amendment to the motion to limit the area?

Nope.

Substitute motion by Mr.

Nece.

And mayor Mr.

Boyette, hold on.

Seconds.

All right.

Now I'll open it up to conversation, Mr.

O'Donnell.

I'd ask uh uh commissioner niece to talk a bit more about this.

I'm I'm not certain exactly what you're proposing, where the ramifications are.

Yeah, if we can have a map back up that shows the area.

Why she's pulling it up, Councilman O'Donnell.

Can you just talk closer to your mic?

Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry.

That's all right.

No, that's the campus.

Okay, so the yellow area is the campus.

That's the whole that includes the um the ice rink, includes the courts, includes a couple other pads that aren't been developed yet.

What what we're talking about, and it's hard to see here because it's not fully developed yet, but right where it says tournament, I believe that's the Kevin.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the ice rink that you can kind of see an outline of the building.

So that's the building who has the restaurant.

That's the ice rink, restaurants inside that ice rink, and we leased that area that you can kind of see that that looks like a building where it says to the tour part.

And that's what I'm asking for the limitation of that, because that's where the restaurant is, that's where the alcohol is going to be served.

Mayor.

So the what you're saying is you're limiting you're limiting what to that area just for beer and wine to be sold in that one area.

Mr.

O'Donnell.

I'm sorry.

Can you get closer to your microphone?

It's I thought it was close.

Sorry.

Yeah, the limiting the zone change of of P1 to P2, so limiting P2 just to that area.

That would be the zone P2.

And that would allow them to do beer.

That would allow them to do their bear and wine.

Can you do zoning just for a particular building?

Yeah, we do.

Anna Vicker is planning division manager.

Yes, you can use zoning for just that area associated with it.

We have many split-zoned lots within the city.

So essentially what this would do is split zone the property to be P1 where it's the red outline and P2 where the yellow outline is.

That has been done in prior.

Although just to clarify, right, the motion is for a smaller area, literally.

And we have a legal description because we've got a lease.

Right.

There is a legal description for the parcel that of which we have a lease on.

So I think it's doable as as is stated.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sure.

Um, I'm not going to support this.

I I think it it limits any future pad site development of how are we going to get more private investment to come in when we're saying you're gonna have to again go through this really onerous process of coming to council, it's gonna take you months to get us to maybe approve your ability to have a restaurant just like ice already has right next door to you.

I that kind of seems crazy to me.

So I I'm in favor of the whole property.

I think that gives the most flexibility for the future.

I hope council will turn down this substitute amendment or substitute motion and and vote on the underlying motion.

Mr.

Aspen Liter, yeah, I'm gonna I'm gonna oppose the substitute motion as well.

I I think as we're doing this, the biggest thing we can do for the business community and the development community is is predictability and consistency.

And this is anything but predictable and anything but consistent.

And if if we're gonna do this, we need to do it.

If we're not, then we need to not.

Um so for me, I I'm gonna stick to the original motion.

I'm gonna I'm gonna vote against this motion.

Mr.

O'Donnell.

Uh just to address the consistency.

Uh we're dealing with uh uh basically uh uh athletic areas or parklands, and the consistency, as the mayor pointed out, is uh at the baseball stadium and other things that alcohol is allowed to be.

So in terms of consistency and uh uh and uh following what we've done before, I think uh that does apply to have this uh support uh bureau license.

I'm not saying I I I'm I support the motion.

I just wanted to address that one issue.

Okay.

Anyone else regarding the substitute motion?

All right, so we'll vote on this first.

All those in favor of the substitute motion, which is to approve the zone change with a limited area to the size uh and outline of the pad.

Am I correct?

Please indicate by saying aye.

Aye, aye.

Please raise your hands.

So we have Mr.

Neese, Mr.

Pittman, and Mr.

Boyet.

All those opposed, please say aye.

Aye.

Raise your hands.

Against are Shaw, Nicholson, Aguirre, Nelson, Kennedy, Aspen Liter, Lindley, and O'Donnell.

Okay.

So that takes us back to the original motion as I understand it.

Is there any further discussion regarding the original motion?

All right, so we'll vote on the original motion, uh, which was offered by Ms.

Shaw and seconded by Mr.

Lindley.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, please raise your hands and say aye.

Nay.

Aye.

Okay.

For consistency, it's Mr.

O'Donnell, Mr.

Boyette, and Mr.

Nees in opposition.

Okay.

We're moving along.

Ms.

Bowman, would you read item number five?

This is a joint public hearing for annexation 2601 and zone change 107.

5A is a resolution approving annexation 2601, generally located near Tommy Armor Circle and Ben Hogan Lane.

Yellowstone Country Club.

Staff recommends conditional approval.

The second item is a resolution for zone change 1077, generally located near Tommy Armour Circle and Ben Hogan Lane.

Zoning Commission recommends approval and adoption of the 10 review criteria for that item.

Thank you very much.

Um I have a question for the uh parliamentarian before we move.

So this is a joint public hearing.

This will be the first one that I've presided over.

That means that we have one opportunity to speak or two.

Council or excuse me, Mayor.

Um Mayor and Council.

There's a joint this since it's a joint public hearing.

You can determine how many times the council gets to speak generally.

It is you don't allow them to uh other council members to speak more than twice until everybody else has spoken on the item.

I think that would be appropriate here.

You're taking all both matters together.

Um so I think the general rules that you normally follow would apply here.

And also just a reminder, even though it's a joint public hearing, you do need to have two separate votes.

Two separate votes on the regarding the public speaking, two separate speakings or one.

No joint public hearing, they can come up and speak on either item during that one public comment period.

Great.

Okay, so here's how I'd like to proceed.

If it's okay with everybody, we'll uh hear from staff on both items if that's all right, Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

Uh I'd like to uh indicate that uh I did receive a phone call from somebody on about this since the uh individual didn't tell me anything that wasn't available in the voluminous materials.

I don't feel the need to recuse myself to do an ex parte.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

So go ahead.

We're ready for you.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Uh, my name is Hunter Kelly.

I'll be going over uh these items.

So tonight we have annexation 2601, the first annexation of the year, and zone change number 1077.

Uh, this is going to be covering a portion of tract 11A2 of Certificate of Survey 836, uh, an area approximately six acres of land uh near Tommy Armour Circle and more generally describing near the Yellowstone Country Club.

So the interconnectedness uh of the items tonight, um, basically how this will go is Gina talked about on it a little, but generally how it goes is there's going to be a joint public hearing for both of these items.

Um, first of which is the annexation petition.

So that'll go over the annexation itself, and then it'll have a joint public hearing alongside zone change 107, um, which will be the zone change action uh of this procedure.

Uh we also later on in the agenda have the ward boundary ordinance that if this area were to be annexed into the city would expand the election ward uh to encompass that newly annexed area.

Um that's going to be heard as a separate item with its own public hearing.

There's not going to be a presentation on that.

Um that'll be done at the end if everything prior to it passes.

And before I go on, the ward in that case would be ward four.

So uh before we get into the proposal proper, uh have some context, some historical context here.

So this is the zoning of the area prior to project recode in February of 2021.

Uh, for those of you who are not aware, that was the city's efforts to completely revitalize our zoning code, and we essentially retooled most of our old zoning designations into the ones we use currently.

Uh as prior to the adoption of the zoning code, the area in question was zoned what we call what we used to call R9600, which was a residential zone that generally required that the minimum lot size per single family home be 9600 square feet.

Uh what had happened is during the process of project recode, it was zoned to P1 parks and open space.

Um what it happens to zones in zoned areas of the county that have this designation is that they would usually be rezoned to either uh what we refer to now as rural residential, um, which allows for kind of large lot size residential areas, or um, if they're over 10 acres, sometimes go over to agricultural land.

Uh, what had happened to my understanding, um we went through Project Rico just a little before I was uh brought onto the team here, so I don't have firsthand knowledge, but uh we made the decision to rezone it to P1 Parks and Open Space due to the fact that at the time of this rezone action, uh it was owned by the Yellowstone Country Club, and we saw that it was not being developed in any way, shape, or form.

And since it was owned by the country club, we felt this was more appropriate to be zoned as open space due to the due to the trail network being used on the property and the fact that it was owned by the golf course anyways.

So given that the golf course and this land were the same owners, we feel it was a natural extension of it.

Which brings us to today.

So this is the current zoning uh designations of the properties in question.

Uh the three areas of this zone change and annexation petition are outlined in red uh on the screen.

Uh as I said before, uh the land existing on it currently is P1 parks and open space.

So that allows for golf courses, trails, parkland in general.

And then the rest of the neighborhood, Yellowstone Club Estates, that currently has the zoning designation of N3, which is what most land within the city that was R9600 uh got transformed into with the adoption of the current zoning code.

And then here's another look of the existing properties uh with a satellite image.

So as you can see, those areas are currently vacant.

Uh going over going over some development history in in the area.

Um, most of the area had already been developed, uh though there are a few outline parcels.

That was most recently constructed in 2014, the home there.

And then the next nearest parcel is the vacant lot on Tommy Armour Circle that is currently owned by a James and Joanne Boyer.

Otherwise, the most recent construction in this vicinity are the two residential lots along Sam Street, Sam Sneed Trail along the Western End.

And they were done in 2022 and 2023 respectively.

And that will bring us to the current proposal.

So the current proposal is to annex these three portions of the lot into the city limits.

And alongside that, rezone the properties to N3 zoning, which would match the rest of the neighborhood.

Here is our map of our limits of annexation.

For those who are unfamiliar, the limits of annexation is the city's uh long-term vision on what lands that we are looking to annex in a short and uh long period time span.

Uh the areas in green areas that the city could hypothetically annex uh in short order once we receive a petition, and the areas in yellow are the areas that are in our long-term vision for annexation.

So to kind of briefly summarize the difference between the two zones.

Uh as I have as I've mentioned earlier, park P1 parks and open space.

Um this is intended for pretty much as it says on the 10 playgrounds, golf courses, playing fields, gardens, nature parks, you know, any any kind of open-air use.

Uh in contrast, the N3 zoning, our suburban neighborhood residential, uh, it is for the lack of a better phrase, um, pretty much our most basic residential zoning available.

Um, as of right now, it is it currently allows for the development of a single or uh double unit structure on the building, so a single family home or duplex.

Um there's a minimum lot width of 65 feet per principal building.

So if there is only going to be one house or one duplex per lot, each lot has to be a minimum width of 65 feet uh along the street frontage.

There's no longer any square footage requirements as compared to the old R9600.

Um to that effect, also there is no minimum lot width.

So this lot could theoretically be as large as they want in order to put any one house on it or multiple if the develop if the future developer so chooses.

Uh setback-wise, it goes for a fairly simple 20 feet from the front property line and five feet from the rear and side property lines.

Uh, and a also sporting a uh maximum lot coverage of 40% of the lot square footage, and that's referring to roofed structures govern it.

And then lastly, building height, it under current code could go up to uh three stories or 34 feet tall, although that seldom occurs.

Uh a minor note to make is these are our zoning codes restrictions on there.

I am not immediately privy um to any kind of covenants and restrictions that are intrinsic to the uh country club estates that um according to the neighborhood initial neighborhood meeting, they are intending to bring these lots eventually into.

I'm not privy if those have any further restrictions that would go further down than uh what we allow for in the N3 zone.

So regarding the zone change from P1 to N3, the zoning commission did recommend approval and adoption of the proposed review criteria uh during that time.

We felt that it met the following standards of our growth policy the strong neighborhoods goal, the essential investments goal, and the home base goal.

And then likewise, um we felt that the zone change would be uh complementary to and compatible with the surrounding zoning since it would be bring parcels that are already along the streets that are zoned um to N3, which is for all intents and purposes more or less identical to all the other lots that are already along those street frontages.

So this is an image of the postings we did uh for the site.

So this is area two and area three.

So regarding the annexation, uh the annexation covers seven criteria as to whether uh the annexation would be an acceptable fit and coinciding with our annexation policy.

Uh annexation one is that the area needs to be within either zone one or zone three of our limits of annexation.

Um, as you saw in the previous exhibit, this area is within uh zone one, so that's valid.

Uh condition number two is that the city will need to be able to provide adequate services at a cost acceptable to the city within a time period that is mutually acceptable and mutually agreed to by the property owners requesting annexation and the city.

Um these properties are already adjacent to developed streets that have water and sewer lines in them.

Um connections to any existing services are going to be addressed via the annexation agreement.

Um, the annexation agreement uh for the record is being is tentatively scheduled for the April 13th City Council meeting and is not going to go on to the city council meeting tonight.

Uh criteria number three is that the existing and proposed public improvements within the area through the annex will need to meet city standards.

Um this has more or less been done.

The all the adjacent roads and uh water and wastewater connections are already present on the site.

So, as I previously said, existing connections to those existing infrastructure is going to be handled via the annexation agreement.

Uh policy number four, uh all property owners within the area to annex must sign a waiver of right to protest, the creation of special improvement districts.

Um, this waiver is going to be handled alongside the annexation agreement.

Uh, for those of you who are not in the know, a waiver of right to protest, the creation of special improvement districts refers to an improvement method where the city can impose and create a special improvement district upon a given area, and a certain improvement, let's say, for instance, uh sidewalks or street lights would be constructed, and then the cost of that would be dispersed through a fee that would be done alongside uh property taxes over a period of several years.

So as part of the annexation, they the property owners uh sign a waiver that says they can't say they can't protest that um indefinitely when they when they annex into the city.

So criteria number five is that all residential property owners within the area to be annexed must create or join an existing parts park maintenance district uh after corresponding with our parks department uh is understanding that these parcels will need to be added into the existing part name park maintenance district for the Yellowstone Family Park.

Uh criteria number six is that residential densities planned for development within the area to be annexed will need to meet an overall minimum minimum average density of primary dwelling units per acre as per the current city of Billings growth policy or similar planning documents.

Um as I stated before, the annexation the annexation is expected to create approximately seven or eight lots for residential development with possibly a single family home or duplex on each lot, um, which would be consistent with the uh existing neighborhood character.

And then finally, the proposed land use within the area to be annexed will need to conform with the goals of the adopted city of buildings growth policy.

Um as I said previously during the zone change criteria, uh the three growth policy goals that this annexation is meeting is our strong neighborhoods, our home base, and our essential investments uh goals.

And then these are the zone change review criteria that the zoning commission uh considered when making their recommendation of approval.

So, with that being said, um there are two recommendations.

Firstly, staff is recommending approval of the annexation.

Staff is recommending city council hold a public hearing on the annexation upon completion of the hearing.

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

And then secondly, uh the zoning commission is recommending approval of zone change 1077 and adoption of the findings of the 10 review criteria.

Uh the applicant's agent is also here with their own minor presentation to uh extrapolate on anything and available for answering any questions.

Um with that, does the city council have any questions for staff?

Um do we do anything?

Do you want to recruit yourself?

Have you done that?

Yeah, Mr.

Mayor, I'll I'll be recusing myself from participation and discussion and voting as my firm is representing the applicant.

Thank you.

Um, would you repeat what you told us earlier about um ex parte communication?

Was contacted by interested party uh through a phone call.

Uh there was no information that wasn't there was no information exchange that wasn't already available in the public record, so I don't feel like I need to recuse myself.

Thank you.

And for full disclosure, I'm sitting in a room with a bunch of my neighbors.

I live just a few hundred feet from the subject property.

I've had um several conversations with uh legal department regarding a possible conflict of interest that I have.

And um I have been told that I do not have a conflict, and I've been convinced that I don't have a conflict.

So I did want to be transparent about that.

So I'll be participating.

Mr.

Nees.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh question for you.

Um the we uh with the annexation agreement that we're gonna see in in a while.

Uh what I notice is some from the pictures, and I haven't driven the neighborhood to know, but I believe I've been through it before a while ago, but there are no sidewalks through that whole that is correct.

There are currently no sidewalks through the so one of the things that it really bothers me is when we have a house put into a neighborhood with no sidewalks, and then the the building department requires them to put in a sidewalk.

And then it just kind of disrupts the entire look of the neighborhood.

Is that going to happen in this annexation agreement?

Are they are they gonna require them to put in sidewalks?

As of right now, the annexation agreement reads that sidewalks are not being required at the time of annexation, but they are included within the waiver of right to protest, any future special improvement districts.

Normally, um the sidewalks themselves are um for a project like this, they are generally addressed during the subdivision phase of the project.

Um let me go back to the map real quick to illustrate a small point.

Is that the three areas is that the currently the three areas that are being petitioned and to annex in zone change are not separate lots.

They have not been subdivided from the parent lot yet, and um we do not have an application in to do so at this time.

So generally, how it would work is in the future during the during the subdivision process, if and when it gets to that place, um, that the addition of sidewalks would usually be addressed at that point.

Rules as written, our subdivision ray or subdivision regulations currently state that any subdivided land that is within zoning um does have to install sidewalks.

However, um the applicants can request a variance to that.

Um, to my historical knowledge, um we have been able to grant variances to withhold that, especially in the instances where there annexation and subdivision is being done as part of a um existing neighborhood where there aren't any sidewalks currently existing.

Okay, and mayor quick follow-up on that.

And recently, uh this council in opposition to my vote, but passed the fact that light uh lights now have to be put, uh, street lights have to be put up now.

Does that also get impact in this?

It's part of the subdivision process.

So this they would have to also be go through the waiver process to not have lights uh that is correct, Council.

I'm sorry.

The sidewalks and the street lights would be would have to be handled under the under the same uh procedure of asking for a variance at the time of subdivision.

Okay, but the SID would be there.

So in case of the future, every lights have driver put in, they would have to put them.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate that.

Any other questions, Mr.

Boyette?

So Hunter, just to make sure prior to 2001, when I was on the uh recode, this property was zoned.

Correct?

Correct.

Yeah.

And then after 2001, we put it as P1.

Correct.

We could have put it as N3, but we didn't.

It would not have gone to N3.

It would have likely gone to either rural resident.

This was a this whole parcel is still in the county, which is why it's here tonight.

Um, but the zoning in the county would have gone to rural residential or for lots of this size.

If it's over 10 acres, sometimes they designated it as agricultural as well.

So it would have gone on forever, though.

Only since 2001.

Correct.

Uh 2021.

Thank you.

2021.

Okay.

Mr.

O'Donnell.

Thank you.

Um can you go advanced?

I think two slides to the uh P1 uh right there.

You have nature parks in conservation areas.

Uh conservation seems to be a formal uh title that it's been dedicated as conservation.

Uh natural parks might be formal or might be just informal.

Is does it uh does it anticipate a formal designation of something as a conservation or nature park, or is that just general use, just empty land.

I'll be frank, uh, Commissioner O'Donnell.

I'm not a hundred percent sure.

Um generally these designations are talked about in in broad strokes within our zoning code.

I'm not personally familiar with the distinction between the two officially.

Uh I believe Anna might comment on that.

Sorry, I'm not as tall as Hunter is.

Um Mayor and Council.

To clarify, just what the definition is is what Hunter's reiterating here.

So we have nature parks conservation areas that can be included within this P1 designation.

It doesn't mean it is expected to receive that conservation designation that might come from a formal process through a state or federal agency.

It's just an open space area, is what it really is.

And he's giving examples of types of uses that exist within that.

So it's an informal designation rather than it can be formal or informal, just it's an open space, and those are just uses that are described within this particular type of zoning.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

All right.

Um we have a few more minutes till we've reached our designated break time, our little recess.

So we do have one other presentation regarding this, correct?

Yes, the applicant has a presentation and wanted to give some comments, uh, especially regarding some uh correspondence we received during the zoning commission meeting and further extrapolating on their proposal.

All right, let's let's hear from the the applicant, please.

Mr.

Mayoung, Mr.

Mayor and Council, thank you for your time tonight, and thank you, Hunter, for the presentation.

Um my name is Taylor Kasperic.

I'm with Performance Engineering.

We're the agent on behalf of the owner who is 22500 NOL LC.

Um, I would like to clarify ownership of this of this land.

So 22500 NOL LC is uh uh single member LLC with the one member being Yellowstone Country Club.

Um Yellowstone Country Club as a whole, including 22500 NOL, owns approximately 329 acres of land.

Um obviously a lot of that land is utilized as both their clubhouse, the golf course, whatnot.

Back in about 2023 in discussions with the board, they ended up moving this approximately 84 acre piece of land into 22500 NOL, largely to separate their uh non-operating assets from their operating assets.

And so that's a little bit of the backstory as far as why it's 22500 NOL and also referred to as Yellowstone Country Club in a lot of these discussions.

For all intents and purposes, it is one and the same.

Yellowstone Country Club is the sole member of 22500 NOL.

Given that we are close to the to the break, I won't try to belabor points that Hunter has already made.

But just to kind of give a recap of how we got here and Mr.

Mayor Nelson, you can attest to this, but we held a neighborhood meeting on January 21st.

It as well as subsequent uh zoning commission meetings have been very well attended with a lot of interested parties.

And that's led to us being here tonight.

Similar to what Hunter said, and I think it's a it's a key designation is that what we're proposing as far as N3 suburban neighborhood residential is in direct alignment with what this land was previously zoned as prior to project recode in 2021.

Um it was zoned as P1 during Project Recode, largely in part due to that it was owned by the country club.

It was open space.

One would have ascertained at the time that if it's owned by the country club, there's the potential that it would be a golf course, um, which would be P1, and it's open space right now, which would also be P1.

So I think that's a lot of the backstory as to why it's P1 and didn't carry over as far as R9600 as it is now.

But what we are proposing is to change this small area back to N3.

Um I say small area, we're talking less than 2% of the overall land that Yellowstone Country Club owns.

Um I would like to note specifically that what we're considering here tonight and what's before mayor and council is not the sale of this land or essentially the subdivision of it.

We're we're solely asking that the land be rezoned to N3 as well as annexed into the city.

Uh brief summary as far as a lot of the lot of the discussion and feedback that we have heard throughout this process, um, concern regarding the rezoning, going from P1 to a different zone district, whether that's N3 or not.

Um concern regarding the use and continued use of trails located on Yellowstone Country Club ground, and then concern regarding traffic, infrastructure, and impact to adjacent residents, which are all factors within the zoning criteria.

Um it's not typical that you would see land be rezoned from P1 to another zone district.

Um, I think going back to even as was noted previously, it was previously zoned as R9600.

Um, some of the statements that are made at the zoning commission meeting is driving through these roads and looking at these open areas.

A couple of the commission members were baffled that they weren't already developed or weren't already zoned uh N3.

And I think that that's a testament to what the country club is proposing to do with this in terms of uh actually putting two use land that is readily served by city water, city sewer, city roads.

Um in addition, I think obviously this will be before council and at future sessions, but I don't think it's unheard of or out of the realm of possibility that P1 land be rezoned for future development.

Um, I know the city will have that in front of them as far as publicly owned land, and this is private land that is being considered for annexation and rezoning.

I included a couple snippets here of um maps from the growth policy, and just as this relates to zoning criteria number one, um the two the two figures here are essentially scenarios that were considered within the growth policy.

I realize that they're very small, and I've tried to provide some some indicators as far as where we're talking at.

But what we're looking at is the West low density scenario as well as the West public preferred.

Um, as you can see here that I've got indicated in the subject area, this area was not actually indicated on the either scenario.

And I think a large part of that is because it was zoned as R9600 at the time that the growth policy was prepared in 2016.

Subsequently to that, with project recode, it was rezoned to P1.

But at the time this was prepared, it was already zoned as R9600.

Now, a lot of a lot of the discussion and comments in regards to this application has been pertaining to the use of the trails.

Um there are there are trails that run throughout this property.

Um, looking at the figure there on the bottom, you can see the main trail that's utilized runs right at the base of the rim rocks as it's going through.

I think the country club can attest to this, but the intent of this application is not to prevent people from utilizing that trail system that has been there.

As indicated on this, even with this development, there would still be four other access locations that are open to the public via dedicated right away at 54th Street West, Lost in Little Place, Chick Evans Lane, and Harry Cooper Place.

With all that being said, this trail is on private land, and the country club is willing to let the public continue to use that as a as a recreational facility.

So this would be on that northwest portion of the trail, essentially where it terminates as is today.

As far as overall impact, uh looking at seven single family lots, that would generate around 66 total trips, vehicle trips per day.

Um, which is far below the threshold that's considered nominal by both city engineering and ITE.

With that, I would be happy to answer any questions that the mayor or council may have.

And there's also representatives from the country club.

Thank you, I've told you.

Um so 730 is traditional 10 minute break time.

Um you guys want to take a break?

All right, we're on recess until 749 p.m.

I make it 39 p.m.

Please take your seats.

Good evening.

All right, you're ready.

We're going to pelt you with some questions here, I think.

Are they questions for this presenter?

Mr.

O'Donnell.

It's not zoned for, you know, unless somebody wanted to purchase park land.

Um, but it's not at the stage right now that it would be sellable necessarily.

And uh just to follow up to that, uh is anybody obviously if I had driven in that area, and I have many times, but uh I would look at that and say, okay, these are undeveloped lots of this continuous development right here.

Uh has anybody uh contacted the country club and uh purchased any of the developed lots given assurance that those lots would never be developed?

Not to my knowledge, and and granted, this subdivision goes back to 1960s.

So I mean, there are representatives from the country club here tonight that could speak to current current times and and what has been conveyed at at those sales.

Um but I I think that being a uh country club and having a board that essentially runs it and changeover of that board, it would be hard to say what assurances have or haven't been put forth in the past.

There's nothing to our knowledge that's formally filed with the clerk and recorder saying this is going to be parked parkland.

Does that answer your question?

Yes, council member?

Uh yes and no.

I'm I'm wondering if anybody uh approached it said, hey, I I'd like to uh possibly buy that lot.

Uh and if if somebody in the country club ever said to them, uh, you know, if somebody said it's not for sale, it's going to be, it's going to stay that way forever.

Or if somebody bought an existing house developed lot that's there, and they asked the the country club about that, if they would have said uh no, that's never going to be developed.

Uh you're you're safe to be next to an open lot or that type of thing.

Yeah, I can't speak to that myself directly, and I would defer to representatives of the country club, but um my understanding is is no, that you know it's been there is this open space back there, but not necessarily that it's never gonna get developed or sold.

So all right, Mr.

Kennedy.

A couple of things.

The land behind those homes and behind that property.

Is that state land or is some of that country club land?

It uh so the all it's all country club land essentially, be behind the area that we're looking at.

All of that land people are um using the trails is country club land.

Correct.

And basically, if you were to extend 54th Street north, it would reach a point up on top of the rims, and that's all country club land.

So if the country club decided to develop all of that in the future, they have that opportunity.

There's not the intention of doing that right now, but it is private land, and and so if they Okay, we received a lot of emails that stated that people did not want access cut off.

You showed us the four areas of access.

Those four areas of access, are they permanent access points?

Correct.

All four of those are dedicated right-of-way.

Um essentially to the to the private land that's owned by the Ostone Country Club.

So the trails are all on private land that's owned by OS on Country Club, but those access points are dedicated right away.

Thank you.

As a follow-up to that question, uh, are there current access points that will be eliminated in this process?

Correct.

There are there are two access points within uh two of the three areas that that we put forth for zoning and annexation.

So there's six currently, there'd be four following development of this.

Thank you.

Um and as a follow-up, Emmy, um with potential development in those in those spaces, does that um create a lot a lot or any disconnect among the existing trails?

No, and uh I'm probably not tech savvy enough to pull this back up, but in one of the exhibits, I had the overarching trail system highlighted in purple and essentially intermediate to the or on both ends of that, uh, those access points would remain.

And inside of those two, there's existing four, and that would go down to two.

So there would still be four access points total, one at each end of the existing trail system, and then two intermediary access points.

Any other questions, Mr.

Boyette?

So if I get this right, uh the country club could fence all that off and post it, could they not at this point?

Because they own and it's private property.

It is private land.

But they're allowing people on there to walk, right?

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, I have a question or two for you.

In in your uh work here, was it your responsibility or scope to look at um the capacity of the water system in a neighborhood?

I know that was a concern of a lot of emails.

Yeah, not as part of this application, but as part of the annexation application at uh public works department did look at that.

And if there was any inadequacies, I'm sure that would have been identified in the annexation agreement.

I know that's not in front of the council here tonight, but having seen a draft of that, there was no there was no mention of needing to increase capacity.

There is existing water and sewer main in front of all three of the parcels.

Um looking at the potential addition of seven residential lots in my experience uh dealing with design of water and sewer, that would not change the capacity of the existing infrastructure there.

There have been an um I don't know if this is a question for you or from staff, but there have been a number of water main failures along Tommy Armor, three, I think, in the last year, and then one further down.

Is that something you would respond to, or do would the city need to look at that?

I can defer to uh the city engineer as well.

Um I guess I would just say it would be seven additional lots that would be paying fees towards replacement of that one.

Good evening, Marion Council.

Evening.

So the the question from uh my question is um in the last year or two, there have been three failures of the water main along Tommy Armor.

And then most recently there was a failure of further down of a water main there.

So does the system based on its age or whatever, does it have the capacity to um take on new pressures and new use?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor.

Uh council.

Kind of I'm gonna separate those two questions.

Uh first question, you know, does the system have uh capacity for seven new homes?

I would I would say yes.

Um, and I say that uh one of the projects that we're wrapping up as we speak is that uh zone four pump station that's on 58th.

And what that allows us to do is have pump more water out to this west end area.

Uh it it actually pumps to the tank in in uh ironwood subdivision.

So from a capacity standpoint, uh no no concerns from our office.

Um the question over the water main breaks, that's it's an aging system.

Uh that would be part of our sort of annual looking at water uh lines across the city, and then adding those into our replacement program.

Uh we'd have to see if that one you know rises to the top.

Uh sometimes they're um, you know, it's hard to predict when they're gonna happen.

Maybe you have two or three, and then you don't have any for 20 more years, but uh uh separate issues, but we would deal with the water marine breaks as part of our uh annual replacement uh program.

All right, thank you.

Anything else for staff?

All right, I guess we should hear from the country club representative.

Tell us your name and address if you'd like and give us your spiel.

My name's Jeff Murachak.

I'm current president of the Yellowstone Country Club.

Um I don't have anything formal, I but I am here to answer questions, concerns um Mr.

Nicholson first, then Mr.

Nece.

Uh as far as access to these trails, has the Yellowstone country club ever expressly given permission or denied anybody permission to use those trails?

We have not.

Our current practice is to um not restrict asset access to the trails, despite our um lawful right to do so.

Mr.

Nece.

Thank you, Mayor.

You're welcome.

Uh Jeff, do you um these are three sections that you're asking to change now for developing?

Um there's a lot of land there that looks, and again, I'm looking at a map, it looks like it's can be developed out.

Is they is the board talked about in increasing more housing within that area?

You're just a stone store away from ironwood.

Um it doesn't look like there's any ability to be connected to them anyway, so there's no connectivity there.

But is there plans to expand the housing development in that area uh further?

And I'm not saying tomorrow, but like in long term is there.

Um we uh part of part of our course master plan includes a three-phase project of developing our existing golf course.

That of course is very expensive.

Um that master plan led us to take a look at our non-operating assets, which includes this proposed annexation land, um, two other big plots of land, and then a whole section of land that's um just to the northwest of our existing clubhouse.

Um we currently don't have any plans to develop any of that.

Um we're frankly, we don't have the resources to develop any of that.

Um that is not to say that in the future we wouldn't sell off some of that non-operating land to someone more appropriate and capable of development.

Okay.

And mayor, quick follow-up.

Do you plan on uh developing these and building these out yourself or just prep prepping them for lots and then selling them off for other developers to build on?

The plan for these seven is to get them annexed, get them subdivided, and engage with the realtor to sell them on the open market.

Great.

Thank you.

Mr.

O'Donnell.

So I'm curious.

Uh the developed areas around there, all the lots that have existing houses on those, when when was that developed mainly?

Um course I'm I'm not mil familiar with that, um, but the subdivision has been around for decades.

And why were those knots not lots not subdivided in the first place?

Why were they not as I said, if I drive along that road, as I have before, it looks to me like undeveloped lots of uh of a continuous subdivision.

I wonder why were they left vacant in the first place?

Uh to the best of my knowledge, the the Yellowstone Country Club as an organization didn't develop the Yellowstone estates.

We own certain property within that subdivision, but it wasn't our prerogative or our job to build out the subdivision as it currently is.

So I can't speak to why those lots specifically were not subdivided originally.

And follow up, please.

So uh again, the question that I posed earlier, how has the uh country club represented those lots to people who might have inquired about purchasing them or have they said it's open space, it's not for sale, it's for future development.

What have they have they uh I I'm certain over the last 30 years, somebody has had questions about those.

Yeah, historically we have we have simply said those lots are not for sale.

And to the best of my knowledge, there are there's no legal restrictions on the existing unnexed property.

So I I don't think there's any expectation that they wouldn't be for sale in the future, but they haven't been up until this point.

And again, we are not talking about the sale of those tonight.

We are talking about the annexation of those.

So I uh I'm just one question or two for you, Mr.

Monteck.

Um at your public meeting, uh, what did you hear from uh the residents that came there?

Uh there is considerable um angst and and anxiety over the what will happen to the trails and the and the disposition of those as part of our um this annexation.

Um we we heard that the proposed subdivision lines that we've created were adjusted so that they don't at all impact the existing trail structure.

The only thing we are talking about now is the convenience of access.

Um if you go back to that picture, uh there's a essentially an east-west trail system that is unimpacted by our design and our annexation.

There is a north-south access point that will be impacted, but that is two of six access points.

So essentially the trails, the structure of the trails are not being impacted at all.

So I'm new to this, so please forgive me if this is an improper question, but have you thought about meeting your neighbors in the middle and uh providing them some access near the end of where Tommy Armour is?

We we certainly considered that and um realized that future or prospective homeowners would be impacted because these lots are not old farmland.

They are not flat and they are not um easily buildable on any reduction in size of these proposed annexed lots are going to eventually impact the homeowners that choose to build there, making their job harder.

And ultimately, we looked at um the distance between access points is so short that um it's it's not a terrible inconvenience to walk an extra two tenths of a mile in one direction or another to get to the trails.

So I think our concession right now is readjusting our proposed plans so the trail east-west is not impacted and continuing to um not impede access to the trails themselves because they do sit on private property.

Okay, but can you show me a picture of what you're talking about?

Mayor, well while he's in that could I ask a question?

Yeah, go ahead.

So are these actual trails or that are are built out, or are they just kind of walking paths?

They're they're informal walking paths that have developed over the course of time through unmonitored trespassing, essentially.

Okay.

Um so you can see in this picture here, there's one point that does go up to the trail that has since been altered and brought back to the south so that the purple trail line is not at all impacted by the um proposed plants themselves.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions, Mr.

Boyet?

Just to make sure you, the Yellowstone Country Club actually owns that purple line, right?

Correct.

We owned all the way up.

We own the black line.

Okay, so thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions for Mr.

Marocek?

Thank you, sir.

Very much.

Thank you.

Appreciate your time.

All right, we're going to open, I think at this time the public hearing on items.

Um just for uh my personal interest, if you're here to talk about Yellowstone Country Club, raise your hand.

Okay.

So in my short experience on this body, if I could ask first that you would line up so that we can be efficient about this.

Second, um, I don't in any way want to abridge anybody's speech, but if you can get by with saying, I agree with the person in front of me, that would be a good thing.

Um, but if you feel the need to speak, you have three minutes.

So I see my next door neighbor, Mr.

Cole.

Would you like to start?

It's nice to have you back, sir.

Yeah.

Um, if there is anybody that wants to speak, in addition to Mr.

Cole, please line up.

Come on forward and we'll get you through.

And remember, there's two lines, not much waiting.

Well, thank you, uh, Mr.

Mayor.

My name is Bill Cole.

I live at 3733 Tommy Armor Circle.

It's nice to be with you.

And I hope uh Mayor Nelson, all the new council members are enjoying your time uh in your your new position and enjoying the experience.

So uh by way of full disclosure, I live about 100 yards downhill from the westernmost lot under consideration or area of that's area one.

Um I've lived the neighborhood and hiked these trails for 35 years.

I've also been a member of the Yellowstone Country Club for 35 years, although no one would know it because I never play golf, even though I pay my dues uh every month.

And you're welcome back there.

Um I would encourage the city council uh to approve both items 5A and 5B, but only on the condition that the traditional and uniquely critical access way that has been used for at least 70 years in the middle of area two.

That's one in the middle, um, between Ben Hogan and the nose of the rim so that comes to the closest point of the road be preserved, uh, which is not the case under the current proposal.

I would also encourage my uh country club to express its approval for this arrangement because it's the right thing to do, and we'll keep peace in the neighborhood and in the clubhouse.

Unlike in zoning and subdivision applications where the applicant is a citizen of the city or has expressed statutory rights to rezone or uh subdivide their property, no person has a right to have their property annexed.

The city has almost unlimited discretion when it decides what property it will or will not annex and what conditions it will put on any such annexation.

The country club has owned the property at issue for roughly 70 years, and it's never paid any city taxes on that property.

My strong suggestion is that the council and the club agree to approve the annexation, but with a simple condition that the club will set aside roughly one third of area two in the middle of area two for public access to and from the rims and for viewshed protection.

The protected area would take up roughly one-third of area two or about a hundred to a hundred and fifty feet of street frontage and include the existing trails immediately below the nose of the rim that comes closest to the road, uh, with the exact location and dimensions and other details to be memorialized later when the club subdivides area two, which it will have to do if it wants to sell off those lots.

This is necessary because the Harry Cooper access a little bit to the west is functionally and aesthetically much inadequate as demonstrated by the fact that the natural access used by 90% is uh below the nose, uh, which is far superior.

So I think with that, uh that was uh my time was up, I believe.

So you got the point.

Um I think that solves a lot of problems.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

My name is my name is Cody Hefley.

I live in the country club.

Thank you for hearing me.

This is private land.

Heard that a lot.

This is private land.

75 years ago, this sole argument might suffice.

After 75 years of neighborhood history development and investment, this open space land is the cornerstone and main economic driver of this neighborhood and community it serves.

History reminds us that 75 years ago, the Yellowstone golf course and estates were created as one development, one master plan.

One the golf course, the open space, the homeowners would mutually benefit each other.

After 75 years, 400 homes now line the fairways and open space land.

The 400 homeowners lining these open spaces was the original business plan to create the success of the country club to begin with.

A link can be found today on the Yellowstone Country Club website to the 75-year-old brochure called the Club, the Yellowstone Club Development.

A golf course, open space, and residential community.

The brochure had two selling points.

One was for the golf course.

One was for the neighborhood.

The last two pages of the brochure are talking points and pictures of house plans and property values.

And I quote, plan this is from the brochure, and I quote, plan for the future.

Consider the investment potential with sloping terrain.

Each lot will have a wonderful view and of the beautiful surroundings and will appreciate each year in value.

Purchasers of home sites will be given first consideration to join the club.

Today's studies show I gotta hurry up.

Today's studies show living close to open spaces, your home values can appreciate up to 30%.

Add in parks, trees, trails, 20 more additional percent in value.

Living next to open spaces, you have 66% less chance of anxiety and depression, including children.

This n lastly, this neighborhood and community was specifically designed to benefit from open space land, including the gulp, the golf course, open space land.

Because the YCC finds itself in a temporary divot or penalty area, the YCC should not be allowed to forget history, go back and damage the 400 homeowners who created the YCC Cess success to begin with.

Thank you.

Please protect this land.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Hello.

My name is Caitlin Hefley, Yellowstone Club Estates Homeowner, Yellowstone Country Club member, Billings resident, and avid trail user.

Fellow council members and Billings residents, I come to you passionate about these lots and their future.

It has been two months since I was informed of their possible future.

And in those two months, I have learned a lot about local government, statutes, and criteria.

I have also felt the pressure to be dissuaded to see these as easy, straightforward, a private business right.

With all that knowledge and understanding, I come before you to make the case that this zoning fails to uphold the criteria set forth by the city for its citizens and for its future.

I will state four criteria points, which it fails and why.

Criteria three, whether the new zoning will promote public health, public safety, and general welfare.

I challenge that if said lots are changed, it will reduce green space, therefore affecting the mental and physical health of the community members who use these trails daily.

Criteria number six, whether the new zoning will affect motorized and non-motorized transportation.

I challenge that the community members who access the trailheads are by definition non-motorized entities and would be restricted.

Criteria number eight, whether the new zoning considers the character of the district and peculiar suitability of the property for particular uses.

I challenge that the rims and the land in proximity to it are the character of the neighborhood and the city.

When you think Yellowstone Country Club or Billings, it's analogous with this geologic monument.

Criteria number nine, whether the new zoning will conserve the value of buildings.

I challenge that the YCC and the Yellowstone Club estates created value in their lots by having access to nature and recreation.

Decreasing land and access changes the appeal, amenities, and value of established lots.

I hope you consider strongly what brings many of us out of our houses today.

We are billings and we are your constituents.

We have listened, participated in the process of civil government, and speak as the vulnerable and affected if these lots are changed.

Please vote no to rezone 1077.

I conclude with a quote from a trail user shared with me today in passing.

Thank you for take talking for the regular person who uses rich man's land.

Thank you.

Caitlin Hefley.

Hi, my name is Natia.

I'm from downtown Billings.

Um I hope you guys vote no.

Um, to start, there's over 17,000 unvacated homes in Billings, Montana.

And I didn't write any of this down.

I do have a lot to say, but hopefully I can just get it out fast.

Um I like how they highlighted um suburbs.

Um, I find that really funny because land specifically is going to benefit maybe one percent of the population.

Um then on top of that.

The reason that there's not street lights out there, the reason that there's not sidewalks out there is because it is protected.

This is historical land.

Um I'm surprised it's even owned, frankly.

Um, and yes, they do give us access, but it's not access, we're worried about uh future generations, they might not have what we we have outside today.

So it's important that we protect it.

And I think that's all I have to say.

Thank you guys so much.

Thank you.

Hello, Mayor and Council.

My name is Seth Hedge.

I live at 3611 Tommy Armor Circle, which is one of the roads that'll be impacted by this rezoning.

I'm in favor of the rezoning.

I would have a bit of a unique perspective in that I'm probably the only person in this room that is surrounded by my neighbors and friends that is uh I grew up in the neighborhood, age zero to 19.

I now live back in the neighborhood with my four kids.

I'm on the Yellowstone Country Club board for the last eight years, and I'm also a member.

So I have a perspective of kind of all the viewpoints at question or at interest here.

I think a couple of things are very important to note.

It's a two-way street, and the Yellowstone Country Club has been a very good neighbor to the neighborhood, and we continue to plan on doing so.

As was pointed out uh earlier, we own hundreds of acres that the neighborhood freely recreates on.

Um, we have not restricted use, and we do not intend to do so.

Really, in question at these trails is one access point that runs north-south at the top of Ben Hogan Lane.

I've gone up that trail thousands of times in my lifetime and down it.

Um, I walked the street yesterday, the loop of two of my kids, my five and eight-year-old girl.

There is a less used access point at Ben Hogan and Harry Cooper that also exists.

I stepped it off.

It's 97 of my steps and six foot two from the trailhead in question to the access point that already exists.

There's already a natural access that we're talking about.

None of the east-west trails would be unencumbered.

The Yellowstone Country Club heard from neighbors and moved lot lines to ensure that nothing east-west would be un would be encumbered.

And there's a current trailhead, 97 steps from the one that people are concerned about.

I will walk 97 steps down the street to continue to access that same access point with my kids in the future.

The club lets the neighborhood park dumpsters on our property and the neighborhood roll up and expose of their waste every spring and fall.

We let them host meetings at our club, and we continue to do so.

We love the neighborhood.

Um, I think the neighborhood greatly benefits from having a high-end country club in the area.

And it is true, I'd like to also clarify one point that the lots are being used or are under uh review for sale for reinvestment in club assets.

We started reviewing this well over a year ago from a board perspective.

There was not significant reinvestment in our club, in the facilities, in the golf course for decades and decades.

What those generations did do is they owned some appreciating assets.

We're looking to smell sell a very small portion of that now to continue to modernize and keep that as a high-end club in the area.

Thank you for all you do to serve our city and your consideration on this matter.

I support the rezoning.

David Iron, we live at 3133 Ben Hogan.

Thank you for hearing the pros and cons in this proposal.

Understandably, a certain amount of emotion exists any time neighborhoods change.

I'd like to share some actual facts.

These seven lots are in field, pure and simple, which has been an emphasis of the city council to use existing space in the city.

You yourselves are considering sales of raw parkland to utilize such city space.

These seven lots are individual lots embedded in the neighborhood and on neighborhood streets.

For ease of development city services or curbside.

These seven lots represent six percent of the raw land held by YCC.

94% of YCC undeveloped open space is not included.

The land was deemed P1, not because YCC members desired perpetual park status, but because by default, the raw Yellowstone country club raw land was deemed P1 pending development.

It makes perfect sense that a change in status occur on these seven infill lots now.

Regarding trails, YCC is graciously allowed public foot traffic on YCC undeveloped property.

And it should be noted, as Seth said, that several lot lines originally proposed by YCC were changed by YCC, so as not to impact the foot trails directly under the rim rocks.

We've talked about the various entry points.

Recently, I walked from one trail of contention I consider it a trail of convenience to the designated street access on Harry Cooper.

Seth's feet must go a lot further than mine because I measured 150 steps, not 120, but 150 steps to get from that spot to the other.

Last summer, our board and members invested nearly 2 million dollars in renovating our golf course.

Sale of these properties at hand ensures available capital for further investment in the iconic center of the neighborhood, a true billings-wide asset, the Yellowstone Country Club Golf Course.

It is the YCC board's expectation that each lot sold will be a member of the Yellowstone Club Estates Owners Association.

At the zoning commission hearing, the chairman closed the discussion with his statement.

This seems like an easy decision compared to the ones we face month in and month out.

I support the request.

Folks, this is a private property issue.

Yellowstone Country Club is the best neighbor you could ask for.

Indeed, Yellowstone Country Club is the iconic heart of the neighborhood.

And I respectfully urge you to approve the zone change.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor.

Council Jeff Canning.

I reside at 3230 Country Club Circle, but it's not in this country club.

Um, I'm here to speak in favor of the annexation and zoning.

Um, I've been before this body many times, and if come to realize that through all this, you can trust the process of this uh annexation and the zone change.

And it works and it has an opportunity for people to speak and to be heard.

You can trust your staff, who spends a lot of hours looking through this and have written a report.

They continually do a great job on all this stuff and trust their results on this.

And I think you can trust uh growth policy and the other um land use things that are in place to make this process work.

And bottom line is uh Dave Iron just said this is private property.

It's for them to use.

It is zone P1 for open space and public ground.

And to the good graces of the country club, they've allowed many people for many years to walk on it.

But as essentially it's private property, and you're you're basically trespassing on it.

And now it seems that people are uh pleading for park space and trails, and they're just they're upset that it's going to be more inconvenient for them to access the trails, which would allow them to continue to trespass.

And so I think the country club has heard the neighbors and has done a great job of amending and doing some stuff and accommodating, and it is their desire to be um a good neighbor to the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, council.

Mayor Nelson.

My name's Tyler Mullowney.

I am a resident of Billings, Montana, and I grew up uh in and around the Yellowstone Country Club.

Uh as you all know, Montana Statute and the Billings Municipal Code afford great weight to the 2016 Billing City Growth Plan and considering zoning changes.

Simply put, the proposed zoning change does not comply with the growth plan.

The growth plan is a reflection of Billings' desires for growth of the city and the uses of the land therein.

The whims of the landowner to use property differently and consideration set forth is not a consideration set forth in statute or the growth plan.

In fact, it is the very nature of zoning restrictions to preserve the interest of the community and preclude landowners from using property in a manner contrary to the established growth plan, which was adopted in 2016 and is good for a period of 20 years.

The zoning change is not consistent with the growth policy.

There are four maps in the growth plan that contemplate the use of this particular property that were previously shown to you.

Take a closer look and you'll see that each map designates the subject property as parkland, except the high density scenario, which simply does not contemplate its use.

You'll note that that in each one of these growth scenarios, the subject property was not considered desirable by the community or the city council as developable for anything other than parkland, despite the assertions by the applicant, who either recklessly misspoke or outright lied to the zoning commission, represented that the area is ripe and designated as infill.

This land was in fact not contemplated as potential infill area in that map.

At no point did the growth policy or the residents of Billings contemplate the proposed zone change.

It is especially troubling that this that the planning staff and zoning commission did not take note of any objections or inconsistencies with the growth policy.

They may have very well weighed all circumstances and concluded compliance with the growth policy exists.

However, the lack of critical thought expressed in the report and recommendations suggests that the planning staff and zoning commission have not taken a fair, objective and or diligent approach to the its review of the zoning change.

With that in mind, the zoning change request warrants each of your heightened and independent review.

The growth plan provides that public input is paramount, and I quote, public impact input is paramount in producing a growth policy that reflects the community's goals and values, unquote.

In furtherance of this mission, quote, over 1,200 comments were received from 35 public meetings, end quote.

In receipt of those comments, the Billings City Council noted that, quote, parks, trails, and open space were among the most frequently cited concerns by expressed by Billings residents.

Again, please view these maps as the council intended, and that the growth plan mandates as a reflection of the public's desire that this land be preserved as parkland.

Do not be distracted by irrelevant arguments, such as the project recode or the correction of previous zoning misdirections.

Public input as reflected in the growth plan, inclusive of those maps that I'm talking about that were shown in chapter five, are your guiding light.

This council's predecessor body resolved to give its voice to a citizens in the growth plan.

I urge this Billing City Council to fulfill its obligation to make sure that voice is heard, resist special interests that are inconsistent with the community's collective voice, and summarily deny the proposed zoning change.

Thank you.

Good evening, members of the council, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Dylan Petrick, a proud resident of Billings, and also the chief operating officer of Yellowstone Country Club.

I apologize.

We haven't updated our brochure from 75 years ago.

I am in I am here in support of the proposed zoning change that will allow Yellowstone Country Club to rezone seven lots for more flexible use of our non-operating assets.

The proposals about responsible strategic growth that benefits not only our organization, but the broader billings community.

YCC is already a strong local employer.

On average, we employ 120 individuals, with that number exceeding 200 during peak season.

These are meaningful jobs for members of our of our community, supported by an annual payroll of over three and a half million dollars.

These are not just numbers, these are livelihoods.

They represent families, students, and long-term employees who rely on the consistency and growth of our business.

Additionally, we generate over 7.5 million in annual revenue, contributing directly to strengthen our local economy.

Beyond these measurable impacts, Yellowstone plays an important role in enhancing the quality and desirability of our community.

The presence of a well-maintained, thriving country club contributes to increased home values in the surrounding area, and helps billings become an even more attractive place to live and invest in.

The zoning and judge adjustment before you is both practical and forward thinking.

It allows us to better utilize our assets, enabling us to continue growing our business, expand employment opportunities, and increase our economic impact.

This is not about changing the character of this community, but about strengthening it.

It's about ensuring that a long-standing local institution can continue to evolve, grow, and serve billings well into the future.

I respectfully ask for your support and a yes vote on this proposal.

Support for local jobs, economic growth, the respect of private property, and continued investment in your economy.

Thank you.

Mayor, Council, thank you for your time.

My name is Justin Moser.

I live at 5978 Ironwood Drive, which means I am a neighbor to these properties that are being discussed.

I am also on the board of Yellowstone Country Club.

I just wanted to reiterate two points that have been made.

I am in uh I support making this change, obviously, but I think there's been an inference that this is a relatively new development.

Uh in 2017, Yellowstone Country Club started looking at all of its property in much more detail, and it had been done many years before that also.

We had a thing called COVID.

We then looked at it again in 2022 and at that point started a refresh, if you will, and hired a new engineering firm uh to work through this.

So it is not a result of or a response to anything that has happened in the last four months.

We have been working towards this resolution for some time, and I thank you for your help.

Mayor count Mayor, Council, thank you for your time.

Josh Hedge, 5910, Autumnwood Drive.

I've born and raised Billings, Montana, grew up in the country club, lived my life up on those trails we're talking about.

Currently live in Ironwood, the land bordering what the country club owns with the country club bordering up to Ironwood.

So we my family of uh my wife and six kids and I use these trails all the time.

Served on the board uh for six years, 2015 to uh 2021 at Yellowstone Country Club.

And I can just vouch and say that for the reasons that you've heard in support, these are accurate.

Uh, the other thing I would say that we haven't heard the positive side of this is that I agree that families living by open spaces is great for families, kids, the community.

This is seven more families that will get to do that with very unencumbered access.

In fact, the access is a little bit easier going through that Harry Cooper route uh is actually better and much easier for kids and family.

It's the one I take because the one that uh respectfully, former mayor Bill Cole recommending splitting the lot.

I would uh advise against that.

I know we haven't hit that today, that's why I came up.

I would advise against that for two reasons.

It will make those lots must much less desirable.

It also creates a very, very steep upslope to that rim point.

And that access is a little bit risky, quite a bit risky, actually.

I've gone, I've got a lot of bruises for my kids on that one.

It'd be one of the country club at that point would have to consider probably, I'm not on the board, but some more restriction to that point anyway, if you divide it because it is so risky.

If you go up there, you'll see that, and I'm sure the home structures and everything.

So we just didn't address that.

That was my only comment respectfully to Mayor Bill Cole.

I get what he's saying.

I just um would caution against that plan because I think it's probably gonna get restricted anyway.

If I was on the board, that's what I would be restricting that one because it's too dangerous.

So thank you for all your time, and I'm in favor of it.

Hello, my name is Susan Plath.

I live on Tommy Armour.

My family has resided in the YCC since 1990.

There are the in the country club area.

Uh, there are trails along the rims that my family has used from the moment we moved in.

We've uh are now on three generations of family using the established trails.

When we bought this in 1990, our realtor did tell us I specifically ask about the trails, and I was told at that time that that was for our use.

Um I did not understand that the YCC owned that.

Um I I thought it was probably parkland, and that's why we were allowed to use that.

Um three generations have used these established trails.

We've walked, jogged, bike these trails.

We've climbed the rims, we've collected bugs for science classes and identified wild wildflowers and animal scat along these trails.

Initially, I came here to talk about two surveyed lots that would have crossed those trails, making it um difficult to continue using the trails.

You would have to rock climb in one area.

Um, it's today that I learned that the country club resurveyed those two uh lots, and I want to thank them for listening to the neighbors.

It really makes the difference to me, and I really appreciate that.

Um I still do have a couple of concerns on lots 10 and or 11 and 12.

This is where they um Bill mentioned maybe um subdividing those two lots to give people a place to climb there.

Uh I agree with um Josh.

I think that would be difficult.

It is a steep path.

What I am concerned about is it is steep, and there are outcroppings of rocks that are separate from the rims.

I am worried that when we start moving that ground to build houses there, that those rocks will, those boulders will come tumbling down and not necessarily impact those places, those two lots that are being developed, but the homes down below.

Um I fully understand that the YCC owns the land, uh, but I appreciate them allowing us to continue using the trails.

I want to thank you all for the opportunity to speak today, and I appreciate the hard work that you have that you uh work on.

Let me reset.

And I appreciate your hard work on behalf of our community.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor Council, my name is Doug McBride.

I live with 3137 Peregrine Lane.

I've been a member of Yellowstone Country Club for 39 years.

Um, and I want to thank you for this consideration on this.

I won't, as the mayor requested go over some of the points.

I think they were all well stated, but I just like to say that this proposal aligns with the city's stated priorities, respects property rights, preserves existing recreational assets, and represents responsible, efficient development.

So I respectfully urge you to pass this annexation request.

It's good for the club.

It's good for the community, it's good for the state.

Thank you.

Council, uh, Mayor Nelson, Ryan Auer.

I live at 3612 Tommy Armour Circle.

So right in the neighborhood that a lot of the previous speakers have mentioned.

Um, like Mr.

Hedge, I grew up in the country club from 1978 to 1993 when I went off to college, uh, raising my two girls there now over the last five years.

Been a member on and off of the country club for 20 plus years and a very brief stint on the board.

So a lot of different uh things have come into my mind as we've talked about this topic.

I was initially against the rezoning entirely.

Um, as I've heard more speakers talk tonight and talk to many of my neighbors and friends, I'm 100% in support of Bill Cole's initial discussion of preserving that trail that goes up from the middle of uh Ben Hogan and Tommy Armour up to the top of the of the point is kind of been called.

Um, you know, I think there's a way without reducing the size of three lots to just simply have two lots instead of three there, with that section still remaining preserved.

I mean, six lots versus seven lots.

I mean, we're kind of getting into to brass tax there in that case.

So, and if the country club's concerned about liability of slip and falls or whatever going up to that area, they should just shut the whole rims down because it's probably riskier that you're gonna fall off the top off of land that they already own than you are slipping on the trail going up to that section.

So 100% in support of Bill's idea, um, a conditional approval with that section still preserved for hiking and historical use.

So thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Emily Adam, and I live at 3628 Ben Hogan Lane, right in the center of that parcel, too.

Um, I'm also a country club member, and I live within 150 feet of the proposed zone change.

And I did sign the petition.

Um, I just wanted to maybe provide some follow-up to some of the questions that I don't feel like have been answered, and also just provide a couple comments.

I saw that one of the reasons that the zoning was suggested to be passed is that um for the home base growth plan.

Um, and the I just noticed today that the home base planning um is in support of sidewalks and trails that are important to the livability of billings.

So I don't know why getting rid of those would actually be in favor of the growth plan.

We don't also true to the theme.

We do not have any sidewalks in our neighborhood.

And the actual growth plan says that the trails are important to the livability of billings.

So I think that's a little um that didn't quite jive for me.

The four access points they talked about, uh, two of them, the right-of-ways, those are people's private driveways.

That it ends with two driveways.

There'd be no, there's nowhere to go.

Those are their driveways.

And then the third one is what Mayor Cole talked about.

And it's a concrete V-shaped ditch, like he said, the access is inadequate.

So the three of the four that they provided are actually not access points.

And if you use those ride-aways, there's no trail to the trail system.

And that's what we're all here about.

Thank you for keeping the trail system in place.

We're concerned about the access to the trail system.

Yes, it's only six lots that provides all of the access to the massive trail system that we all enjoy.

Um, you had a question about have you talked with your neighbors or tried to come to an agreement?

Um, a couple months ago, I went to the country club and asked for a first right of refusal for any homeowner in the neighborhood so that they could keep it as open space.

The country club could get their lot, could get their cash.

Um I was I asked for first right refusal for any entity that was comprised of members within the homeowners association and was quickly um rebuffed.

And in walking around the neighborhood, talking to the 17 people who would be impacted by this zone change who signed the petition, they many of them said that they had done the same thing, that they had offered to buy the land and keep it as open space because it is such a gem, and they were told no.

So I hope that will answer your question there.

Um, I also think that the traffic has been maybe set aside.

It would obviously increase more traffic.

And I moved my kids up there.

I have a wild puppy now that we use the trails almost every day.

I moved up there solely because of this access, the open space and the trails.

So I'll leave you with that.

Thank you for your time tonight.

Thank you.

Yeah, come on up and stand in line.

Thank you.

Mayor, counsel, John Forte here in no official capacity this evening.

As a lifelong public servant, I understand the value of collaboration and transparency when creating change.

None of which happened here.

Put more simply, be a good neighbor.

To Bill Cole's point, one simple action would solve a lot of problems.

We need agreements in writing.

That these lots will, in fact, be added into the existing HO8 covenants to ensure neighborhood continuity.

And yes, those covenants are more restrictive than city code.

Our neighbors are simply asking to formally codify their verbal and email intent to secure trail access and be a good neighbor.

To me, this isn't about the access points, it's about the actual trail.

PowerPoint bullets, statements to the media and an email to council are not enough to codify this.

The board has refused or simply doesn't care to engage in a meaningful way with our HOA and their neighbors.

They want what they want.

A lack of collaboration and initiative to be open and honest with club members and neighbors, and our HOA has eroded trust, and their word is simply not enough.

For decades, every acre of YCC land has advanced quality of life and property values within our neighborhood.

It is an asset, but we need assurances and not empty promises.

I believe in governance by least restrictive means.

Therefore, I respectfully ask council to condition this approval by requiring good faith engagement with RHOA and to create a formal consent agreement before between both entities to control secure access to these private trails and make these unofficial neighborhood trails official.

Perhaps they'll listen to you.

To my club board members and staff, thanks for allowing us to trespass.

However, as a club member, I pay for access to that trail.

Just as I pay for access to play tennis or use the pool or walk the golf course.

Again, this club is an asset, and our neighborhood is strong, but it could be much stronger.

We keep asking, and they keep saying to you and us that access will remain, but the value of their word has declined, like the assets on their balance sheet.

Please ask them for this assurance in writing to be a good neighbor and do the right thing.

Thank you.

Sorry, folks.

This is just about talking, no clapping.

Evening.

Mayor, Council, Matt Drange, live at 5622 Belly Casper Drive.

So I am also a neighbor to this proposed change.

Um one thing I did notice earlier in the discussion was Councilman O'Donnell.

Um he brought up something about how these lots were never developed.

I don't think anybody knows why they were never developed, but they are clearly sitting there prime for development.

They are on the street.

There are trails that cut through a majority of them.

That has been hot topic of discussion tonight.

I will say I live right at the bottom of Quimet, which there are two lots in discussion for this zoning change.

That's not an easy hike up.

The Ben Hogan Trail is not an easy hike up.

And there are those two trails, in my estimation, being a neighbor of these trails, those are basically neighborhood shortcuts.

I don't, being where I live, I don't, I never see public come into the neighborhood to park at the top of those loops, hike up those trails to then go east and west, right?

You go east, or I'm sorry, west into Ironwood, you go east toward town, and you end up back at the top of those loops.

I never see that based on where I live.

Again, based on where I live, I come out my street.

I live at the very top of 54th Street West.

Always a line of cars parked there.

That has been the main access for that trail system, in my estimation.

I am strongly in favor of this proposed change.

Um another aspect I thought I heard someone say, I apologize, I didn't hear who said it.

Someone brought up the lack of tax revenue that these lots have generated based on their zoning.

Sell them, develop them tax revenue, right?

Um, that's just the the business owner in me coming out.

So again, strongly in favor of this proposal, and I think we thank you all for your time.

My last point is the water mains.

The last, the most recent one that broke up there was right in front of my house.

Major props of the city of Billings that was done in a day.

Great crew in front of my house.

My kids loved it.

Have a good night.

Thank you.

Any further public comment.

Before you get started, will there be any further public comment?

If there is, please come forward and stage yourself up front.

Would save us a few seconds.

All right.

You're on.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

And members of the council.

My name is Elizabeth Halverson.

I have lived on Sam Sneed Trail and Billings for 33 years.

My friends, family, and I, grandkids, dogs regularly use the trails.

I understand tonight that uh annexation is not a foregone conclusion.

If that is true, I would appreciate it if the city would closely evaluate whether this um proposed annexation is in its best interest.

I strongly second what Mr.

Forte said.

We need things in writing.

Access has been cut off to the trails in the past.

The trail system is really an iconic valuable treasure to our community.

It fits so well with the growth policies that we have identified.

We've identified our values and said we want parkland and open space.

But access to the back nine has been whittled away over the years.

I've watched it happened.

I've watched the fences go up, the barbed wire, and the warning signs.

And uh we should probably have a greater conversation as a community about what kind of access we want to have long term a strategy to secure public access to that entire trail system.

It costs nothing to maintain, and it does honor the growth policy.

I think there's a reason that the um country club has not developed those lots.

They're really tough to build on, and they're probably a rockfall hazard.

I think the YCC has probably agreed for decades that that property is most appropriately used as open space.

I get that from the fact that for 50 years, while major subdivisions were being developed all around us, YCC decided to continue to hold that land as open space.

It sounds like they set up a separate LLC to hold its uh non-operating assets, that is open space acres.

Logically, the YCC gained tax benefits from holding the property that way.

And in 2021, had the chance to protest that parkland designation and chose not to do so.

I think the benefits to the YCC must exist there.

And I I do want to thank you.

I think that this is uh a two-part process.

You have the annexation issue, and then you have the zoning issue.

And I would ask that you deny the annexation, and then you won't have to reach the zoning.

But uh I do appreciate your taking time and attention on this, and I appreciate your work as public servants.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor and Council.

Uh button, hold on just a second before you get started.

Uh is it proper for this gentleman to speak uh during public hearing since he's already been.

Yeah, we'll call you back up if we need to.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Any other public hearing?

All right.

So do we have questions for our engineer?

Yeah, I will.

Not yet.

I'm just just the debating of if there's anybody else.

Anyone else for the third time?

Any other any further public comment?

All right, then I'm gonna close the public hearing and ask our engineer now to come up.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Um, I don't have a lot to add.

Obviously, there's been a lot of discussion back and forth, but would just like to make a couple clarifications.

Um, first, as it relates to the growth policy.

As you may remember from the slide that I had up, there are there are different maps within the existing growth policy.

There's about four different ones within chapter five, which was referenced.

Um high density, low density, west preferred infill.

Um I will admit I did misspeak at the zoning commission meeting.

If you look at those maps, it's very hard to tell where those hexagons are.

I mean, they take up probably close to a city block.

The two that I showed tonight are from the low density as well as the West Preferred.

Um the area that I was referencing during the zoning commission meeting uh is designated as essentially where the country club is looking at a future back nine potentially, but not this area.

The area that is identified in those, or the area that we are looking at is not identified on any of those maps as park, as residential, as anything.

And I think a lot of that goes back to the growth policy was written in 2016.

At that time, those lots were zoned as R 9600.

And so like as zone land, it probably was not a consideration of the growth policy at that time for these particular areas would be.

So I just wanted to clarify that.

And then in addition to the access points, the four existing access points that would carry through in this proposal are dedicated right away.

People may have their driveways coming off of those dedicated rideways, right-of-ways.

There is various improvements within those rightways, but they are dedicated right aways that are owned by the city buildings currently.

Um with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions, as well as uh if the owner would have an opportunity to address any.

Mr.

Nece.

I'm not uh don't have any questions.

I just want to get a motion out there so we can start the process.

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

I move to approve resolution conditionally approving the annexation 2601 as recommended by staff.

We have a second error.

Yes, sir.

I'll speak to my motion.

I I um looking at this property.

This is uh this is this is really needs to be brought into the city.

Um I I thank the the gentleman who mentioned it about the uh map that was online.

I actually took a look at that and it mirrors right up to what was there and everything north of theirs, all uh all sites um in the brochure says gonna be future development.

So from the beginning of the when this was first published, this was all planned to be future development.

So I think this this is um this is really a correction in the recode process.

The the the club, the club members benefited a little bit for over the last few years, paying a few little few dollars in taxes.

Now they're just bringing it back in for development.

So um again, that is this is something I think that we'll see hopefully uh more future development north of that um because there looks like some more prime land there to be different.

In fact, there's other roads that even the future map shows other roads in there that will are to be developed in the future.

So I look forward to this, and I uh think everyone should vote in yes in favor of this.

Mr.

O'Donnell.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh I think uh uh I'm uh not used to this, but I think I'll make a substitute motion uh in that uh approval uh but contingent upon uh the written uh suggestion of Mr.

Forte, I believe, uh, to uh require the uh country club uh having uh given historical 75 years access to to this uh open space uh trail system uh that they uh that they uh uh uh provide and uh guarantee uh reasonable and and accessible access to trails uh from uh in that area.

Uh I I don't know exactly how to word that, but I think that uh uh the uh the um well I'll make that motion substitute motion.

Yeah.

Yes, sir, Mr.

Boyet.

Yeah.

Can we I don't can we do that?

Um our attorney legally.

I don't know that we can.

That's why I'm asking the question.

What?

The substitute motion anything asking for more than what we're allowed to say.

Uh council member Boyet, Mayor and Council.

Um, when you say asking for more than so, I I think maybe it the motion wasn't um worded eloquently, but I think that the intent was something along the lines of what former mayor cole represented earlier or proposed earlier.

Um and yes, I think council could condition the annexation on such a um on such a condition, and we would just need to work through what that language is.

So all of you can, I guess, discuss exactly what it is that your intent is.

Um, but annexations can be conditioned.

So you could, for example, require a certain described portion to be dedicated to the public or something like that.

And then those details could be further worked out and included in the in the annexation resolution and um further described in the annexation agreement.

So, Mr.

O'Donnell.

Uh well, um is there is do I restate the motion?

We need to clarify the emotion, the motion and then ask for a second on that.

So the motion would be to approve the uh annexation request.

Uh condition with uh the uh Yellowstone Country Club, the owner of the property, uh, to uh maintain uh reasonable and uh uh accessible access to the trail system, however, they would design mutually with the property owners in the area area with the association uh to do that.

Uh certainly there have been areas that were said that the incline is so steep that it's point of order not reasonable.

He's speaking to his motion before a second.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

I told you I'm new to this.

So yes, so Mr.

O'Donnell, so to clarify your motion, there's currently four access points, and you would conditionally approve it with those four, or would you want another access point?

The two of those access points were regarded as being unreasonable, as being too steep and dangerous.

So actually, so before you speak to that, yeah.

Are are you asking for an additional access point?

So we have we have they have six now, and it's gonna go down to four.

And are you saying four is okay, or do you want more?

I want the reasonable and accessible access as agreed to between the Yellowstone Country Club and the residents of the area.

Um that's up to them to decide what's reasonable.

Do you have a second for that?

Mayor, I I'm listening to that.

I'm I'm not so sure that that could be made part of that.

That's not something we could condition the annexation on.

I think he's referencing agreement between other parties, and this would have to be something so we've asked for a second, seeing none.

I think the motion dies.

Okay.

One moment, please.

I haven't spoken at all.

I would like to just I have a question, a legal question.

Thank you.

Or the question is called the quiet.

He called for the question.

Okay.

So go ahead, Mr.

Boyette.

Calling the question ends debate immediately.

Thank you.

All right.

So we have a motion.

Do we have a second because I've forgotten already who's seconded it?

Yes.

All right, Mr.

Boyette.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

All right.

So should we vote?

You have to.

Yes.

Okay.

On what?

On the motion.

The motion is Mayor.

Mayor, if I may, once the question has been called, um, debate ends immediately.

And there does need to be a second.

The question of whether to call the question is not debatable, and two-thirds vote is required to call the question.

I'll second.

All right.

Shall we vote?

Um, all those in favor of voting, please raise your hand so we can see if we have two-thirds.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven.

We need we need eight.

Seven.

So we're good.

Now we vote.

I think you only need six because there are two recusals, I believe.

Oh, just one.

Oh, Mark didn't no.

Oh, okay.

I'm sorry.

So you need to need seven.

All right.

So now we have a motion on a table.

Generally, uh to approve a resolution conditionally approving annexation 2601 as recommended by staff.

Am I correct?

All right.

Is there any discussion regarding the there's no?

Oh no.

Oh, we don't.

We call the thank you for that.

Um, here we go, then.

All those in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

All right.

The motion passes.

Uh Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

Leave the motion pass as unanimous.

Having conducted a um public hearing consider written spoke of public testimony.

I move to approve the resolution of zone change 1077 and adopt the findings of the 10 uh review criteria as recommend recommended by the zoning commission.

So moved by council person, seconded by councilperson Boyette.

Any discussion?

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Motion passes.

Okay, item six.

Public hearing and first reading ordinance expanding the boundaries of ward four to include recently annexed property in annexation 2601.

Parcel generally located near Tommy Armour's Circle and Ben Hogan Lane.

Yellowstone Country Club staff recommends approval.

Oh, I'm sorry, public hearing.

Do we have a anybody from the city?

Boundaries.

Yeah.

Mr.

Mayor.

There's no presentation.

Do you have a motion?

Mr.

Burgess.

Just public hearing and then uh thank you.

Mr.

Mayor.

Just for clarification, I'll be recusing myself from this vote as well.

Uh as it's related to the last topic.

All right, very good.

So we're gonna have a public hearing on uh this item six.

Is there any public comment on item six?

Any public on item six, expanding the boundaries of ward four.

All right.

Mayor seeing none, I'll close the public hearing um and call for a motion.

Mayor.

Oh, council member.

Mr.

Lindley.

Hi, Mayor.

Umducted a public hearing considered written and spoken public testimony.

I move to approve the first reading ordinance expanding the boundaries of ward four as recommended by staff.

Second.

Okay, you, Mr.

Nees.

Any discussion regarding the motion.

Seeing none, I'll call for a vote.

All those in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

It's a unanimous.

Item seven.

Public hearing and first reading ordinance amending billings, Montana City Code, BMC C sections 24-354, 355, and 358.

Noise regulation of motor vehicles.

Staff recommends approval.

I just mayor, council, good evening.

Do not have a presentation on this topic.

Is in fact uh you know where we're at right now, it's under 18-1304.

Um Judge Kollar rang in this afternoon and she writes, I quote, uh, it's a municipal infraction.

The base is 100.

It's up to the council if you want to raise it.

Uh she adds that the ordinance needs to be clearly written and provable.

Uh that is an admonition to legal and the police department.

Uh and so uh as it stands right now, the minimum again base of a hundred dollars for a first offense up to 300, and then it's 500 for a subsequent offense.

Uh municipal infraction, you may change that, but it would have to be another amendment to uh 18-1304.

Uh, I would recommend we move forward and get started with it if we can uh need to make adjustments uh if we have to uh later.

Uh other questions that uh uh came up during the discussion.

Uh I think we're clearly uh um delineated in the uh new ordinance specifically.

We talked about quiet zones.

Uh the only quiet zone that exists uh in billings right now, that would be uh the 27th railroad crossing.

Everything else is uh regulated by decibel level, but it is specific here to hospitals, residential areas, things of that sort.

So we have the latitude uh in there, but there's nothing that where there's a sign specifically uh on that particular area there.

Uh certainly there's some zoning classifications, uh, but it clearly talks about proximity to dwellings, schools, hospital, places assembly, and uh where pedestrians and by tanners are.

So there's a lot of latitude uh there.

Uh again, mayor and council, uh, no substantive changes.

Uh we recommend that uh you pass this and uh we'll get to work on it.

Mayor.

Thank you, Chief.

Any questions, Mr.

Aston later?

Mayor, if I may, it I I apologize for interrupting.

I just want to just clarify um the chief said there's no substantive changes.

However, as you'll see up in the screen, um the direction I took, I think incorrectly from the last meeting, based on our meeting this morning morning, that um I provided this edit because it was my understanding that council would like to see a mandatory minimum fine here.

So um, while the chief is correct in that um the section 18-1304 generally provides for a hundred dollar fine, that applies to all municipal infractions.

So we wouldn't want to make the change there, but but you could impose a mandatory fine here in this section on these specific offenses.

Um, and so if that is what council wanted to do, there's some proposed language there for council to consider on that.

And this language simply provides for a mandatory fine of $300 for a first offense and a $500 fine for a subsequent offense.

And I also just included within a 12-month period, um, that's something you could strike, but my thought there was if somebody didn't have an offense for five years that uh maybe you would wouldn't necessarily want that to be considered a subsequent offense.

So that's that was another just a thought that I had uh to include there.

So for your consideration is that language.

All right, thank you.

Ms.

Aftsman Liner.

Yeah, thanks, Mr.

Mayor.

Gina, just so I'm clear between what you just said and what I thought I heard the chief say.

If we included this this language that you have highlighted here in yellow, that would not require us to go back and change 18-1304, like Judge Collar had insinuated as that accurate.

That's correct.

That would if you change that section, that would be applicable to any and all municipal infractions.

And that wasn't, I think that was not what was discussed here.

Yeah.

So this would just apply here.

I think what you did was exactly what I was looking for, which was set some mandatory minimums and uh an escalator for subsequent offenses.

The the only thing that I would I would comment on with this proposed change is I I would I I agree that you know a subsequent events three or four or five years later, probably should not carry the big stick.

However, a lot of times we're we're dealing with teenagers.

I have one.

Teenagers are dumb.

They don't learn the first time, and they don't learn the second time often either.

Um so I would change the 12 months to 36 months.

And and that kind of encapsulates the the high school teenage years to um to make this punitive like it was intended.

So that would be the only change that I would recommend in this is changing that 12 months to 36.

I'd be open to 24 if somebody was more comfortable with that.

But I think we we need to stretch that out a little bit further than the 12 months.

But otherwise, I appreciate the language that that you two came up with.

Thank you.

Let's see, uh Mr.

Pivman, you're next.

I I just had another clarification.

So um I had mentioned at the end of the last meeting.

Do we have to exempt first responder sirens?

And it struck out in here and said it's referred to somewhere else.

Could you just expand on that?

It's on section 24 353.

Councilmember Pittman, I'm just trying to pull it up here.

You're referencing language specifically in 24353.

That's what it says here.

You have it struck out as exemptions and then have it as authority.

And then it says this chapter is adopted under the authority granted to municipalities 714123 MCA.

Right.

member pitman I'm just trying to pull it up here you're referencing language specifically in 24353 that's what it says here you have it struck out as exemptions and then have it as authority and then it says this chapter is adopted under the authority granted to municipalities 714123 MCA right that's yes that's that's simply the legal authority that provides counsel to adopt like the the police power council has to adopt such a could you speak up could you speak up yes apologies is that better um thank you that language is simply the reference to the state the state statute that provides council this police power this legal authority to um endor uh enact this ordinance follow up then so so the follow up do we have to do how do we put an exemption to make sure the fire police can respond with their sirens and they're not in violation of their own of our own ordinance council member I do believe that that uh that there is a stipulation um under 24-357 right below section F.

It says uh chapter shall not apply to authorized emergency vehicles operating with emergency equipment okay thank you let's see Mr.

Boyet you're next say chief um it says an officer may issue a citation based on personal observations or or other admissible evidence when a vehicle produces unreasonable noise noise well as the cop I could write a ticket because you were speeding because I had a radar gun I could address you for a DUI because I could do a blood test.

Here it's only going to be the officer's word against the other guy.

And I see a lot more conflict with that in a court system him versus me and him for me versus him.

Is there anything that we can give the officer I mean a tape recorder or something that can back up what their claim is have you thought about that at all?

Uh council member yes I think that's one of the admonitions that Judge Collar had is to make it provable um it's the same standard we use with uh with loud stereos uh for that matter it's just I heard it and it was over 50 feet so it's the same standard there.

I would say that uh we also have in car cameras and body cameras um a lot of them are uh pre-activated uh they record um uh ahead of when you actually turn them on so we should be able to capture some of those I think that will be a challenge however but at the end of the day if the officer can clearly articulate has credibility uh and uh you know can't uh make his case uh then that should be a prosecutable uh situation thank you Mr.

O'Donnell thank you uh clarification uh please uh Gina uh on that yellow uh part that you you had highlighted there it says subject to a three hundred dollar fine it seems to me that that is the language uh contrary my understanding is contrary to uh council member ashman lighter that that would subject to would be a maximum not a minimum uh council member mayor counsel actually the language is that a person found in violation is shall be subject to a civil penalty so that that um is a man that's mandatory language so that's obvious well uh the word subject to would it change the word subject to if you don't like that but the word shall makes it mandatory so we can we can finesse that to something uh Mr.

Mayor if I could it seems to me saying subject to a 300 fine would mean it says yeah you're subject to 300 fine but you're also subject to anything other than that subject the word subject is that you're you're liable to a three hundred dollar fine but it's not necessary that's like I said we can change that word to something else but I I respectfully disagree with your interpretation but I'm happy to find something that is that works better.

And then Ms.

Mayor if I could ask a question to the chief um we've discussed this before and I think even last week uh I don't see how uh I I think the ordinance is great the way it's written it gives you and your people uh something definite that you said was was lacking and I appreciate that uh however I really don't see that it's enforceable uh as again as a person whose bedroom is right on Shiloh Avenue uh this last weekend uh in the dark there were people making a lot of noise on there uh it's tough enough to catch them in the daylight uh how are you gonna catch anybody at night well again we're going off of sound um and I I need to be able to positively identify the vehicle and the driver in order to right uh to have the requisite uh probable cause to make a stop and issue a citation on that nothing changes there uh I re this is going to be difficult it's incumbent upon us to take enforcement action uh but this is a tool that you can give us to help it make a lot easier uh it's so in is it's just unwieldy to all of a sudden try to use a sound meter when

Um, and I I need to be able to positively identify the vehicle and the driver in order to uh to have the requisite uh probable cause to make a stop and issue a citation on that.

Nothing changes there.

Uh I re this is going to be difficult.

It's incumbent upon us to take enforcement action.

Uh, but this is a tool that you can give us to help it make a lot easier.

Uh it's so in it it's just unwieldy to all of a sudden try to use a sound meter when uh you know I have no idea when somebody's gonna go uh past uh a particular area at a particular time.

This uh gives us a tool that we're right there, we observe, we hear, and we can take action.

Yes, it's going to be very, very difficult.

Um, but it's incumbent upon us and upon me to make sure that we utilize it as best we can.

Right now we don't have a usable tool uh to address this issue.

Mr.

Mayor, one other thing.

I'd like to ask the chief uh if we pass this ordinance, I'd like to get uh an update within six months or w during this six months period of how many times you ticket based upon this events.

Thank you.

Uh happy to do that.

Keep in mind there's a 30-day uh marination period, I believe, before it actually goes into effect.

So six months and 30 days would be sure uh an extra request.

But yes, happy to report back.

That uh certainly certainly uh uh a uh good good request.

Thank you.

Cool.

Thank you.

Um can we just have the screen show the changes on here so when we go to approve it, you know what the changes are.

You bet.

You bet.

This screen, can you show the change the yellow changes you you made on the screen?

It is scrolled.

Thank you.

So while she's doing that, I'm gonna go to the public hearing regarding item number seven on the agenda.

There's anybody who wishes to speak to the uh first reading of the uh ordinance.

Please come forward, state your name, where you live, and give us three minutes.

This is regarding item number seven only.

Uh Kevin Nelson, 4235 Bruce Avenue.

Uh hopefully you will uh support and uh move this ordinance forward.

One of the tools that used to be in the old law that now has come back into this particular uh ordinance is uh increased noise beyond the vehicle's original manufacturer specifications.

And that used to be the old law back, man, that was back 10 years ago.

And then they changed it and took that out.

So there is a there is a an additional tool there that uh if someone determines that the original manufacturer's equipment has been modified, that would be a a probable cause reason to stop that vehicle and be able to see if it has been modified.

So that might be a tool in the toolbox that comes back into play that's been gone for a while.

And uh statistics.

This is an interesting one.

42,000 deaths, traffic deaths in the United States.

Reckless driving, about 11,000 per year.

When we've had some.

I mean, just the other day, a vehicle went plumb through Broadwater and into Softy's ice cream storage facility.

You know how fast you gotta be going?

Remember the picture in the paper, the guy launches over the first house and lands on the second house going down Grand Avenue.

You think that was his first attempt or first speeding?

No.

So I would just hope that you know we take the steps, let's take a small step, let's get some enforcement, additional tools and toolbox, and uh see what we can do about some of this dangerous, reckless and aggressive speeding.

Thanks.

Any other public comment regarding item number seven.

Good evening, Mayor and uh council members.

My name is Jeff Kettleson.

I live at 489 South 44 Street West.

And my apartment directly faces Shiloh Road.

I'm right over by the uh college over there.

And last weekend was out of control.

It was out of control.

Um we're talking motorcycles, but we're also talking big giant trucks.

I I don't get it.

They just they ride up and down that street, and they go they hang out over by the uh AMC theater.

I am a hundred percent in favor of supporting this ordinance change.

The only comment that I would like to say is I think a twenty four month window is it it's enough.

You know if they don't learn if they don't learn on the first or second time.

I think they will.

Anyways, I hope you pass it.

Thank you.

Having conducted a public hearing, consider written and spoken test public testimony.

I move to approve first reading ordinance amending BMCC sections twenty four three fifty four, three fifty-five, and three fifty eight, nor's rig noise regulations of motor vehicles as recommended by staff.

I'm not done yet.

Sorry.

With uh Miss Doll's highlighted language changing twelve months to twenty four months.

Hold on just a second.

I think Mr.

Kennedy beat you to the request, but I want to see if he still wants to second.

Mr.

Kennedy seconds.

And add twenty-four months as subsequent violation time period.

Any discussion regarding the motion.

Seeing none, I'll ask for a vote now.

All those in favor of the motion as stated, please say aye.

All those opposed, please say aye.

That's a unanimous vote.

Thank you, Chief.

Item number eight.

Hold on just a second.

I'm gonna propose or ask something of the council.

I think we've been here a while again since our last break.

Everybody okay with going on, or would you like to take a nine minute break?

This will be a while.

All right, we're gonna take a break until nine twenty-eight.

Item number eight.

Have you read it?

No.

Would you like to?

Sure.

Please do.

Okay.

Resolution providing direction to staff regarding property taxes and the FY twenty twenty-seven budget.

Staff and the budget and finance committee recommend approval.

All regarding our property tax funding formula for next fiscal year and how it relates to the budget that we're developing.

So the resolution that's before you tonight is asking for direction to staff on how to proceed with that.

The recommendation is that we proceed with uh developing the budget under MCA 1564014A, which is transitioning all of the city's property tax mill levy structure to 1510 420 or the floating mill concept as allowed by law.

So we're gonna start back in 1977.

I'll give you some history on how the tax law for billings uh got to what it was and where we're at today and what we're asking for from you guys.

I'm trying to minimize your faces on this screen because I can see you.

All right.

So in 1977, we passed or the citizens passed the charter uh or adopted the charter, which established 74 general purpose mills, which could not be exceeded without a vote.

And in 90 1980, they uh voters approved an additional 10 mills for transit.

1994, five mills for the library.

In 1998, the voters approved the first public safety mill levy.

Uh that was not put on tax bills until 1999.

And in 1999, the legislature established 1510 420, which is commonly referred to as the floating mill.

Um, and that limitation uh sets a revenue ceiling for local governments across the state of Montana.

And I'll describe that further later.

Uh in 2001, the legislature further amended 1510 420 and then also added into the section of statute for mandatory provisions.

Uh the sentence, the provisions of 1510-420 apply to self-governing local government units, meaning your charter cannot allow you to violate 1510-420.

You must you must comply with this.

In 2025, as many of you are familiar, the legislature again did significant uh property tax legislation, which directed the city of Billings to uh levy the number of mills necessary to generate the same revenue in 26 that it generated in 25.

In order to do that, we had to levy more mills than what our charter allowed.

So 1510 420, just a very general summary of it.

Uh there is some more detailed nuance in how the formula works, but the the high level summary is you look at last year's revenue, you apply uh an inflation factor that is given to us by the Department of Revenue, but it's a rolling average of half the rate of inflation for three years.

That gives you a new number that's slightly higher than last year's, and you levy the number of mills necessary to generate that much revenue.

Uh you're you're not, I should say that gives you the authority to levy that much.

You do not have to levy the number of mills to generate that much revenue.

But if you choose not to levy that amount, that authority carries on from year to year.

You don't forego that forever.

In 2025, the legislature amended 1510, 420 outside of the two major property tax bills, and they got rid of half the rate of inflation, and they said local governments can get the rolling average full rate of inflation or 4%, whichever's lower.

The again, the mandatory provisions portion uh was added in 2001 that said 1510 420 applies to self-governing local government units.

Uh admittedly, I was unaware that that was a mandatory provision until a few years ago.

Uh I had always been under the assumption, uh, and it appears from everything I've seen from before I was at the city.

We never calculated what our authority was in 1510-420.

Um, and so in 23 or 24, I went back and said, okay, had we enacted 1510-420 in 1999.

What was that authority and how did that relate to those mills that exist, those three mills, the general fund, library, and transit, the ones that were in place in 1999, and was relieved and pleased to find out we had never violated 1510-420 because we stayed at our charter cap, which was below that authority.

That authorities represented there by the blue line.

These are just numbers of mills.

This is not necessarily representative of revenue.

Um, as you can see, those three mills stayed at 89 mills from 1984 to about 2015.

And largely when property values increased quite a bit, the floating mill comes down, council also recognized that and lowered the number of mills that we were levying as well.

When you layer in on top of those, the voted levies, we did exceed 1510-420.

That is allowed.

Those are voted specific additional mills on top of 1510, 420.

So those green mills are all three of our public safety mill levies that we still have today.

So House Bill 231, Senator Bill 542 is now in statute in 1564.

This language is exactly from the bill.

But just highlighting here in part two of that statute, they the legislature clearly laid out their intention was to supersede local government charter mills that fix mill levy limits.

Um for their their limited purpose of exercising their power to tax.

So they were very explicit on, in my opinion, the city of Billings, you will you will do what we tell you to with respect to levying mills.

Further uh in that same section, part three gave direction.

Uh it has really two areas of direction for local governments on how to apply the tax uh mills going forward.

Part three is specific to a local government with a charter form of government that includes mill levy limits of specific numbers of mills.

That's us, and that's sunburst.

This is so far as we know, that's it in the state of Montana.

This was specific to us.

The problem with this section is that it has contradictory language that uh can't be complied with.

And I've highlighted it here and added some bolding for your uh benefit.

But essentially what it says is the first year you're gonna levy the number of mills to generate 25 revenue.

That's what I've highlighted in green.

When it says, so I'll read it.

So shall levy the number of mills in fiscal year 26 and subsequent tax years that will generate the amount of property taxes assessed in fiscal year 25.

That's fine.

Then the next sentence says in fiscal years 26, the local government may levy an amount not to exceed the number of mills levied in fiscal year 26.

So in order to generate the amount of revenue that we levied in 26, you cannot increase your mills.

The uh the information we've received from the department of revenue uh indicates that the value of a mill is going to drop next year as we get fully implemented into the new property tax structure.

So in order to generate the same amount of revenue we are levying this year, we would have to increase our mills above what we levied this year.

This year we levied about 244 mills.

We'll likely have to increase that by about 2% in order just to maintain a 0% revenue growth.

So this that's that's the contradictory language here.

You can't you can't maintain that 2026 cap and still generate the same amount of revenue we did in 25 and 26.

So we look further to section four, which was provided doesn't have the contradictory language, but provides two options to local governments.

So many, many communities have voted levies that were also going to be significantly reduced in their value through this uh property struct property tax structure changes.

And this the legislature put in this language, which the city of Billings certainly or certainly apply to the city of Billings.

Um, though it doesn't talk about a charter here, it says a taxing entity with a local mill levy limit of a specific number of mills that was authorized by the voters.

That's all of the mills in our charter.

Um can shall do A or B.

And A is move to a voted dollar or move your voted mills to a dollar-based levy, and then transition to 1510, 420.

B is levy the number of mills needed to generate the same revenue you did in 25, and that's your new cap.

B does not require you to generate that same revenue in subsequent tax years, therefore does not have that contradictory language.

In any one of these scenarios, the year one implementation is the same.

You're gonna levy the same amount of revenue in 26 as you did in 25.

So we've done that.

The question is now what next year?

Because you have options.

Some of them can't possibly be done, and some of them are potentially detrimental, might be too challenging or too too strong of a word, but they're they're very negative to the city of Billings' ability to continue to provide services.

So just very simply, we are a taxing entity.

We have a local mill levy limit with the number of mills.

It was all authorized by the voters.

So then we can choose A or B.

A will result in about a 2.95% increase in tax revenue authority, which would be about 1.6 million to the positive.

B our projections are about a 2% reduction in tax revenue or a 1.1 million dollar reduction.

Almost the entire amount of both of those is general fund and public safety.

You all are aware, that's where the bulk of our mills are.

That is where the reduction of the revenue will come from.

Can I say something?

Yeah, Gina, I told her to jump in at any point.

He did.

So I am going to.

Then it's another legislatively created cap on the mills.

And as Andy just got done discussing, the provisions of 1510, 420 are mandatory provisions.

And so everything in this bill is leading to leading local governments to follow the path that is required by legislature in 7114, which is the mandatory provisions, which says the provisions of 1510, 420 apply to self-governing local government units.

And 4B then creates another new cap in violation of 1510, 420.

So that's something I think the legislature didn't think through exactly.

And that's problematic.

Thank you.

Well, uh, I'm nearly wrapped up.

So again the recommendation by the staff as well as the budget and finance committee was to proceed with developing the budget under 4A, which would generate the uh authority for tax revenue of new tax revenue of about 2.95%.

Uh place it on this meeting as a regular business agenda item, but then also provide the opportunity for public comment specifically on this.

So I wanted to remind you of that.

Um then to my very early comment about your opportunities to make changes, because this is this is direction.

Uh we've I think this probably could have been done at a work session, but if we wanted the we wanted it to be at a regular meeting for the the importance uh of this topic.

So in May and June, you're gonna hear about the budget.

You're going to adopt a budget.

Uh your opportunity to reduce the budget to reflect something different than what you direct tonight, is there's an option there.

And then again, in August or September, when you set your mills for the following fiscal year, that is when you will make the final decision.

Um if you choose to deviate from whatever decision you make tonight in August or September, you'll have to consequently make adjustments to the budget that are consistent with that.

Um, so that's what I mean when we say the further we get down the line, the more challenging it becomes.

But um I would just again want to reiterate you're not forever bound by this decision this evening.

That's all I have for you currently.

Well, we have a few things for you, and we're gonna start with Mr.

Aspen Lighter.

Thanks.

And this is this where I'll say coming out of budget and finance, I think.

Slight clarification.

The intent of budget and finance was this was too big of a decision to start building the city's budget on to just have it come at the direction of five people on budget and finance.

Um, this is a fundamental change in what we're talking about here.

It has implications on our charter, and yeah, there is no right or wrong answer technically.

Um, I think our bond council pretty much said that.

I mean, we can there is a defensible position to be taken in either way, in either direction.

So we voted four to one to kick it out of budget and finance to have the bigger conversation here because we thought council needed to weigh in on how we build the budget.

Because if we build the budget the wrong way, it is exponentially hard to try to squeeze that in in the last weeks um with staff.

So that's why you see it in front of you today.

Now, I will say I'm a proponent of moving forward with the floating mill.

Um I think the legislature, although they they thought they tried to make it clear, did not make it as clear as they needed to make it.

Um in dealing with billings and sunburst.

Either way we go here, I think we're gonna get we there is an opportunity for a lawsuit.

If we do this and and we implement the floating mills, you know, we we open the door to a potential lawsuit challenging us wiping out the the mill cap in the charter.

If we don't, I think we open the door to our public safety unions in particular and our employee unions challenging that that we are gonna end up having to cut jobs.

A lot of those jobs are gonna come from the public safe public safety sector, firemen and and police officers.

There's just no way around that if you've been in the budget.

Um, you know, we will have had an opportunity to fulfill our obligation, and we are going to be open to their challenge uh by having to start cutting positions.

I I that's my position and opinion.

So I think either way we go, we are opening ourselves up to a challenge.

I don't think we should be scared of that, frankly.

This is a decision to uh start building a budget for billings to be competitive with every other city in our state.

You know, we have done a hell of a job in being fiscally responsible.

Um, probably the best in the state among the big um amongst the big eight.

I think this is where we we also have to ask our citizens to be cognizant of who they elect and how they how the elected officials implement the budget, being fiscally conservative and sound in our decision making with the best for billings in mind.

That's our job.

The biggest job we have is building a budget.

So uh that's my preamble to this discussion.

I don't think there's any wrong answer.

I'll be supporting implementing the floating mill because I think we are absolutely gonna handcuff ourselves in being competitive.

We're gonna cost ourselves public safety jobs if we do not.

There's no way around that.

Mr.

Boyett.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Andy, can you go back a slide to that uh A and B.

Uh yeah, just yeah.

So can you extrapolate for the 28 with the what would be the A and B scenario going forward for each year?

Would it be the 2% 2.9?

Would it continue, or would that would that change a lot, or would you have any idea?

Um, it won't go over 4% because the statute doesn't allow for that.

I don't know.

I I do have the history on what half the rate of inflation was.

Um I mean, I could pull that up and we could look at it, but I don't think it's gonna be some massive change.

Uh with respect to if if you chose 4B, I have no idea.

Um I really don't know what to expect there with how the tax structure would is going to shake out in billings.

Um and that has to do with the number of short-term rentals in billings and the lack of knowledge that we have around that.

Okay.

So would you expect the the reduction to be I mean the same at least well what it is now?

I mean well, I I guess I my expectation is that in 28, 29, we would start to see small and modest increases again, but again, starting from a point that's probably at 2025 or 2024 revenue because 25 was the same as 26, 27's 2% less.

Maybe you see a 2% increase in 28.

So you're back to the revenue you had in 25.

I mean, you you're starting from a very poor position here.

That's five years of flat tax revenue and not five years of flat expenses.

Mr.

Pittman, then Mr.

Nees.

Thank you.

Mr.

Lindley and Mr.

Kennedy.

Just kind of a procedural thing.

Um, why the resolution?

Why not just direction from the council?

I guess this seems to be a very formal process.

Uh a lot of things we just give you direction by a majority uh rule as you read this.

It's pretty uh concrete.

I know you say we obviously we could change it at any point, but why why did we go to the resolution?

Okay.

I think the the critical nature of this issue.

We just really don't want it to be gray.

Wanted you to take a clear directive to me uh being responsible by charter to present a balanced budget to you.

Um like you said, yes, I acknowledge by being resolution.

Um it it's in black and white in writing, but it is not saying what budget you're adopting.

So as Andy's pointed out, that's uh the next step in the process, but until you literally set the levy, that's the evening where you're you're you're concluding this.

Mr.

Nees uh thank you, Mayor.

And Chris, just uh you kind of mentioned it's uh council member as bliner about the budget committee's position on this.

Um Chris, it wasn't that the budget committee approved this resolution, it was just approving to come to hear so the resolution, I don't think I don't recall really reviewing that even during the committee, but anyway, that's that's what you and I talked about this morning.

Yeah, I think uh and correct me if I'm wrong, it just talking it through.

I think you're right, we didn't have the resolution, but we did go back and listen to the recording this morning and did confirm that the motion, the request was to support to bring it to support bringing it.

Not just bringing, but actually the budget and finance committee supporting it.

Okay, as a concept.

Okay, I'll also add since we're on it, the motion included giving the public an opportunity to speak on this item tonight, not you know, didn't require it at the front end or the back end was a part of that motion.

So um let me ask you a question here, Andy.

Um if the maybe this is to you, Gina.

If the state law has come out with a or the state produced a law that we can't comply with, because they specifically wrote it for billings and sunburst, and we can't comply with that law.

Isn't there any recourse or shouldn't we be taking this to a court challenge to say, listen, you wrote a law that is not that we can't comply with?

Why are are can we or why are we not doing that?

Uh Councilmember Neese, Mayor and Council, I uh what I would say to that is uh I would not recommend taking something to a court where there's a provision in the bill that the city can comply with, which is subsection four.

I think a court's gonna look at that.

And if the court were to strike section three four would be remaining, and that is what and the plain language of that section is clear that that applies to any taxing entity.

As I understand, and and this was last year when we were going through it all.

I thought section four was in there and it wasn't sufficient enough because it didn't address our charter.

But if you feel that way, that's understandable.

Um then I the the other question I have is Andy, you and I talked about a little bit about this, and I took look at your spreadsheets.

Awesome spreadsheets, by the way.

Thanks.

You guys didn't get a chance to see them.

If you want them, talk to Andy, he'll he'll share them with you.

I can pull them up.

Yeah.

What is the based upon the uh the change that the state made many years ago?

What is our maximum author uh authority under the 1510 420?

So I I believe your maximum authority is 140.38 mills, which would replace and cover only those three mills that existed in 1999.

The transition to 1510 420 for the public safety mill levies would be three percent more than what we levied in 2026.

Can you go to the other slide that shows the public safety mills on there?

So what's the maximum right there?

Uh the public safety mills 133, I think is what that is.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um yeah, that's gotta be about right.

Okay.

And and typically the public safety mills, they were requested because we couldn't raise any any funds uh due to our charter cap.

And to add other additional resources, but yes.

Yeah, but we yeah, and to add additional resources.

Revenue or otherwise.

Yep.

Yeah.

And so if you look at the line, this is a good representation between the blue and the top of the red line.

That would be probably an excess amount that we um maybe didn't actually need to ask the voters for.

I I don't know that I agree with that statement.

Um I don't think the formula of 1510, 420 would really allow you to have significant injection of resources, specifically the one that I want to point to is you want to add a fire station, you're not adding 15 firefighters off of half the rate of inflation.

Um you may be adding a few officers here and there, but that's I I don't think you're gonna add MRTs or a crew um or an additional court judge in that scenario.