Business meeting of the Billings City Council.

So I will call this meeting to order and welcome each and every one of you.

Please join me in rising for the Pledge of Allegiance.

And to the Republic for which it's one nation.

Justice.

Grant us clarity in our decisions, patience in our discussions, and fairness in our judgment.

Help us listen well to one another and to the people we represent.

May we remember that our choices impact many lives, and may we act with respect, humility, and a commitment to the common good.

Amen.

Thank you.

Please be seated.

Will our clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Shaw.

She's excused.

Nicholson.

Here.

Mies.

President.

Pittman.

Here.

Aguirre.

Here.

Aspenlighter.

Kennedy.

He's excused.

Lindley?

Here.

Boyett.

O'Donnell.

Here.

Mayor Nelson.

Here.

Thank you.

Now let's see.

Minutes for March 23rd, 2026 are still pending.

So there'll be nothing to approve for that.

And that brings us to uh count to council courtesies.

The agenda notes that the USS Billings crew will be here, but uh they were unexpectedly detained and not able to make it tonight.

However, in their stead, we have PSC Commissioner Molnar here, I believe.

Which please come forward, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh for the record, my name is Brad Molnar, Public Service Commissioner District 2.

You're in my district.

Welcome.

The uh address for me is one mile south of Laurel, so I'm a Yellowstone County resident.

Mr.

Mayor, members of the uh council.

I want to thank you for this opportunity to address this body.

I would like to thank Councilman O'Donnell for his assistance and helping me navigate your roles and process and getting me to be able to speak tonight at this time.

We share constituents in their concerns.

Two of those concerns are in my presentation: property taxes and utility rates.

For several years, you've probably been reading in the press that Puget Sound and Energy was going to transfer their coal strip generation capacity to Northwestern Energy.

Due to the lack of capital expenditures to build a plant, this would have been the lowest cost of electricity in the United States.

To build that plant today would be approximately $800 million.

That capital expense would be put on top of the bills.

Integrating this into our rate-based portfolio was going along as planned.

And then Northwestern Energy filed with FERC, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that they wanted to change it to market-based instead of rate-based.

The PSE did not learn of this until long after the intervention deadline had passed.

Northwestern Energy kept it closely held secret and apologize for doing so.

As we speak, these 370 megawatts were slated to be used by new customers, then by a data center two years later, as indicated in Northwestern Energy's most recent filing of their integrated resource plan.

All that I'm asking for at this time is a letter of support filed with the Anti-Regulatory Commission asking if they reconsider their decision that the Coal Strip 370 megawatts shares are not valued at zero dollars.

That was their decision.

Therefore, they could make the decision they made, or at least return the energy to rate-based and under the Montana Public Service Commission for use by Montana residents as opposed to under the control of Northwestern Energy to be sold to the highest bidder class data center for as long as that plant should run.

Yes, we have already lost.

You didn't even read about it in the paper.

Send it out to 34 news outlets.

They did this through conflated statements of those who wrote letters in support.

All of them made the exact same errors in their letters.

We not rely on such a cannery.

Truth and law are our weapons.

In the filing that I wrote, the original one, the only thing they found to criticize, and they beat up everybody else, was I did not use the site or how to value our coal plant.

The letter must be posted by close of business April 30th.

After that, we may need a plan B.

So for the benefit of our shared constituents, let's work together on this now.

Cooperation just might work.

Council O'Donnell, Councilman O'Donnell has led a very successful FERC fight.

Actually brought in like 38 states on his position, starting with just the Montana Commission.

So please use his experience and feel free to contact me at any time.

Prepare for free lunches as history has shown.

Northwestern shall lobby you beyond belief.

In closing, I would like to point out this is not a decision about data centers.

This is a decision about who gets the rate-based power.

Your citizens, my constituents.

Or does Northwestern get it for the most profitable contract in their portfolio?

Using a little hand puppet, the way it works, supposed to work.

If a regulated utility, Puget Sound, has a rate-based facility, Cole Strips 3 and 4, and they want to transfer that to a rate-based facility for our utility, Northwestern, it stays rate-based.

It had been rate-based and planned to be rate-based and filed as rate-based for a year, and now they want it for market-based so they can sell it, and nobody else gets any of it.

Thank you, Commissioner Molnar.

Mr.

O'Donnell, do you have any comments regarding your courtesies?

Thank you, Commissioner Molnar.

The uh uh my involvement in this uh is that uh the end result would be, as you've said, the lowest rate utility rates in the country that we would enjoy right here in Montana.

There's a lot at stake.

Thank you for your diligence.

Thank you, uh Councilmember O'Donnell.

Uh Councilmember Aspenlighter.

On a much lighter note, um this last weekend, MSUB baseball won their series in Oregon.

Um in the process, Coach Derek Wattops also became the winningest coach in MSUB baseball history.

So I like to highlight these things as as it relates to athletics in our community and the student athletes and the things that they do.

I also want to nod to MSUB and the coaches and the men and women that they brought in to lead those young athletes and and uh to groom them into young contributing members of our society.

We have some of the best mentors and coaches up at MSUB right now, and we are blessed as a community to have them and blessed for the effort that they put in, not just in shaping those men and women, but representing our city well.

So, congratulations, MSUB.

Another series this weekend, and congratulations to Coach Wattops.

Indeed.

Thank you, sir.

And we'll move on to proclamations.

And I have I have two.

So would the folks from um keep America beautiful, please step to the podium.

Whereas the Great American Cleanup, sponsored by the national nonprofit organization, Keep America Beautiful, is the country's largest community improvement program and involves more than 20,000 communities and a half a million volunteers and participants each spring.

And whereas Brighton Beautiful is a proud affiliate of Keep America Beautiful and encourages people to take action to improve and beautify billings and Yellowstone County so our community can be clean, green, and beautiful place to live.

And whereas the city of Billings seeks to protect its natural resources and bring people together to transform public spaces into beautiful places.

And whereas the City of Billings recognizes its commitment to engage citizens, civic and government officials, and business leaders to work together to reduce littering and beautify billings and other nearby communities, and whereas Brighton Beautiful and the City of Billings are committed to elevating the importance of volunteerism and motivating everyone in our community to become stewards of the environment, particularly on Saturday, April 25th, 2026, during Billings Great American Cleanup Day.

Now, therefore, I, Mike Nelson, mayor of the City of Billings, Montana, to hear proclaim the month of April to be Keep America Beautiful, the Great American Cleanup Month, and call upon our citizens to join in activities that promote responsible environmental stewardship and help us renew our commitment to building a better world today and for future generations.

Thank you.

This spring, we are organizing and equipping hundreds of volunteers with the help of our friends here from Just Serve across the city to pick up litter in our community.

We are especially excited for our main event on April 25th, where our residents come together for the Great American Cleanup Day.

We're also proud to highlight our new partnership with Billing's Solid Waste and their bag it, tie it, Bennett initiative.

It sounds simple, but ensuring every piece of trash is bagged and tied before it hits the black bin, we prevent loose litter from blowing out of those black bins and onto our streets and neighborhoods.

So cleaning up our city and county is vital, but stopping litter at the source is how we keep billings beautiful long term.

We invite everyone to join us on April 25th and help keep our city litter-free.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Will the delegates from Just Serve come to the podium?

Whereas we firmly believe that the values of compassion, empathy, and community support are the foundation of a united, harmonious society and fosters connections that transcend differences and whereas the strength and prosperity of our cities, towns, and villages are based in the selflessness of its residents to serve and uplift one another.

And whereas we acknowledge the profound impact that can be achieved when we extend a helping hand to our neighbors, especially those of diverse backgrounds and lifting them up and collectively working to improve lives.

And whereas we nurture a culture of giving within our cities, empathize and empathize, emphasize, you know what I'm saying, emphasizing that volunteerism is not just a duty, but a source of personal fulfillment and community strength.

And as we work side by side with and learn from each other, mutual understanding increases.

And whereas we urge all citizens to care for one another, volunteer and engage in acts of service and kindness that contribute to our city's betterment and its inhabitants' well-being, regardless of background or belief.

And whereas Billings has joined a growing list of supporters, including the president of the National League of Cities, and hundreds of leaders to date in making a commitment to volunteerism.

Now, therefore, I, Mike Nelson, mayor of the City of Billings, Montana, commits to promoting volunteerism, leveraging just serve.org to make it easier for residents to find and engage in volunteer opportunities and will regularly acknowledge and celebrate the contributions of volunteers.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, members of the council for renewing this proclamation that emphasizes and puts priority on volunteerism in Billings.

I'm Aaron Walker.

I'm a volunteer specialist with JustServe.org.

And I just wanted to briefly tell you a little bit about our platform.

So just serve.org is a national website.

It functions all year long, and it connects nonprofits who are in need of volunteers with community members who are searching for meaningful service opportunities.

So we work with Billings nonprofits to get their projects and their needs posted on the platform.

And then any community member can go to just serve.org, they put in their zip code, and then they scroll through all the local service opportunities, and they can sign up right there for whatever project suits their interest.

So as I'm sure you are aware, studies consistently show that volunteering enhances and makes communities stronger.

So research shows that people who give back to their communities experience better overall help, greater life satisfaction, fewer hospitalizations, higher self-esteem, and a greater ability to manage their own chronic illnesses.

Giving service reduces stress, loneliness, depression, and anxiety, and it enhances one's sense of purpose.

So, in short, volunteering makes people feel good.

And it also leads to overall better physical and mental well-being.

Any community or any city that encourages volunteerism like this proclamation that we just renewed is enhancing the lives of their community members.

So thank you.

As you know, this year marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

America 250 is striving to make 2026 a record setting year for volunteer service.

So it's um our coming today is especially timely because next weekend is Global Youth Service Day.

So we have scheduled our day, our billings day of community service to coincide with that, along with the great American cleanup.

So we invite all of you and all of these, all of these people here to go to just serve.org and scroll through all the volunteer opportunities, especially for April 25th, the next Saturday, and invite your family, friends, neighbors, or just register yourself for a project and start enjoying the happiness that comes from giving service.

That's our mission at justserve.org.

I'd like to turn the time over to my colleague Melissa Townsend for a minute.

Hello, mayor and city council.

My name's Melissa Townsend.

And I just real quick wanted to hold up this plaque that was just given to the city of Billings in back in September, just to remind you that Billings is now officially a just serve city.

And just to go through what exactly that means again, it means that the city has a vision of spreading hope, goodness, and unity through the role of volunteerism, creating a culture of service that will uplift individuals, strengthen neighborhoods, and build lasting connections.

And now that Billings is a Just Serve city, we as Just Serve specialists can help by providing the city support.

We have, like Aaron just talked about, we have our entire website and lots and lots of opportunities within our city.

So what does this mean moving forward?

Um being designated a Just Serve City should be viewed not as an end, but as a joint, but as joining a movement that will improve the city of Billings.

So we can choose to connect volunteers with meaningful opportunities, foster collaboration among civic, faith-based, and nonprofit organizations, encourage inclusive service for all ages and backgrounds, celebrate the power of community-driven change.

And so we hope you, as a city, as city leadership will choose to utilize the Just Serve platform and share volunteer opportunities that you see on Just Serve by using the website or app and encourage members of our city to do the same, promote opportunities during city events, and share successes.

Like so, if you have an Instagram or Facebook, and I know, yeah, or the city does, they can post those things.

And we hope to engage local youth councils and service clubs.

Um, so involve young people and local service organizations and clubs and volunteer activities to foster a culture of service from an early age.

And we have, like Erin just said, we have this next week, next Saturday, we have the community day of service and some of our other annual events, just to make you aware are the 9-11 service day, um, Martin Luther King Day of Service as well.

And we also hope to part that you will want to participate in giving the Hero Award to local community members and Kim Peterson will talk about that.

I don't want to take up too much of your time, but it's really fun to be here in front of you guys.

This is the first time I've done this, and so it's quite an experience to be able to look at all of you.

Um just serve is um is a love of mine.

And I have to say, the reason I even got into just serve, I remember going to YouTube and I saw a bunch of youth and they were so excited.

And so I clicked on it, and and they were a group of youth from a Skyview High School in Nampa, Idaho, and they were talking about how much fun they were having doing this.

And they were talking about how much fun they were having doing this.

And this girl said she got started because her mom, it was in the middle of the summer, and her mom said, She went to her mom and said, What can I do?

We're so bored.

We have nothing to do.

And me and my friends and her mom worked with Just Serve at that time, and she said, why don't you pick a project off of just serve and go serve?

And so she did.

And they had a great time.

And so then they texted their friends from school and they all said, Hey, we're gonna do a project this weekend.

Why don't you meet us here?

And then it just blew up.

Okay, I just kept going.

And so by October of that year, I called this girl's mom and I said, Hey, what is going on here?

Is this really amazing?

How did you get this working in in a high school?

And she said, honestly, she goes, um she my daughter just did this.

She just kept doing this, and it just snowballed on her, and things were wonderful.

Things have just gotten great.

She says, actually, the principal of the high school came to her and says, What's going on with these youth?

How do I how can I support this?

And so um they discussed it and they ended up having a just served January.

So during one of the basketball games in January, they had a just serve basketball game, and the kids brought donations for their school um pantry.

And so that's how they they started this.

And every school, every once they went on a volunteer project and sh and shared that on uh uh social media, they got a t-shirt.

Okay, so the whole high school gym was full of just serve t-shirts.

It's been amazing.

So a couple of years ago, I called the mom again and I said, Hey, now that your daughter's graduated, did this kind of die with her when she left, or is this still great?

Is it still going strong?

She goes, No, in the community, they have a day of service now.

It's a just served day of service.

Just serve day of service, April 25th, Billings, Montana, right?

We're still trying to get in the high schools, but we do have one in West High, adjust serve club in West High.

So we're really hoping that we can uh encourage that to go.

But just serve is more than and just a service project too.

On the on the website, when you go in and you register, you have an opportunity to go in and say that you are uh capable and willing with whatever tools you have to bring to help in a disaster or an emergency in the city of Billings or whatever city.

And um you so and we're known with COAD and VoED as well, as you guys are uh uh accustomed to them or or know of them, that in an emergency like that that we are willing to come and help and do what we can in services like that.

Um we did help in Red Lodge as well.

But my assignment, rather than just kind of go in with my love of of service, was to talk to you about just recognizing um the heroes in our community that just serve and they have a servant's heart and they like to be out in the community.

And this is where anybody, no matter what political party you are, no matter what religion you are, you can go out and serve with someone with the goal of improving the quality of life in your community, and so it's worth recognition.

And so when you got the packet or and you got a template with an awards template in there that you can put in and honor a hero in the community, and so they don't need to um they can serve or reside within a just served city, be an outstanding volunteer who contribute contributes to the betterment of the community as determined by the city, and the considering factors are a number of volunteer hours, uh number of projects, the individual's efforts to encourage others to volunteer, and individual efforts to provide transformative service that impacts your community.

We consider it, of course, to be a very pretty prestigious award and um to an honor and an individual who has done these exceptional qualities.

Thank you for listening to the appreciate it.

So I understand it's picture time.

Come on up, everybody.

If you could just line up uh right in front of the DS here.

Thank you, everybody.

Good job.

We will have copies of their property.

Thank you.

All right, moves on to council reports.

Mr.

Pittman.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

I I have two reports.

Uh I attended the Big Sky EDA EDC meeting this last week and um they they did a presentation on the the commissioners presenting the jail expansion bond and levy.

Uh they wanted me to extend to the council if you haven't toured the Yellowstone County detention facility as an out um out of custody person and would like to tour the facility.

Um they just contact the county commissioners and and they will arrange for a tour so you can see the conditions uh of the jail at this time.

I know I when I was a commissioner, I did about 20 tours.

Uh it's it's very eye-opening to to see it from a different perspective um and and to see what's going on there.

So I wanted to pass that along.

They're close to hiring an executive director.

Uh I usually grab an extra couple of packets and leave them in our council office.

So if you ever want to follow up with what's happening with Big Sky EDA, um they're usually available in there.

And then finally, as far as the legislative committee since council member Kennedy isn't here, I'll just let you know that we moved our meeting from this Wednesday to April 22nd.

Thank you, Mr.

Pivot.

And Mr.

Asman Later.

Yep.

Uh budget and finance meets in the Yellowstone room over here this Wednesday from 9 to 11.

And these are the start of the the grinder meetings as we'll be going through preliminary reviews of budget.

I think this week's review is uh police and fire uh along with what uh the other items posted on the agenda.

So um everybody's willing or open to attend.

The committee will will vote.

Council members that show up, you can't vote, but you're certainly more than welcome to join and observe.

So great.

Um I'd like to report the council operations committee met on the 6th of April at 11 a.m.

here in uh city hall.

Um we went uh we met with commissioners Kennedy and O'Donnell and started the conversation regarding uh boards and committees.

And um we got through four.

We're not ready to provide any uh discussion regarding that yet, but um we're moving along.

So any other uh committees.

All righty.

Administrator, Mr.

Kokulski.

Mayor and council.

So I'll start with um with the same theme.

So um subcommittees of the city council.

So the legislative and local affairs committee, which normally meets this Wednesday, that's been postponed a week.

So it will be same time, four o'clock in the afternoon, same location next door here, but on April 22nd, not uh this week.

Uh also the following month, May 20th.

That's the normal date and time, third Wednesday, but the location is going to be at Phillips 66.

They're gonna be touring Phillips 66.

So both those just pertain to legislative and local affairs committee.

Um as far as tonight's agenda goes, no ex parte communication, no tweaks or adjustments to the agenda.

And then the last thing I was gonna touch on, then a series of emails and comments relative to the LB Lofts project off of Sioux Lane up in the Heights.

Uh this afternoon we did officially uh sign a case number to it.

We got a uh written complaint from a citizen, and so code enforcement will do their normal process and following up with that.

So um that's all I have for you, Mayor and Council.

Thank you, Mr.

Kay.

That moves us on to public comment on non-public hearing agenda items one and four only.

Uh you're required to speak to sign in if you're going to be a speaker.

Uh come forward, state your name and where you live and give us your three minutes.

Good morning, Mayor and Count or good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Jeff Esman.

I reside at 3130 McMasters Road.

Thank you for your service.

I'm here tonight to address you about agenda item number four, which is billings two forty two thousand forty-five.

I address you as a um former member of the city county planning department about 25 years ago.

I participated in the preparation of the West End Master Plan with uh Doug Clark from Yellowstone County and uh now former Mayor Bill Cole.

So I stopped by Newman School on my way home last week to look at what the vision was for billings for this next coming 20 years.

And I'm here tonight because I want to urge you to grab the wheel in terms of steering the policy on that document, because I think it will have major impact on your budget for the next 20 years, and I'm gonna tell you why I think so.

And I'm going to tell you why I think so.

From my perspective, the city budget is kind of a ledger.

On the one side, you have got income, and on the other side, you've got expense.

And the income in your budget primarily comes from commercial, industrial, light industrial taxpayers that pay a lot in taxes but don't require a lot of service.

The expense, on the other hand, comes from your residential uh areas.

They have and want and desire and deserve to have nice things, but it takes money to pay for those.

And I think the zoning that you vision you place uh before put into this plan will impact your budget big time going forward.

Why do I think that?

The um, you know, through history, civilization has sprung from commerce, and commerce is strung sprung from transportation.

Our city is uniquely positioned in the state of Montana.

If you look at it, it was a center of trails for the indigenous people.

Then it became the center of rail transportation.

We have five rails, five railways leaving the city in spokes in every direction.

Highways, we have six or seven leaving in every direction.

That is what gave created this city as the magic city because it is a natural place for commerce, because commerce comes from uh people exchanging goods and services, and where those intersections are, those arteries, those arterials, arterials comes from arteries, is very important from a zoning standpoint.

I would direct your attention to what is occurring around South Billings Boulevard right now, what has occurred at the King Avenue interchange in the past, what's going on around the uh zoo drive Shiloh interchange.

That naturally is where commerce is developing.

That is where the tax base is gonna come from.

Was that a minute or was that three?

That was three.

Could you ask me a question and uh wrap up, Mayor?

Mr.

Nees.

Uh Mayor, if you don't mind, Jeff.

I think you mentioned two of the different areas.

Uh Dennis and I are up in the heights.

So would you mind expounding a little bit more on uh what you think about some of the area in the heights and other areas as well?

Well, I I think presumptively you want to ask your staff to um zone all those intersections of those highways, whether it's the Billings Bypass, whether it's South Billings Boulevard, whether it's Zoo Drive.

I think everything about a mile in each direction from all those transportation points.

And I would include the Cindelar Road to Alkali Creek connection that's going to tie into Highway Three.

That will be a future artery in the future.

Uh should be presumptively zoned, commercial, light industrial, or industrial.

It's a lot easier to down zone than it is to upzone.

If you want, I would encourage you to embrace commerce, embrace the history of this city, uh, and let uh let that tax base grow easily.

Because what kills projects is delay and timing and hearings that take time to upzone property.

So set it aside for businesses, and you'll be a lot better off.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Esman.

Good evening, Mayor Nelson and and counsel.

Um, I'm also here to speak on the number four.

My name is Pam Millis.

I live in the Heights.

I've been an active member of the Heights Task Force for 13 of the last 15 years.

Most of those have I've been an officer.

Um, and I am not as as literate and informed as Jeff is about the planning things, but I have to say I was really disappointed by the map that um that was shown to us at OASI.

And I think that generally represented what we were feeling.

I we had always um I well, I'm gonna back up.

My initial introduction to the Johnson Road Bridge was in 2010 when Councilmember member Kennedy, although I don't remember if he is council member commissioner, came and talked to the task force about the Johnson Road Bridge.

15 years later, we're now talking about development in that area.

And it's I think it's I agree with with Mr.

Esman that that needs to be commercial.

We always assumed that was commercial.

We were shocked to see that it wasn't.

The other issue that comes up, whether you're looking at the 2006 um neighborhood plan or the 2019 neighborhood plan, aren't people in the heights desire single family neighborhood, single-family homes?

Single family homes.

Now I realize that you're looking at density, but if you look at the West End, you see a lot of a lot more diversity.

If you look at the Heights map, you see almost no single family homes.

Again, I think that's really disappointing and not at all what they what the community wants.

So I encourage you to we had um all of our task force leaders at the meeting.

Um council member Pittman and Councilmember Nece were there.

I encourage you to take a significant look and not just pass that map without a lot more study.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'd like to speak both to um one C the annexation agreement, and also uh number four.

I think I think both of these under your leadership, we we thank you very much for your service and uh and Billings is a great city to live in.

Also, it's a growing city, and we should all be proud of that.

One of the things that um severely concerns me though, is who's gonna pay for it?

Um Billings Billings, as far as I know, doesn't have any impact taxes.

Uh Howana does, Missoula does, Bozeman does.

Now, impact fees benefit residents by funding essential public services such as road schools, parks that support new developments, ensuring that growth pays for the services it requires.

This maintains community standards and can enhance the quality of the life for new residents.

Specifically, if we look at the um annexation agreement over there in the Yellowstone Yellowstone area, I think there's gonna be four houses.

We're talking about four houses.

The problem gets to be is currently right now, this the citizens of Billings, we're gonna pay to run those water lines up to that buffalo box.

We're gonna pay for to cut the curb.

We're gonna pay to bring the the connection for the sewer.

Without impact fees, the citizens are paying for all this new development.

Now it's especially a critical um issue up there in the heights because you're talking thousands of homes that are apparently going to come in there.

And I'm not a lawyer, but I really believe that the Heights Water District is going to be unfairly burdened by having to pay for the water or the water service that's going in there.

I mean, they're they're basically just getting by right now.

You know, wait until wait until all these houses come and without impact fees, the residents of our city are being detrimentally penalized by the development that it's coming in.

You know, a couple months ago in front of this board, this board decided to reduce the fees for our building fees, which at that point that also benefits the major construction people.

You know, it's it's it's time that the citizens of the city wake up and express that, hey, we've had enough.

It's time, it's time for you know, new development to pay for this stuff.

They want to move here, great.

We'd love to have them.

Want to have them, but make them pay their fair share, will you?

That's all I got.

Thanks.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, members of council.

My name is John Halmerson, other than 239 Avenue F.

I am a planner.

I did work on your West Billings neighborhood plan that's part of 2045.

I'm here tonight actually to talk about um the quirk of the law that happened at the state level where duplexes were entitled across the state in cities and counties of our size.

But now the council has a choice as to whether or not to uh adopt that policy as part of your um MLUPA compliance.

And I would urge the council to allow duplexes in all of our residential zones that allow single-family homes.

Um, and just to illustrate that there really is no negative nuisance impact from a duplex versus a single-family home, I would um refer you to a story I was reading about um a family in Missoula where a young married couple moved in with their grandmother in their home to share so everybody could save on rent, save on housing.

And so if we have two households where people are doing exactly that, where a grandmother is living with their two younger um grandchildren, um, those two households are going to use the same amount of water, the same amount of city services, same amount of parking, everything.

Same, right?

You've got these three people living in this house.

But as soon as you put a wall down the middle of that house and give that grandmother some privacy from those young people, apparently something terrible has happened there, which I don't actually think that something terrible has happened.

I think that's totally acceptable.

I think that's something that we should allow our people to do.

That's a flexibility that the government should not preclude.

Um, so I would urge this body to adopt that option to incentivize um duplexes in all of our residential zones.

We only have one zone that doesn't currently allow it.

It's N3.

All of our other residential zones allow duplexes by right, and most of the city allowing those um functions pretty well.

So thank you.

Any other public comments?

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Jack Hansen.

I was born and raised here in Billings.

I currently own property and pay taxes and live in Ward 4.

Uh, I'm here to address you concerning agenda item four.

Also, um I just want to follow up on some of what John Halverson just said.

I think he makes a good point.

First of all, the council and city staff I know have put a lot of effort into figuring out how to comply with this heavy-handed mandate from the state called MLUPA.

I think you've all done great work here.

I hope you won't undermine that work by making poor decisions tonight or in the next couple of weeks.

So, first, I want to suggest that there's no need for you to go down the rabbit hole of considering one by one the various interconnected land use category designations that your professional staff have brought to you.

The flum designations as they're known, um, have been presented to you in a well-crafted and sensible way.

Don't make the mistake of second guessing your trained staff to evaluate these complex interrelated designations piecemeal.

It's not worth your time.

Second, I encourage you to ensure that when you're done with all this, duplex housing is allowed throughout all residential neighborhoods across Billings.

Duplexes could be an important tool in meeting our future housing demand in a compact, dense way.

Save on city services.

They could be particularly useful in providing missing middle housing, modest market rate housing that serves teachers, healthcare workers, young professionals, people who earn decent wages, but who cannot afford and may not want a large house on a huge lot.

I own a large house on a huge lot in ward four.

It's zoned N3, which currently prohibits me from building a duplex there.

It would be a great place to build a duplex appropriate to the scale of my surrounding neighborhood.

To be prohibited from doing so unreasonably limits my private property rights.

I have yet to hear anyone on council articulate a compelling public interest in favor of abridging my property rights in that way.

Income data show that the neighborhoods where duplexes are currently prohibited tend to have households with above average incomes.

To be blunt about it, prohibiting duplexes in these areas seems to reflect the NIMBY attitude of some relatively well-off folks who take a dim view of duplex dwellers and renters.

I encourage you not to let such prejudices sway you as you make important decisions about future land use in our city.

Thank you.

Any further public comment?

Seeing none, we'll close that portion of our hearing and move to the consent agenda, Mr.

Aspen Leiter.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um I'm gonna ask to separate agenda items one C and one E for purposes of purpose of recusal, as my firm represents uh is the agent for those two items, and then also one H as that's tied to one C.

Thank you.

Any other separations, folks?

Mr.

Neys.

E and H.

Second.

Is that you, Mr.

Pittman?

Yes.

All right, Mr.

Nees made the motion.

Mr.

Pittman seconded it.

Is there any uh conversation regarding the consent agenda?

Mr.

Boyette.

Thank you, Mayor.

I I get to talk again.

Um one of the things we encourage is donations to the city.

And guess what?

We have a donation from the Billings Blizzard Fast Pitch Group for $9,000 to help maintain the ball fields at Poly Vista Park.

Thank you so much.

That was great.

Great, great, great.

Continue the work.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Boyet.

And thank you, Billings Blizzard Fast Pitch Association.

Any other conversation regarding the motion?

Uh seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, please say no.

Motion passes unanimously.

Item C, Mr.

Boyette.

Thank you, Mayor.

I I move that we uh approve the NX annex agreement with 2250 NOL.

The LLC uh DBA Yellowstone Country Club.

Is there a second?

I'll second that, but I'll ask the movement to actually uh uh include item C A C E and H all at once since only it's only for recusal purposes.

Right.

So before we do that, Mr.

Boyet, you want to amend your motion.

I'll second that.

All right, Mr.

Boyet made the motion, Mr.

Neys seconded it.

Is there any conversation regarding the motion?

Seeing none, I'll call for a vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, opposed, please say no.

That passes unanimously.

Councilmember Aspenliner recusing himself.

Yes, thank you for that, Mr.

Nees.

And Mr.

Aspenlighter did not vote.

He recused himself.

All right, we're moving on to the regular agenda.

Um I'd like to make a little correction on the uh the paper, the handout agenda.

There's a recommended motion on item number two.

Um, we're gonna find out through uh the presentation tonight that that's not needed.

So uh Mr.

Wyatt.

Thanks, Mayor.

Uh Brenda's gonna present here.

We're just getting make sure we get the presentation up.

Thanks.

Okay.

I think it's going.

Thanks, Maya.

Honorable mayor and city council members.

I'm here to talk to you today.

Um can you speak a little closer?

Closer.

Yeah, just bend that up a little bit.

Are you that might work?

Okay.

How are we doing?

Oh my goodness, I'm gonna blast your fingers out.

All right.

So, yes, we're looking at the annual action plan for community development block grant and home partnership funding um that is issued by the United States Housing and Urban Development Um Department.

So down sideways.

This way, this way.

Yeah.

Oh I don't know what I'd do without him.

Tell you what.

So um our process for the development of the annual action plan begins every September when we have a public hearing to determine um in order to determine and garner information on community development needs in the community.

And that actually happens when we're doing our um comprehensive performance evaluation report every year.

And um, our board wants that to be done.

The community development board wants that to be complete in order to design the application process to meet those priorities.

Um, our applications are available in December.

They're due in January.

We have a public hearing in February at our community development board meeting, and then we put the annual action plan online.

And it is on it's been online for about a month.

And um tonight is our public hearing.

Um in two weeks, um, the item will be back up for uh action, and then we will submit to that as close to May 15th as we can.

So I just wanted to give you a little bit of background relative to the expenditure timelines um that we have.

Um this actually slide, this slide is for the current year.

And I actually called I called a halt on that program because we did not have any anybody return our surveys relative to interest in getting that program off the ground.

So Public Works is also not heard much about that either.

So that needs to be reprogrammed.

And we also had $50,000 for crime prevention through environmental design park enhancements that actually didn't get off the ground either.

So I actually think that we will not meet our CDBG expenditure timeliness deadline for April.

They do a measurement every May, like May 1st or May 2nd, and we will be over 1.5 times last year's CDBG grant in HUD's accounts.

So that will mean I need to do a workout plan and we'll be subject to higher scrutiny relative to expenditures and moving projects forward.

So that is why we have the foreclosure program.

If there is a vacant or foreclosed home on the market today, we would evaluate that and try to purchase that in order to rehab it and sell it to low-income homeowners because that is kind of our Hail Mary.

That's like right close to the deadline.

If we can get that funding expended, I'm $130,000 short in expenditures.

So it tells you how close we got, but not quite.

So our funding recommendations are home and CDBG administration at the regular amounts or 20 and 10% of the new allocations.

That total is about $160 odd, some odd thousand dollars there.

We must allocate 15% of funding to community housing development organizations of the new home funding for affordable housing development, and that organization has to be certified by the city of Billings.

We are allocating a large amount of funding to the first-time homebuyer program.

And I'll go over some suggested changes, recommendations from our staff and board relative to getting that program more access to, I think I think the changes will give us more access to low-income homeowners being able to use that program.

Sage Tower will be SEF and this and the CD board have recommended that Sage Tower be funded at $750,000.

That is a homeward project.

They're going to rehab that building, and I believe the total budget is somewhere around $18 million on that project.

And that one will be coming to City Council in May because our legals just got approved by the legal department.

And VISTA administration at $25,000 for in expected program income could be allocated.

So the recommended changes for the first-time homebuyer program before 2009, our first-time homebuyer program was funded at $5,000 or $10,000, depending on the household's income.

And we upgraded that to $10,000 and $15,000 in 2009.

And of course, you can see what has happened to our housing prices.

Everybody knows this in billings, but our assistance amounts have actually stayed exactly the same.

And unfortunately, the number of households we've been able to close with that funding and with the current market has dropped drastically.

Our 80% area median income limit is 77,700.

That should increase, I hope, a little bit this month or next month.

HUD is supposed to issue new new allocations in every spring, which means they could afford about 1,700 to 2,000 dollars in housing costs.

So we have um I I did a strat of just you know three hundred thousand, two hundred and seventy-five thousand and two hundred fifty thousand dollars for home prices.

And you can see that um, you know, our recommendation really is 30%, but there are so many um homeowners in billings that are cost burdened, they're paying over 45% of their income um for housing costs.

And so we stretch that a little bit in this example to give you an idea that somebody might pay 35% of their household income.

You know, and and it's not the best case scenario, but it is reality.

And this uh change would actually give us amounts up to what $60,000 or so um to uh assist those homes, oh those households.

Um neighbor works Montana.

I think that they allocated 30% of the purchase price of their um purchase price income for down payment closing cost assistance.

And um a recent project um uh that is I think it's in the heights this next to Skyview that I mean we all heard about that project that's supposed to be coming around that has uh $90,000 in um an allocation from the state of Montana for or um buying down those mortgages.

So that's it.

So questions, suggestions.

Any questions for Ms.

Beckett?

All right, seeing none, we will move to the public hearing portion of this item.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council members.

My name is Jeff Kettleson.

I live in the in Ward 5.

Um, I'd like to thank the community development board and s and staff for the fine work they did on the presentation.

And one of the comments that I have about um the proposed allocations is considering Sage Sage Tower.

Sage Tower Um, from what I understand, used to be a billings owned property.

It was an assisted living place.

It had food, food service.

And then it was sold by the city to private individuals and private individuals, they had it for a while, and then finally it was sold to homeworld.

Well, when it was sold to homeworld, it's a nonprofit entity.

So homeworld doesn't does not pay uh money for taxes.

Since they've owned the property, my estimation is they haven't paid the city about $300,000 in taxes.

Um the problem that I have with this this proposal is because of of the recent um newspaper article that came out concerning the vermin that that homeworld allowed the residents of the building to live in.

Uh the residents had tremendous problems with bug bed bugs and cockroaches and other vermin.

Yeah, they could they they complained to uh the city, they complained to uh the management company, they even complain to um the Yellowstone Health Department.

Um nobody nobody helped them.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

These are people that we elderly people that live on low income and and homeworld made them live with vermin.

It got so bad that the medical per personnel from um Riverstone Health refused to go into the building.

That's when you know it's bad.

When the nurses say we're not going, that's when you know it's bad.

So, anyways, um the the community development funds, they can be used for a number of different different um items.

So tonight I'm I'm recommending that number one is state homeworld does not need a penny of our money.

They're gonna they got 18 million dollars or whatever they got from the federal government.

They don't need it.

Uh the city, uh the city of buildings and the citizens of buildings could really could use that 750,000.

Um, you know, that 750,000 can pay for uh park equipment.

It could pay for lighted basketball courts, it could pay for a toilet.

It could make lamp lamp man park a beautiful park.

So really what's gonna come before you is whether you decide to give money to people that make that that are parasites or use that money for citizens and invest it in lamp lampman park.

Thank you, Mr.

Kittlson.

Any other public comment?

Hello, Pam Ellis Um Heights.

And I think I'd can't hear you.

Can you speak a little closer?

Can you hear me now?

Closer.

Okay.

Is does this work?

Is the green line on the basic?

It is.

Okay.

And you still can't hear me.

Can I switch?

You now?

Okay.

So one thing I wanted, I think Mark Nicholson was also at the OASIS last week, so I didn't want to leave you out.

And I think I'm I think my comments are appropriate, but I haven't read the agenda since last Friday.

One of the things that concerned me when I looked at at the money that was going, was that some of it was going to home front for the development with the school district two contingent to Castle Rock.

Um the reason that concerns me, I think it's a creative idea.

I'm impressed with the effort that Dr.

Garcia has made to address the needs.

But I don't remember what Chris calls the project on Sue Lane.

I we call it the Sun Lane mess.

When they first came when Patty Webster and the and the architect and the developer came to the Heights District Heights task force, it seemed like a really exciting project, really creative.

At this point, it's a moldy pest infested area.

So I think no money should be coming to home front until that mess is cleaned up.

Um it's it's a real tragedy.

Thank you.

Any other public comment regarding this item?

All right.

Seeing none, we'll I think Dennis wants to make a comment.

Oh, Mr.

I would have a comment after him.

Thank you, Mayor.

Council.

Yeah, so for the LB Lofts, um, my my concern is um uh a project probably started with well-intentions, has has crumbled into a a fairly big disaster.

Um I always like bringing things, so I I brought some pictures if anybody would like to see, and I can pass them around.

So if you haven't made it out to uh 201 Sue Lane to see uh what's going on out there, uh I I think there's a point where with a project you you just have to stop.

You just have to stop digging and look at a way to to use the money in a better way.

Uh these these uh pods, I guess is what they're calling them, are are falling apart.

They've been left out on this lot.

I'm not sure there's anybody on that that's at this dice that would like to see this in their ward right now.

Um they're wrapped in plastic, there's a fence surrounding them, there's some no trespassing signs, but no activity.

Um, and we're just being told be patient, wait.

There'll be something happening there.

I was looking at the report, and and I'm not sure if if they're getting rid of 32 of the pods and leaving it down to just instead of 101 down to 79, or what the reconstruction is supposed to look like.

But um, if you're looking for guidance or direction, I would ask that we uh uh just stop this project and find a way to disperse these pods somewhere else to someone else, um, have a sale or whatever, and and just get these off the pro property.

Um, this was an amazing neighborhood that's being built for low income, and all the projects up to this look amazing and are doing well.

When I was door to door, you it was day and night between this and it's right up against the residential neighborhood, and then you have this.

Um and probably even a junkyard would look nicer than what this looks like right now.

So I that would be my recommendation.

Thank you, Mr.

Pittman.

Uh Mr.

Nees.

Oh, thank you, Mayor.

I'll just add to that.

Um, I did actually look at went and walked around the LB lofts.

I I will say what the staff said as far as it is the fence does appear to be secure.

Doesn't appear to be footsteps in past the soft grass has been growing there, but there are lots of broken windows, uh, open door, at least that I saw in some.

So I I agree with council member uh Pittman.

I think something needs to be done.

So I'll I'll bring it.

I it's because this is well, because this is mentioned in um the draft, and there's not not a page number here on this.

I'm sorry, it's under past uh evaluation of past performance talks about how that uh community development board um awarded 1.5 million to the LB Lofts to create the 104, uh 101 um affordable rental units.

So I guess the question on this is I believe it was it we we initially funded uh I think it was 500,000 or so.

Is that how how that worked?

Um council member Neeson, uh city council members, there was an application that came in for acquisition for I think it was over a million dollars in 2023.

Um I didn't move that one forward because acquisition means property acquisition when you're talking to HUD, it doesn't mean building materials.

Okay, so we didn't approve anything then.

They went ahead and moved the project forward themselves, brought those in in 23.

I if I remember correctly.

It's been it's been a while, two at least two years.

Um and so when you cite this as a past performance, I mean, this really isn't done yet.

And so I'm I'm wondering why this is this would even be in the draft because it's so tentative right now.

I think that the, you know, we've had some dates, you know, start dates that have just gotten kicked down the road a bit.

Um, but I also have we also have 1.5 million dollars in HUD's accounts.

Um most of that is on the home side of one point.

Oh, I can't remember.

Uh like 1.4 million, I think.

Um, so we have to have an explanation that we're actually doing something with that funding, that there's a plan.

If we don't have a plan for that, HUD is gonna swoop in and say, we're gonna take that back.

I mean, we don't have expenditure deadlines on um, we have forward expenditure deadlines on the home funding, but we also have commitment deadlines that are coming up uh as soon as um next year.

So we have to get it committed.

There has to be a plan.

Okay, so if the um if this is cited in here, if there is there anything in the council or when the when should the council say, listen, this is too this is too long, it's been two years.

I know we only approved the funding in I think uh last fall sometime, so it's been less than a year from our proving a funding.

Um, but it is uh a nuisance.

And so when if we were and when should something like that happen, and then if that happens, can this funding be reallocated to another project and what's the process to do that?

Right.

So let me start with the last question or last part of the question because that is the easiest thing to answer.

Um affordable housing development program has an application online.

Anyone can apply anytime.

Um but that there's lots of stringent regulations and requirements, which is the main reason we didn't we couldn't fund an acquisition for building materials because we didn't know we didn't have a market study done, we didn't know how many units were gonna be done.

It was just kind of this concept, and and um so that's why that didn't get funded.

Um so you you said something I just want to emphasize.

You said um building material.

So in your view, those those units are building material.

Yes.

Okay, just want to make sure that's yeah.

That's my personal opinion, and I I I would stand in front of anybody to say that.

That's a building material.

Okay, and then so what time what would be the process if we wanted to then say, listen, enough's enough.

What do we what would we do there as a council?

I think that since we've worked with home front for such a very long time, and the city is actually required to work with Homefront on their consolidated plan and those kinds of things that we give them the benefit of the doubt until the very last possible moment that we can.

Um, issue is that I need to allocate about $380,000 by next September in a firm written agreement.

And then if the project doesn't go forward, I need enough time to work with another developer to try to get that at least that amount allocated with a firm written agreement.

So I would say um if we're getting towards you know the end of the fall, you know, October, November, that's when that's when I'm when I'm gonna call it.

I mean, I'm gonna have to come back and say we we have to figure something else out.

Because affordable housing development projects don't happen here very often, you know, and I I have to scramble then to get that 380 allocated either through the home buyer program or through housing development.

Those are the only two things we can do.

So that's I I haven't lost any money for the city of Billings in the 23 years I've worked here, and I don't plan on doing it in the future.

Okay, Mary, one more question for you on this topic.

Um did you receive, did you get a copy of the home front update to us to council?

As you read through this as I read through it, um, my concern was they don't have their funding yet, and they're hoping to get their funding by end of June.

Is there is that a concern for you that we're still too two years into it and we don't have funding?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

I have one more question for her, but if there's something else on this topic, I'll hold it.

I'm gonna go to Mr.

Aspen Lighter, then Mr.

Pittman, and if you've got some more, then we'll get to you.

Thanks.

Um, Mr.

Mayor Ms.

Burns.

I didn't have question.

As I look through your council memo, yeah, I know the administrative maximum caps of 20% for CDBG and then 10% for home.

Those are standard, that's what we've done forever.

And then when I go down to the affordable house, this the Sage Towers project, the renovation project.

The thing that jumped out to me is there's also $87,619 to cut for what it says is to cover city staff cost to manage or manage and monitor the project.

What exactly is that?

That is just simply staff costs.

Staff costs are allocated by the hour in my department.

So whatever program we're working on, we have to track every hour that we're working on something and build it to a specific program.

Um 160,000 is not enough to pay uh for four 4.5 positions.

So I guess my my question more specifically is what are we what are we doing?

I don't I don't understand that part.

I mean, if if we allocate money to a project, that project moves the project forward until they submit pay requests to be processed and then quarterly updates.

I mean, 87,000 is a full FTE.

Like what how are we even coming up with that number?

That seems like an astronomically high number to administer a project.

I mean, that's over 10%, which is way over the the private sector costs associated with doing that.

Like I I don't I'm I'm really struggling to understand that number.

So the $87,000 was just a kind of a leftover number in our program income management budget.

HUD wants us to take a snapshot point in time and tell everybody exactly how much funding is left everywhere.

And so that 87,000 was hanging out there.

I know I have to allocate some funding to that.

Um typically we have to carry over staff costs from one year to the next.

I don't think I don't think we've ever had an affordable housing project that has been, you know, proposed, constructed, monitored, and complete within a one-year period.

Um we also have to we have to perform Davis Bacon inspections.

So we have to go and visit the construction site often and interview the workers there to see if they're getting paid a fair wage.

We have to make sure that all of the contracts that they're issuing are um eligible for something called section three um management, which is did they give this opportunity also to minorities and women-owned businesses uh for they call it me be weeby, and then also for low-income contractors um or contractors that hire and employ uh low-income citizens.

Um, there's a number of things that we have to do that's just not pay pay or inspection related.

Thanks.

And I just just comment and then I'll I'll be done.

I get that.

And you know, I work in the the engineering field where you know we do projects that are state funded that have the very same requirements.

They're they come through the coal trust funds, things like that.

And in the private sector, you know, you don't see grant man, I'll classify it as grant management.

You don't see grant management costs ever exceed five percent ever on multi-million dollar projects that's that span years.

And so that that number just feels out of whack to me.

And and I'd ask you to to dig deeper into that and understand uh help me understand how you got there because when when you're at a grant management and administration fee that's over, I mean, this is almost 12%.

That's over twice what we see on state projects that run through the DNRC and Department of Commerce, and that's been that way for decades.

So I'm I'm really struggling with that number and the justification associated with that because it feels like it's way out of whack to me.

So I'd ask you to dig deeper into that.

Mr.

Pittman.

Thank you, Mayor Council.

So my my question would be back to the LB Lof's um project.

At some point, if it's determined that this this isn't gonna happen.

The problem is we have 101 units sitting out on a on a on a lot.

Um is there money allocated to mitigate these materials?

Is there money allocated to mitigate these materials and how would that happen?

So that that becomes a concern of especially the people in that neighborhood as to how that gets mitigated down.

We have a code enforcement complaint against it now, um, open storage.

I mean, we're violating a lot of our own rules as far as a city and completing projects.

So I'm I'm gonna start being the guy that kind of says when do we stop digging and how do we get out of this hole?

Excuse me, sorry to interrupt, but I I think city administrator Kikulski could answer that.

There was an email from the project today about having the majority of those moved by the end of this month, end of next month, and then another 20 moved later.

Mayor, yeah.

So it referred to 79 units being taken off site at this point.

But as far as where they would put them, I mean, you can't put them on the road, right?

I mean, you could block up a whole neighborhood with mitigating this.

Go ahead, Mr.

Kay.

So Mayor and Council, what I would be careful of here, A, we know neighbors are frustrated with how long things have been sitting on this site.

We got two different things going on.

Now we have a case number filed relative to code enforcement, which will be investigated.

That that literally was this afternoon.

So uh that department, that division will do their job investigating that and following through there.

Then here, separate from that, you've got a grant, if you will.

I'm using that term loosely, a grant that's been awarded to Homefront for a project on this piece of private property.

So I want to be careful as to what is violation and what's not violation yet, or if it ever will be, in that it is a piece of private property that is fenced off and secured, and these units have been allowed to be stored there.

The question going forward will be is it a violation on the code enforcement side?

And or at what point does the grant application do you direct staff and staff come to you concerned that this money's not going to get spent, and we need it to be spent on affordable housing, helping people in our community and recommend a different path forward with those funds.

Neither of those are where we're at tonight, but obviously the program and the year plan following the Fed's rules is what you're talking about in this public hearing to take feedback on.

So not suggesting we can't talk about it, but just trying to be clear kind of what step you're in tonight and how that's same project, but different relative to code enforcement.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Pittman, Mr.

Neys.

Thank you.

Um, thank you, Chris.

I agree.

It's two different issues.

We're dealing with just the uh grant side of it now.

So and uh I appreciate code enforcement doing their work and Brenda, I appreciate you mentioning that you're concerned about the fact there's no funding here, and that uh I hope to hear from you when you feel it's time to pull that project.

So thank you.

Um let's see.

Oh, I'm sorry, thank you.

So sorry, just wrapping the one thing I did want to ask is you allocated, I think another $50,000 for SEPTED this year, but you indicated that you didn't have any takers of that last year.

So what is it that you're gonna do different that didn't make that happen last year?

Because Subtech is something I I believe in that really should be going out there.

What is it?

What's so restrictive about the last year's program that you're changing this year?

That's gonna be people are gonna jump on it and use it.

I know Wyatt has um some thoughts too about um allocations from the city in general for crime prevention um through environmental design.

I I um I have hope.

I know that parks went through big staffing transitions last year.

So I was hope hoping we could get something off the ground and allocate at least $50,000, if not more for program income.

And of course, that would always come back to the city council for contract approval and whatnot, but I still hold out that hope.

Um that they will come to the table with a project that we can work on together.

So it's really all about parks and their capacity.

Um I wish I could just charge in there and take the keys to a few parks, but you know, I have to ask them first.

So yeah, council member, uh, council member niece and mayor and council, just to add to that.

Um, what what we have or what are we working through with that program is uh that we can only um apply that funding to parks that are in qualifying low-income areas in the city.

So there are parks that parks and others would love to do work on, um, but they are we can't use that money in those.

We have to focus on ones that are eligible within the low-income areas.

And so that does limit uh what is available, what options we have.

uh council member nees and mayor and council just to add to that um what what we have or what we're working through with that program is uh that we can only um apply that funding to parks that are in qualifying low income areas in the city so there are parks that parks and others would love to do work on um but they are we can't use that money in those we have to focus on ones that are eligible within the low income areas and so that does limit uh what is available what options we have and so we as Brenda said we worked through um some ideas last year with parks we weren't able to get something that was gonna work in terms of what was gonna work for for um them and and what they were trying to do to do some improvements and also factoring in maintenance and how to manage that so we kind of had to work through that but we are looking at some other options with them and continuing that discussion so I I expect we're gonna have something in the next year um based on that but but it does it is kind of narrow so it's not just looking all over the city and that's been a challenge because they'll they can identify lots of things that would be great but we can't use that money for it so we have to find the places we can so that's where we're at and that's why we wanted to continue this to see if we could we can get something done this year.

Okay so you think there is they they will come up with something now that it does qualify that you can use the money where it just didn't have enough time last year to get it done.

Correct I think time and just understanding what the challenges were with the program.

All right anything else Mr O'Donnell thank you um so I'm uh familiar with this project from last year although I was not a member of the council at the time and I was uh remember I I read all of the information and uh uh the uh cost of each unit after being built was discussed uh the uh proposal that was given uh to the to the public uh showed like three hundred and twenty five thousand dollars per unit and that was questioned by um uh council member repsis uh brought it down a little bit uh but I I'm thinking the contract as I recall at the time said that the cost estimates were based upon the units if they were acceptable if they were buildable at the time that to me represents an open-ended contract which is a very poor business uh uh proposition so I I agree with uh council member pitman that uh this is a project that uh is uh uh shrouded in uh confusion and uh uh an unfunded uh uh mandates on the whole thing uh I uh would uh strongly suggest that the city withdraw from supporting that project thank you Mr.

O'Donnell Mr.

Pittman just to add one more question and and you probably can answer this uh you're you're looking for our feedback are you also getting feedback from the community public comment that um council member pitman and mayor council are you talking about for this whole the whole program correct yeah tonight is the public here so we've had a 30-day comment period uh per the requirements for the all the programs uh that started in March this is the end of that we have the hearing with you this evening yes if there's comment from the public then we take that into consideration and then we'll and then that's where the April 27th meeting where you act approve the programs and then we take those to HUD uh by that May deadline yeah I was just if I could just add one other thing on the the conversation just to make sure because this was shared um and and I don't think the whole council uh got all this information and it wasn't brought up in the report you got from home front and homeward on the LB Lofts we do currently have with the discussion we had with them that elicited the report the update that you got yesterday um the next step with that was to for the moment schedule um Patty Webster and the home front and homeward group to come and in person to talk to you on May 11th at your meeting basically following from the report that you received so we do have that scheduled um we'll keep that where it is I think unless we hear otherwise uh but just so you're aware that that was kind of the next step after the report so thanks thank you Mr.

Friday Ms.

Beckett thank you for your presentation we appreciate it it was good all right we'll move on to regular item number three no we did the public hearing we're good evening mayor and council tonight we are bringing to you the resolution to dispose of the Babcock theater cooperating for us no it's not cooperating no

Tonight we are bringing to you the resolution to dispose of the Babcock Theater.

Cooperating for us.

No.

It's not cooperating.

No.

Look at there.

Without Kevin, we can't get these things done.

So we can hit the arrow.

I'll go down.

Here you can you can advance it here.

There we go.

But that's kind of annoying.

But yeah, see if there's only a few slides here.

It's a pretty simple process tonight.

Little arrows in that corner.

Another one going.

Okay.

Hold on.

Just hold on hold on.

Get it back.

Do the show.

Okay.

There we go.

It's working.

If it gets weird, go down to that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Sorry, thank you, Tricia.

So again, we're bringing uh the resolution to dispose of the Babcock theater tonight.

Uh we're doing this from the following council's direction from the February seventeenth council meeting.

We need a minimum of six yes votes to pass the resolution.

And this will authorize staff to proceed with the disposal process.

Tonight is only about the resolution.

We're anticipating to bring you a purchase and sell agreement next Monday.

Uh starting March twenty-seventh, April third, April tenth.

We also posted the signs on the Babcock on April third.

And that is the end of my presentation.

Short and sweet and to the point.

Stellar stellar presentation.

Seven coached or well.

Yeah, again, any questions on the resolution only.

Any questions for our presenter?

All right.

So thank you.

You those fantastic.

I will move to a public hearing regarding the resolution.

There are any uh public comment regarding the resolution.

Seeing none, I'll close that portion and we will move Mayor to uh uh requesting a motion.

Mr.

Nees.

Having conducted a public hearing considered written and spoken public testimony, I move to approve a resolution declaring the city's intent to dispose of the Babcock Theater as recommended by staff.

And I hear the second there.

That's Mr.

Boyet.

So moved by Mr.

Neese and seconded by Mr.

Boyette.

Mr.

Nice, you want to speak to your motion?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor.

I this is something that's um we've talked about probably over a year ago or so about the ability of someone to do a better job with uh especially for historic product uh uh buildings like this.

And so I'm glad that we're moving towards this step.

There's other proper city property that we probably need to look at, but this is a good first one to to move forward and and look for someone who would actually and bring this property to its glory.

And uh so the public can enjoy it.

So look forward to this uh moving forward.

Thank you, Mr.

Nees.

Any other comments or seeing none, we'll move to a vote.

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

Aye.

All those opposed say no.

It passes unanimously.

Thank you.

All right.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

This is our latest um discussion and update on the billings 2045 process for the land use plan and future land use map.

Just first wanted to uh remind everybody uh and and you all that so on the after the community planning week last week, um everything related to that is up on the website at Billings 2045.com.

Uh we have the operational plan dro documents that are up there now for review.

We have the future land use map that's been up there, and we're receiving getting comments on that as well.

Uh the presentations from all the meetings and outreach uh sessions are up there uh from last week and also from before as well.

So everything is on that website, and uh we um had directed and shared that with people throughout the week last week, but just wanted to make sure you guys were aware um that that's the status on all those materials.

Now I'm gonna have trouble with the with the I don't know why it does that.

Sorry, let me try this again.

Usually okay.

All right, sorry about that.

Uh we'll try it that way.

Um so just a couple things as we go forward.

So just first a reminder and and an update here.

Uh our analysis for the entire project shows that we um need sixteen thousand two hundred new housing units uh by twenty forty-five.

We do have a deficit and we've updated and clarified this further in the documents.

Um in the last couple of I guess the last month or so.

Um there is a deficit from um where we are now of about 10,000.

And so over the next 20 years, we need about 16 or 26,000 units.

Uh we're currently averaging uh uh looking back about the last seven, eight years, about eight hundred units a year.

And so we are short in terms of going forward of about 510 units to get up to um keep up with that number.

So we do have uh a lot of need for the housing and a lot more uh permitting would be needed to get us to that point.

Wanted to get back to A, which was the item under the encouragement of development of housing.

The council has discussed this at um multiple of your sessions and actually voted on it twice.

And the last conversation was to try to um get this clarified by having you um do a a revote to just make sure we have the correct clear direction on that after the last um two meetings ago.

Um so that's up for tonight for for action if you're would want to m proceed with that again.

We see that we're not all you're not all here, but I don't know if we're ever gonna get there.

So however, we can you can decide how you want to proceed with that.

But that's one of the items we need to or we'd like to get direction finally on and make sure we're we're adaptive we're uh uh properly including things within the housing criteria.

Um wanted to bring up a proposal that we've been talking with the internal planning commission.

They were actually were interested in seeing if there might be an opportunity to have a meeting with you all uh together uh in the next couple of weeks.

Um we wanted to see if that was something you were interested in.

They have continued, they had their last meeting last week.

We um and it was brought up when we were having some discussions with them during the open house for community planning week, but they would really, I think just want to get um if possible, get in the room and be able to just have some discussion on some of the topics and the things because they're they are gonna be obviously as we've told you, making the recommendation to you on this entire plan and la and map here literally in a couple of weeks on the 29th of uh April is when they have their action item on this.

So if you're interested in that, we can see about polling you and talking to them and seeing if we could schedule something probably the middle of next week is what we would be aiming for.

So would like to get your thoughts on that.

And I guess if you want me to go through things and then we can come back.

Tell me how you want to do it.

Okay.

So I'm gonna um have Anna step in here on the timelines.

Where we this was one of the items also that we talked to you about at the last meeting, and we're gonna do some follow-up just on understanding current and future draft kind of process of how the uh review of applications would work.

Um, so we've got that uh next, and I'll have her just talk through this uh with you.

So thanks.

Okay.

So on the screen, we have our current timeline for a zoning application.

The first two steps that you're seeing are the mailed notice of the neighborhood meeting as well as the neighborhood meeting.

And a good way to think about this is our 15-day notice that we're required to do by state law under the Malupa Act is kind of being held by the applicant's agents at the beginning.

The reason that I've included this on the screen and in our timeline is no one can submit to our office at this point without having that meeting and mailing the neighborhood notice in conjunction with those times that are on the screen.

So, what I'm doing is I'm trying to compare like the March second date and try to be consistent there.

Um, as I was going through creating the timeline for our new process, the way that I best found to navigate this is by having a consistent submittal date of the first business day of the month, and that offers predictability for consultants and for the staff as they're reviewing it, but we can get into discussing that.

So currently, our current timeline, or sorry, I said that a lot.

That was repetition.

Um, but it takes about 70 days going through the entire process.

Uh, if somebody were to appeal it, you're looking at over a hundred days in order to go through the appeal, and that's on the best case scenario because anytime you open a case with the district court, there's no guarantee that it's going to be solved in conjunction with that as soon as it's open.

So a hundred plus days is what our current application process looks like if you are considering appeals to compare apples to apples.

Yeah, go ahead, Mr.

Boyette.

How many times in our lifetime has this happened where we end up in district court?

I mean, I've never heard of that.

So I will defer to Wyatt because it has not happened since I've been here.

Yeah, Councilmember Boyette, Marin Council, it's it's quite rare.

Um, I think, yeah, I can think of probably two or three times in the last 20 years that it's gotten to that point.

It's a Monday.

Our our laptop knows it's a Monday.

Okay, new timeline.

So what I did again was try to compare the my March 2nd date to just compare apples to apples.

So going through, we have the application submittal, the internal timeline, what we have to do in order to make the preliminary determination, because that's what state law calls for.

It's a preliminary determination.

Then we allow for the public comment, which is a 15 business days, and that gets us all the way till the 20th.

And the final decision would be the 23rd.

We allowed for three business days.

I'd like to reflect that this doesn't mean we couldn't go faster than this.

It's just the situation.

I'd like to stick with something to provide predictability.

Um three days at the end of it for the final decision.

You know, take our case with Yellowstone Country Club.

When we got 30 or 40 comments, we would want to bring those in, have a little bit of analysis associated with that before packaging up the final decision associated with the zone change.

So I wanted to give us some grace regarding that for staff so we could have the decision made then.

So we're looking at 52 days from start to finish.

If you were going to appeal, that's when the process comes into play here.

So you have 15 business days for an appeal, and that puts you out to May 14th.

Then with a public notice requirement, the way it came back into the schedule and having to get the notice into Yellowstone County news paper.

Um, the first time we could have the planning commission meeting was June 2nd.

So June 2nd being the meeting, then if the decision's made, another 15 business days for appeal to come in, and then we're at city council.

So then the city council meeting happens, another 30 calendar days for us to get to district court.

So getting into district court, we're at the 163-plus days.

City council meeting is 133 days.

And you see those kind of on the right of your screen.

But if you were comparing just the process to process, it goes from 70 days to 52 days.

It's when we get into the appeals category that this process becomes a lot more arduous for somebody.

And I just wanted to circle back to this, just there were questions.

We wanted to see a screen.

Um my suggestion again would be to allow predictability because when we the council nominates people to be on that board, that will be the planning commission.

Ultimately, the predictability for their meetings can really be set up a lot more when we have a timeline for submittal.

Okay, Mr.

Boyett.

So does the public uh get a notice in the mail and do they have a chance to have a meeting like they currently do?

Not during the decision process.

The public comment that you see is item number three.

No, but that's that just means they can comment.

That doesn't mean they can go to a meeting though and talk to correct.

And that would be the only public comment that is allowable under the state law.

And and I think we've discussed in the past, and I know it's just recently been decided.

I don't want to give too much information because they have that on the next slide, but essentially the Supreme Court decision has come back regarding the made lawsuit, which says effective July 1st, 2027, the public comment period goes away, and we shall not notice associated with that.

So this public comment that we're doing and the direction from council associated with noticing for the zone changes in item three that you're seeing on the list, will no longer be happening effective July 1st, 2027.

Mayor So we talked, I think a couple weeks ago or so.

We are we're with the assumption was there would be notification, but now you're saying because of the Supreme Court decision, there will be no notification to the public when an application is submitted for a zone change on property next door or cross town or anything like that to the neighbors.

It's both.

There will be notification because the direction from council was to notice, and we can do so until July 1st of 2027.

Effective July 1st of 2027, there will be no notice.

Oh, I see.

So there'll be notice up until this when does the notice, assuming this is the current new one, not the 27 one.

Where's the notice stage in this one?

It's number three.

So after the preliminary determination.

So someone submits the application, staff goes through the review, we make a what's called the preliminary determination, and then we notice the public of this is the application.

You have 15 business days to comment on it and bring to our attention any sort of claim that you might have.

You can comment anything you'd like, but that would be kind of when they would have a heads up of that.

Notice will be sending postcards, putting a sign still on property.

That was the direction that we had received from staff.

And I have on our next slide what our notice requirements are currently.

Um, so yes, it is a sign on the property.

It would be an ad in the Yellowstone County news.

We would post something online, and then we would mail notice, which is a postcard associated with this for a certain distance depending on the application type.

Okay, you're gonna cover notices feature, so I won't ask any more questions about that for now, but I do have questions more about noticing.

Go ahead.

Okay, thank you.

So I wanted to the noticing requirements that they all vary depending on on the type of application that it is.

So if it's a planned neighborhood development, which you've all heard referred to as a planned neighborhood development during annexation, so that's anything over 10 acres.

The requirement is for it to be noticed 1,320 feet out in a radius from the property boundary.

If it's a zone change that is less than 600 feet from the city limits, a notice of 1,320 feet out from the city bound from the property boundary, is what we do.

Um, if it's a zone change of more than 600 feet, so this would be you know internal to our sim city limits pretty substantially, we notice at 300 feet from the property boundary.

So that's a radius map is made.

Every property owner within 300 feet receives this notice associated with it.

Same for the rest of them.

Variances are 150 feet and special reviews are 300 feet.

We also put the sign on the property, we put something in the county news, and we put something on our website associated with this.

Can I ask some more questions, Mayor?

If you don't mind about that.

You sure can.

Thank you.

All right.

So this is actually goes back to more of the second slide.

Um, when you are uh counting the 15 days, so you're counting the 15 days from the preliminary determination, not from the time public knows notice is served.

Is that do I understand that correctly?

So the act outlines it as once the preliminary determination is made.

I've put it as the next day is when we're starting that time period.

It the act doesn't require us to account for mailing or anything associated with it.

Right.

So no mailing, no drive, you know.

In other words, if it takes you three days or four days to get out there and post a sign, you get the mail out there in three days, and then it takes three days to get there.

It's technically the the clock has already started ticking, so they may get their notice, you know, seven, eight days into it, and there's only you know seven or six days left or something like that.

Is that my fair in saying that?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

It would just, I guess, just to clarify.

I mean, it's exact it'd be exactly the same way we're doing it right now.

All right, Mr.

Boyet.

Except it's 30 days, right?

No, on the it there's the 15 days.

Are you talking about so I'm talking about the notice?

Okay.

All right, Mr.

Boyette.

Thanks.

I guess my question is that the Supreme Court and their wisdom decide how are people going to be notified that there's a new building or new stuff coming next, or if there's no notice going on, that they have to walk out and look at the will there even be an orange sign anymore?

No, there would not be an orange.

So there's nothing, so you'll probably have no comment then.

That that's the intent of the Supreme Court and the act is that this all the public comment would happen while we are making the plan and the map.

So the act basically upholds the status that making the plan in the map would be when public comment should happen.

Thank you.

Whether or not we all agree with it, that was the decision that those in power have made.

Yeah.

All right.

Next slide, please.

So the uh other item that we wanted to uh visit with you about is the three, the main three ones that were bulleted in your memo is uh discussion of the feature land use map designations.

Uh this we had some conversation about this when we met with you the last time.

Um, and so we wanted to make sure we had an opportunity tonight to um have conversation and have you discuss and provide any input uh amongst yourselves on that topic as well.

So we would have, if anything, any guidance to go forward on that.

So those are kind of the big things tonight is discussion on the future land use map, the potential vote on the housing criteria item.

Um, and then whether you would you're open to potentially us trying to put together a meeting with the interim plan.

Thanks.

All right, very good.

Any any comments regarding that?

Let's take them one at a time here um before you go, Mr.

Boyet, but see you uh item A allows permitted for at least a duplex for a single unit.

Um let's open that up to conversation and give them some guidance here.

Um Mr.

Boyet, I'm sorry, Mr.

Nish, you want to start that?

Yeah, I think we we had that vote the uh couple weeks ago, and it was a six-five um actually six four, and then council member um uh Shaw indicated her opinion would be to not support that.

And so I I think we can sure take the same vote again.

You have council member Kennedy and voted in favor of uh having it um not be counted, councilmember Shaw and voted in favor of it.

We're probably even on the same size.

I don't know if they've uh that, but we if we vote again, um we would see it.

And I think there was some ambiguity or confusion in the because of the double negatives.

And so um I can sure take try to make a motion.

And if Gina, if you think this is too double negative, we can change it.

So um I would make a motion.

It would be nice to have a recommended motion, by the way.

Uh I would make a motion to not include item A in the uh Malupa planning.

I think that is sufficient.

Mr.

Boyet, seconds.

All right, Mr.

Niche, you want to speak to your motion a little bit more?

I think I spoke to it before, but I'll say I I think uh what we have to look at is the ability of what this uh how it impacts developing uh developed neighborhoods, and one uh N2 N3 uh single family homes.

Um and that's really kind of where a lot of people are looking for is that single family not duplex uh being built up to the next to into a community that's already single family homes.

I I'm not against duplex.

I think duplexes are needed.

I think there's good appropriate use in and around the city in different areas.

We've got duplexes all mixed up within the heights area as well where we're at.

And um, this just restores that single family zoning that um that once they're when it's there, then the people the the people who are living in their homes who've moved into a single family neighborhood have that predictability and expectation of their investment that they put into their home is is still there uh for their lifetime and and probably beyond, but um I'll see that's enough said Mr.

Mr.

Aspen Later.

So I'm gonna be consistent with the way I voted on this to this point and and vote against it.

Uh and then if it passes, I'll work with Councilman Neese like I have been on a on a solution.

But I'm gonna be consistent and not support it.

And I think this is this is one of those things where we're we're concerned about a something that's not concerning.

I mean, we're concerned about existing neighborhoods that are already built out that have existing housing there that in large part in Ward 4 aren't gonna have additional buildings built.

Nobody's gonna tear down a 600,000 dollar house to then spend another 400,000 to build a duplex or another half a million dollars to build a duplex.

Like those things aren't gonna happen if you have catastrophic fires or something like that, and you and your house burns down and then you decide to build duplex.

That's those are those are so pie in the sky, unique unicorn events that it it's not something that we're gonna see happen across the board.

I think from a policy standpoint, I I don't think it makes sense.

We're operating at huge deficits in housing.

Uh you know, the way to bring down the cost of housing is to build more housing.

You know, it's a supply and demand issue.

And we are we are not keeping pace with the demands for this for this community, even with the huge numbers of doors that we've put out in 2023 and 2024.

Um, you know, I think we brought on almost 2,000 units in those in those two years from our own statistics.

But we didn't keep pace with that last year, and we still aren't keeping pace with with demand.

So I'm gonna be consistent and I'm not gonna support it.

And then I'll if it passes, I'll I'll work with Councilman Neese on a solution.

All right, Mr.

Lindley.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um yeah, I'm I won't repeat everything that um council member Aspen Liner just said, but I generally agree.

Um, you know, interestingly, one of the roads that I drive nearly every day, certainly every weekday out in Ward 4, as I take my daughter to school.

So I drive down Rim Rock, I drive down 54th.

And um Audubon Way, which is um just north of Rim Rock, um, kind of greenfield brand new housing.

There's I think three duplexes right next to each other being built right now.

Foundations just went in.

Um Amherst Way, as you go down 54th to one existing duplex, a brand new one going in next to it.

Um, yeah, and I think just generally to echo uh what Councilmember Aspenliner said, I just think, you know, um, you know, if those don't happen, it just reduces the number of units that we have.

I don't think um the property values I really don't think anybody could prove have uh been affected at all by that.

So um at any rate, I won't support this, but um, you know, again, this is this is just one small issue, and there's a lot more things to to work on.

So however it falls, it falls.

Thank you.

Mr.

Gary.

Yeah, I think it's just uh I won't I won't support it either, although I'm very happy to work with um everyone on board here.

But uh I think it's just kind of goofy uh since it's something we're already doing.

Um why are we trying to restrict ourselves even further?

Um so I I won't support this.

Mr.

Nicholson.

Yeah, uh I uh I'm getting confused in all the double negatives, but uh I want to say uh support duplex housing.

It's one thing is private property rights.

Um I think people should be allowed to do that if that think that's good for uh for them.

Um I like it too because it's um a way to increase housing that is small but efficient, a small construction company can build a duplex.

Uh it does it, you know, we can increase housing without having uh large um housing projects.

I like it because it brings people together.

Um I think people are afraid of people from with other wealth levels, and I don't think we need to be afraid of that.

I think that uh having people of modest means uh mixed in with people of uh better means it's good for kids.

And uh I I think that kind of uh coming together is useful.

Mr.

O'Donnell.

Thank you.

Um I would uh uh after listening to all of the uh negatives, uh I'm inclined to say that I support the motion.

Uh it seems to me that uh a character, a neighborhood is something to be retained.

And and uh I've seen areas um uh uh near uh Faith E Church where there's uh single family housing as well as duplexes.

They go very nicely together, but in that area where people know that where uh areas are single family housing, I think it should uh stay that way and not be allowed to uh uh to um get more more dense, I think is the word that Wyatt used was uh for the density around there.

So I will support the motion.

Anyone else?

All right, the motion uh from councilperson niece is to not include item A in the matrix.

Uh seconded by Mr.

Boyet.

Um, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no and raise your hands.

No.

So we have Mr.

Nicholson, Ms Aguirre, Mr.

Aspenleiter, and Mr.

Lindley.

So the motion carries.

Uh clarification on whether the council wants to see change in the future land use map.

Land use care category descriptions.

Um who wants to talk to that?

Mr.

Aspenlighter.

Why don't I just do so?

Given the light of that last motion, this is where um Councilman Neese and I have been talking and talking with Anna about how do we then deal with this duplex issue.

Um and I talked before the meeting about trying to separate out N3 and N4, N4 is a county zone, but you know, annexed properties would come in possibly carrying that zone, creating a new column that wouldn't be the urban residential limited, but separating out N3 and N4 into its own category, whatever you want to call it, you know, suburban lots or something to that nature that basically separates out N3 and N4 and then allows still the urban residential limited to be applied for N1N2.

That that still technically meets the optionality in the law.

Um, but it separates the single family housing from the N2N3, which would uh theoretically allow a duplex through um the the MLUPA.

So that would be my suggestion is to create another column, call it suburban lots or whatever whatever creative name you want to call it, so that we have that separation to create optionality and and still comply with the intent and and then we can move that forward.

That creates the same predictability that we just voted on, and then we gotta figure out where we're gonna apply that different color to the map.

And I'll add Jessica and I had talked earlier about this, and I'll let her speak to the legal side of it, but I think that it's it's certainly possible to create a district or the future land use category associated with it.

I think she can speak a little bit more.

So while you're getting ready to speak, I I would support this wholeheartedly, um, mostly because in reading all of the uh neighborhood plans that I've read and then a lot of the the city plans for future.

The the theme throughout the years has been neighborhoods with character and neighbors with consistent character.

Um so I'm I think I'm with everybody here.

I think we all have a bit of agreement as a council that we want uh duplexes, but in neighborhoods where um the character is not to have a duplex, and you might have a couple of empty lots in the middle of them.

That would that could cause a problem with the current homeowners and those landowners.

So what Mr.

Aspenlighter is saying, I'd like us to figure out how to find a way.

I know that there's going to be some challenges, legal challenges and potential liability challenges, but I don't believe that there is not a way.

So that's just my prodding to you guys going forward.

And I guess to respond to that, or I guess that was my understanding is how can we find a way and the way to do it under the act while I am not an attorney, and the attorney is standing right here, would be to create the category.

So I'll let the attorney address the reality of it.

Good evening, mayor, council members.

We have discussed some different options for getting this accomplished to have a a designation that only allowed for uh single family housing.

This afternoon is the first that I had heard of developing a special category setting that out.

As a lawyer for the city, I would caution the council that the intent of this statute is to create a land use map that provides for designations that allows for uses that accommodate a future 20 year 20 year growth projection.

I think the uh legality of this option this would be the only way to do it would be to create a designation but I would caution that it has to be uh limited to specific areas uh whether or not it would be open to challenge I think would be um specifically based on where we apply it and if it is consistent with character of certain neighborhoods and the one thing I would caution council is that by removing by making a land use designation so one of these colors a specific zoning district takes out a layer of uh a use for the future so it does it is restricting over 10 to 20 years uh the uses that can be applied to a certain area so I would I would caution the council to keep that in mind as we decide where as you decide uh where to put those designations I do think limiting a designation to a single zoning district does open us up to legal challenges.

Malupa is new so I cannot say that there's case law saying it's prohibited and not prohibited and I'm certainly open to thinking creatively but it's my job to advise you of risk and and that would be my assessment of the risk here.

Go ahead Mr.

Aspenliner and understand risk and then you know my risk calculation is that this is very very small.

You know we're we're not going to take back that vote.

So now we are where we are so we've got to find a find a solution and a way to apply it.

My intent just to make it clear to the council because we haven't seen it on a map my intent would would be that this this isn't universally applied you know globally across big swaths of neighborhoods.

You know this is maybe applied in N3 current N3 neighborhoods only in a limited in limited areas you know like Yellowstone Country Club would probably be one of those areas that I would expect this to be applied.

Lake Hills golf course probably one of those areas I would expect it to be applied my neighborhood like I don't know that I would expect this to be applied on Collin Drive and Plentyview that probably fits more an urban residential limited it's smaller lots it's tighter you know that probably fits better there.

But these are some of those Gregory Hills areas things like that that are existing developed neighborhoods that have been there for decades on decades that this this fits to as I'm envisioning it.

Now I haven't seen a map we haven't we haven't created a map but if if we're going to go down this road of not including A, which we just did, this would be the way now I'm not going to support it applied liberally across the map you know only in in very specific areas where it where it makes sense.

I can't speak to where it would be applied yet.

I'm happy to work with staff on that in my ward with councilman Lindley and then anybody else's ward that has questions about that but um I'm I'm not gonna be excited to see it applied in big swaths of of ground as as I would envision it to try to limit this existing neighborhoods.

Thank you mayor I I think one of the advantages we have with our zoning right now is we already have zoning and housing choices in in one and two NX I mean we have done such a great job with Rico that we already have that so having one category that's that's limited like that um I think is councilmember aspinner said it's it's the risk is fairly fairly low if not and and I do agree with councilmember as planner this this is probably going to apply only to the N3s and it's going to be it probably won't be in the entire N3 yellow if you look at a zoning map category because there are lots of N3s now that you maybe have some duplexes over the last year or so that maybe have put some in those are going to have to make sure that they stay within the urban residential limited I think what we've done is probably on the uh on the map side is actually probably put too much into the purple category residential and not enough into the urban resident residential limited.

I think what we've done is probably on the uh on the map side is actually probably put too much into the purple category that we're residential and not enough into the urban resident residential limited.

And I think that's where we're going to probably see a lot of the changes happen.

Um in some of those areas, like uh council member uh asperliner saying like his neighborhood was probably more urban residential, not urban, urban urban residential limited, not urban residential.

And so those are the kind of things I think we're gonna probably look at.

But there are lots of areas uh that are N3 that are squarely more like N4 neighborhoods that um are um established and they're not gonna be changed uh in that.

So I look forward to working with Councilman Aspenliner and staff to try and come up with that um that good balance between some of the N3 that is or is not in in those areas.

If I could add some to this to the conversation and respond a little bit, just a clarification and then just a comment.

Um so the first clarification is that you're even though you did your vote regarding A, um that actually so N3 currently um again, if going under Malupa can go from what it was single family determined by this community back when we did the recode, when the statute was changed at the state level for the last couple of years, it's been allowing duplexes.

Um when you go back under Malupa, you can determine that N3 goes back to single family only.

So I just want to be clear that urban residential limited can be there and N3 can be single family only within that category.

That doesn't take away this issue of people being able to come in and make a change, but I just want to make sure it's clear like the N3 doesn't isn't duplexes anymore if that's what you've decided because you're allowed to do that because of the way that statute was written.

So just clarifying that.

The second thing I just want to mention or state is excuse me, just to make sure we I think we all understand that point.

It's not the that the fact that it's not included, it's the fact that staff has the option to change it from N3 to N2, especially out of the coming after 27 with no notification.

Um, it'll be very important that that those neighbors establish standards are or more uh kept the way they are.

So and yeah, no, I just want to make sure that was clear because that because that's the N3 is the only one that this community's had that's been single family for for years before.

And then the other pieces I I have to, I mean, I'll state my concerns with this um because when you you're already starting to talk about where this may or may not apply, I think that's gonna be very problematic.

Um, and I and I don't know how that's I mean, I know the easiest way to start a map with this, which is to take all the N3 and put it in that category, and then you can see what that looks like.

Because when you start talking about picking and choosing neighborhoods and stuff and who's gonna be limited only to single family and not, I think that's that's a that gets tricky.

And so I just want to voice that because I have to, uh, because professionally that's that's a concern when you start to figure this out.

So I would say, you know, the first thing to look at would be taking all that N3, putting it in there, and then starting to figure out where you're at, because otherwise I think we're we're selecting and deselecting neighborhoods, and I'm not sure how we're making those decisions.

And I would I would echo that that neighborhoods that are chosen in case it wasn't clear, need to be based on a very objective criteria and have some sort of uh reason based in the statute and the considerations set forth therein, not based on any protected category or or legally prohibited uh category for making those determinations because that would open the city up to liability.

Here's thank you.

Here's where I'm gonna challenge both of you on that, though.

And remember, I didn't support this, but now I'm trying to figure it out from here.

With what you just said, if you turn the N3 now to this new column, theoretically, that's what you should have done with the N3 and turned it all pink, but you didn't.

You turned part of the N3 purple.

So you changed it from urban residential limited to urban residential.

So we didn't even apply that globally, like you said.

So, you know, the argument about that, I think I think falls flat because we didn't even do it to begin with.

If if we would have done that, we would have changed all the N3 to pink and not to purple.

And then we would have been working on N2 and N1 as purple.

We didn't do that either when we created this map.

So we arbitrarily did this to neighborhoods already in starting this.

And and so we are gonna arbitrarily pick some neighborhoods, and and that's the way that this stuff goes.

And and we have to use some reasoning behind that that can be substantiated and supported.

But I it I bristle a little bit with that concept because we didn't even do that to start with where we are today.

Yeah, I guess I can.

Yeah, go ahead.

The difference uh legally is that what we're talking about is a designation created with only one zoning district in both the pink and the purple, there's the possibility of future growth into other uses.

So that's what I'm talking about, just the restriction to a single use in a single area.

And arbitrary would mean without any basis at all.

There just has to be some, I think the mayor mentioned uh character of the neighborhood.

There has to be some articulable basis for doing this because you're it's not like pink or purple.

You're restricting the 20-year growth to a single use.

So that that's that is the distinction that I would make from pink and purple, if that makes sense.

Yeah, and I was just gonna add, I mean, the I guess the difference I'm seeing is that the the way we set this up with the pink and the purple is that you have and and actually under the current law, there was no single family N2 or N3 allows duplexes.

So under the current, as we came into this based on current law and what we had, we actually had all those different uses across, you know, both in pink and purple from duplex on up.

So that that was the that was what I was trying to get at.

We didn't have a single family.

I totally agree.

If we if we that if there was no statute that had put that in place, yeah, then we would have had to figure that out.

I does that address your question, sir.

Yeah, I mean, I I think we've we're we're gonna fundamentally disagree.

I I understand that we we have to create some bases, some some defensible basis for determining which neighborhoods are what we'll have to work through that and and figure that out as we go through this map.

It we I mean, we're tilting at windmills right now because we don't have a map.

And we're gonna have to work through creating that, letting staff take the first crack at it and then providing some feedback as the wards meet with with the planning staff to go through this, but you know, we're we're kind of talking theoreticals right now when we don't have anything in front of us.

So we're we're maybe getting too spun out to start.

I think I could just chime in and Jessica and I can talk a little bit more um offline.

Some of the reasons why we're not seeing as much urban residential limited right now was because in the urban residential limited description, we're using that term suburban.

So we were looking at the area of the city and trying to look at you know those large lot, what what do we consider suburban?

We realize we may have missed the mark after talking to council in some of the other meetings.

We're planning to renavigate that.

I mean, tonight we're getting, you know, to a point that we're trying to get what council is achieving.

Um again, I'm not an attorney, but we could try to talk internally to come up with some of those criteria to to make a substantial claim here on our new found category of whatever creative name I come up with uh tonight when I throw darts at my board.

Um, but that being said, I also would like to emphasize that I think it's important that we look at urban residential limited in the way that we apply that to where we have uh consistency there, because maybe we need to change that definition from suburban to maybe um something a little bit more liberal and and looking at uh urban residential as well.

Because if in my mind, if we're gonna have single family for the N3, maybe that's really more of our suburban characteristic, and we need to look at urban residential limited compared to urban residential.

And I don't think it's taking that category out, right?

Because urban residential limited does allow for the duplex and the accessory dwelling unit.

And then when you go to urban residential, we're looking at a fourplex, and in some areas it could be an eightplex, depending if somebody was gonna do that instead of a neighborhood mixed use.

So I want to be very intentional about the way that we have these meetings with you all and understanding that there might be more than just one additional category.

You might see something that was purple turn to pink as a way to graduate it into the purple, and those definitions change as well, because I think that's gonna be important to this context for establishing this the way that we're desiring to do.

So hopefully that made sense and wasn't too rambly.

Yeah, I think it does.

Thank you, Mr.

Boyet.

Um, can I give you an example?

Um 48th and Central, there's a brand new subdivision, about two, three years old of single family large homes, about 300 homes.

I anticipate down the road it'll end up becoming into the city for the use of sewer and water.

So it's an N4 now.

What would be the designation if we annexed it in there all single family big homes?

What would that would that be an N3 or what would it turn out to be?

Do you think?

Well, it would likely turn into being an N3 designation in the city, because N3 and N4, and Councilmember Nice and I actually discussed this extensively, they're pretty much a carbon copy of each other.

They're pretty much a carbon copy of each other.

So in my mind, it would fit into this category that we've created of this larger lot situation.

Um, but realizing that really it's zoning designation would change to N3 and really becoming N3 in that sense.

I I on the map, I wouldn't change it from county neighborhood right now to anything else, because I think we would navigate that process should that subdivision request annexation.

Um I think that that's the cleanest way to do it from a pro a due process standpoint.

But we because if we did that universally, we would be creating more of an issue for ourselves, right?

We would want to navigate each of those county subdivisions as they requested annexation.

Hopefully that's okay.

Mr.

Neys.

Thank you, Mayor.

I I don't want to confuse the the topic too much, but I I I agree with council member aspinliner.

If there's a secondary category or another category we add, that's fine.

I think you and I had talked about possibly having this is where I think it would be easier.

I let me finish my sense.

I think you and I talked about having instead of a permitted use under the urban residential, a special use or a um a basically requirement for a zone change in that category to come to city council.

And the reason I think that's actually is a better than creating a second category because it actually does allow for a optional zone change to go through a lot faster than it would be if it was in a uh separate map category than having to change map and zone to get over.

And so I think while I understand why, and if we have to, I will go that way.

If if we can't be think that this is a better way to give the most flexibility to this system that the states put on us to say we're going to allow special use in of N2 and three in the urban limited category, indicating that staff understand members, special uses are means it's not permitted by right, but it's allowed under certain circumstances.

So which which would mean um they would have to come to council for for review.

The staff could not approve that.

And so there are cases where it if we go to um and you go through the current process where it's taken 70 days, the new process being 52 days, which is very quick, you know, you're shaving off you know, almost 20 days off of that.

But a single appeal from one neighbor, as I understand, because I that whole peel process still needs to be worked out, would kick it from 70 to 133 days.

And I think that is going to be more detrimental to have that um it if you have something like this in in urban residential or spy permitted, and then someone immediately objects to it, then uh it's just going to make the timeline that much longer for the developer.

Whereas before, if if it just then kicked to the instead of being 133, it would come right to council in 70 days, we'd actually get that resolved and say yay or nay to the special review.

And and chances are, I mean, I've seen us approve a lot of different things that um maybe I wouldn't have approved, and maybe I voted against, but as a council itself did approve.

And so I think we have to look at this in how developers may and Scott, you have the best insight into this or not, whether or not a special review be the better way to go and be more defensible as opposed to um a new category.

That's my and if I can chime in on that.

Um it's city legal's position that uh Malupa mandates administrative approval of zoning changes pursuant to a map.

It's just what the state law says.

So it is my legal opinion that taking carving out a special review um under a statute that requires administrative approval within these categories would would violate the statute outright and would not be a way to do this.

So let me look at that a little different way from you.

So let's say, for instance, the urban residential limit we just pulled, just like this new category we're gonna create, right?

That would be just pull N1 N2 out of there.

So by by right, basically we're saying, you know what?

If you're in this category, you can't go to N1 N2 for staff.

But we want to be a little more liberal in that.

We want to give a special review option to say, listen, if you want to change from N for N three to an N1 or two, you have the option to go directly to City Council.

And so it's not that we're we're violating the law.

We're actually expanding the law by saying we're going to add a special review to an area that is not permitted now.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm certainly not here to advocate policy just to tell the council what's legal and what's not, what the statute says is shall approve administratively.

So I don't believe that that would be compliant with the statute.

I think um Councilmember Aspen Leiter's way of adding the category would be one way to do that in a way that doesn't technically violate the statute.

So that's my legal opinion.

We can move your way.

All right.

So we've given you direction on A or clarification and uh I think all three bullet points, right?

Yes.

The remaining outstanding item would be the Planning Commission joint meeting.

Uh we just need a show of nodding of heads or a show of hands.

Anyone want to do that?

I I don't have any trouble with it.

Pardon me.

Okay, it's uh sure why not.

Okay, well, you will be hearing from me very quickly.

All right.

Anything else, Anna?

Thank you all.

We appreciate it.

Thank you, Ms.

Vickers.

You did great.

You dealt with us really well.

We can that moves us to our final public comment on non-agenda items.

Uh period.

Speakers sign in required.

So if there are, please sign in, come up, tell us your name, where you live, and give us take your three minutes.

There you go.

Thank you so much.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Jeff Kettlson.

I live in the fifth ward.

Recently, I attended the public works board meeting during their budget presentation process.

At the meeting, the public works department is proposing a 28% increase in the billings water uh fee.

Also, in addition to this, they're proposing a nine percent increase in residential garbage fees across the city.

Um, and a seven percent uh increase for commercial properties.

There are a couple other different levels of garbage fees.

Um if we take the 28% that the billings heights residents are gonna be paying for additional water plus the nine percent, that's approximately 38% increase of their of their city services.

That's it, that's uh absolutely a devastating amount.

And I'm very concerned for those people over there.

So I what I'd like to do tonight is I'd like to propose some uh uh that the city council takes a real hard look, perhaps maybe this year instead of raising our garbage fees for the residents across the city, that you decide not to do that.

And I and I understand that that um you know, where we're gonna make up the loss of revenue.

So maybe here's a proposal.

Um first is uh increase the out-of-state people that bring our their garbage here.

Very few people do.

I understand that.

The second one is to increase the out-of-city people, the county people that bring their garbage here.

And I understand maybe that there's a um, you know, a limit to how much you can increase that that rate.

Or third, um, increase the commercial, the commercial rate.

Now, from what I understand of the commercial rate, you know, that I don't I think that there's a couple but buckets there, and all the only bucket that gets the smallest rate, I think is the garbage cans on wheels.

I think it's a nine, a nine cubic yard garbage thing.

Anyways, I'm standing before you tonight, and I think that that the increases that are proposed for the public works department are out are out of reach for most people, especially the the heights and some of the uh first ward.

I would hope that you would take that in consideration.

Any other public comment?

Any other public comment?

Seeing none, I'll close that portion of our meeting.

And that leads us to council initiatives.

Are there any?

Seeing none, we are adjourned.