Uh Billings City Council regular business meeting.

I'm happy that you're all here.

Hopefully it doesn't rain while we're because I just washed my car.

So if you'd all join me, please by rising for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Please remain standing for the invocation.

Thank you.

It only takes a quick trip to the rims just once to see that we're a great city on the move.

Development, growth, great things are happening in the city everywhere and at a greater pace every day.

It doesn't take a great amount of imagination to see what we can become as a greater city than we are right now.

We are a regional leader.

We serve 125,000 mile square mile trade area with over a half a million people in it.

Billings is doubling in size almost every 30 years.

That's pretty big.

So let's pause for a moment of reflection because we have to remember that as we go forward, there are people beyond underneath every one of those lamps that you see when you're looking down from the rims.

Dearest father, we give thanks for the city, its history, its character, and the people who call it home for the neighborhoods that shape us, the families who strengthen us, and the shared hopes that bind us together.

We are grateful.

May we take pride in this place, not only in what has been, but in what it can become.

Let that pride inspire us.

Let us care deeply for our community to listen with openness and serve with integrity.

Dear Lord, as this council gathers tonight to deliberate and decide, may each member be guided by wisdom and courage, encourage bold thinking, ideas that look beyond the present and seek a future that is stronger, more inclusive, and full of opportunity for all.

Remind us always of the people behind every policy, the residents, workers, children, and elders whose lives are touched by each decision made here.

May their voices, needs, and dreams remain at the heart of every discussion.

Let us work together with respect, purpose, and a shared commitment to the common good.

Together, may we build a city worthy of both our gratitude and our highest ambitions.

Amen.

Please be seated.

Oh, goodie.

Would you please call the roll?

Councilmember Shaw.

She's excused.

Councilmember Nicholson.

Here.

Nece.

Present.

Hetman.

Here.

Aguirre.

Kennedy.

Here.

Aspen Leiter.

Linley.

Here.

Boyette.

O'Donnell.

Here.

Mayor Nelson.

Present.

Thank you.

We have minutes from June 8th, 2026.

Mr.

Boyette.

Thank you, Mayor.

I move to approve the minutes from the June 8th, 2026 as read.

Second.

Second.

Mr.

Neiss.

Any discussion regarding the motion?

Okay, let's vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, say no.

Thank you.

All right.

Council courtesies.

We're going to start with Mr.

Lindley, then Dr.

Nicholson and Mr.

Kennedy.

So, Mr.

Lindley.

Thanks, Mayor.

Tonight I want to recognize 406 Pride during Pride Month, and to thank them for a celebration this weekend that brought neighbors downtown from across our community.

406 Pride has served our community for more than a decade and opened a resource center downtown in 2019.

Through education and outreach, they work to build unity, acceptance, and fellowship across Billings.

I believe a good city is one where every resident can live, live here, work here, raise a family here, and feel that they belong.

This is what a strong community looks like.

Thank you to the volunteers and staff of 406 Pride for showing up for their neighbors and for welcoming the welcoming space that they've built in our city.

Yes, I'd uh thank you, Mayor.

I'd like to recognize Linda Hines and Sue Baker.

These two resourceful business women are celebrating five years of their business downtown, the Yarn Bar.

They offer all things fiber art.

And uh so far, their business has not unraveled.

Let's hear from them a minute.

Good evening.

Thank you.

Thanks for having us here.

Uh my name is Linda Hines.

This is Sue Baker, and we are the owners of the Yarn Bar, which is in downtown Billings.

Uh we opened our doors.

Can you hear me?

Uh we opened in 2017 in the midtown area, which was a fine starter spot, but we had the opportunity to move downtown, and it's been a great thing for us.

Uh we sell all things yarn and accessories, anything to do with knitting, crochet, weaving, embroidery, all of the above.

Uh yeah, I just want to um we are thrilled to be downtown.

We initially wanted to open the shop downtown, and we're um pretty strongly discouraged by um family members and people we knew.

Just scary, whatever.

Not true.

Uh, when the opportunity arose to expand our business during COVID, um, we knew we we were going to go downtown no matter what anyone said.

And we it's I wouldn't want to be anywhere else in Billings.

It's the heart of the city.

Um, what did you say?

Downtowns are the front porch of your town.

So I feel like we're right there on the front porch for everybody there.

Come by and see.

I think uh walkability is key.

Um people it's just there's nothing better.

So thank you for recognizing us and supporting the downtown.

Yeah, yeah.

Continue.

Good work.

Thanks for being downtown.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mark.

Mr.

Kennedy.

I see a couple of them are here.

Chimran Quillow and Paul Clark, if the two of you would stand.

Jim Ron Quillow, Paul Clark, Karen Sinclair, and I were at the underpass last week.

Um we have this ongoing um issue about cleaning underneath the Sixth Street Underpass.

Um, they came out at nine o'clock last uh uh Thursday morning.

We were able to clean it out, um, blow it out and uh clean up all the pigeon poop and everything.

Um it's a piece that the South Side Task Force will be looking at every other month to clean up.

But these two came out.

We had five bags of garbage and uh the cleanup underneath there.

So if you go underneath there, it just doesn't clean up by itself.

And uh folks from the South Side, such as these two and uh Karen Sinclair are the reason that it's getting cleaned up.

So thank you.

Congratulations.

Thank you guys.

Any other counsel courtesies?

All right.

We do have a proclamation, a mayoral proclamation for tonight, which I I will uh take great joy in reading.

Whereas we take a stand against drug abuse and violence, which as we do contributes to the well-being and quality of life for all citizens of Billings, Montana.

And whereas we are called universally to promote the health and well-being of our community, and whereas on the occasion of the 27th annual march against drugs and violence, a community effort is taking place to provide information and awareness to our citizens about education for the prevention of painkiller and opioids abuse.

And whereas we thank and acknowledge our community, civic and law enforcement leaders locally, statewide, and nationally for their hard work in addressing this drug abuse and violence.

And whereas we call all citizens to join in this annual march to take place at 11 a.m.

on Saturday, July 11th at the Yellowstone Courthouse Lawn.

Now, therefore, I, Mike Nelson, mayor of Billings, do hereby proclaim July 6th through 11th, 2026 to be drug abuse and violence prevention week throughout Billings, Montana, and encourage all of our citizens to take a stand proudly and publicly against drug abuse and violence.

Mr.

Boyette, you want to follow that up?

Well, I see uh Mr.

Yakovich is in the audience and I'd like him to come forward.

He's the main person on this program, and he's there every year.

Come Rain or come shine.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, uh Deputy Mayor and Council.

Uh you know many of you have been to our event before, so thank you.

Twenty-seven years.

So with uh Mayor Thule, I believe was when our we first started out, and we started out with a handful of people, handful of kids in a wagon.

And uh last couple of years, the person in the wagon is now pulling her own daughter in the wagon, and it's really a great uh stand positive and and very uplifting.

And Mayor Nelson, thank you for coming to Safe Words, and Deputy Mayor, thank you for coming and reading the proclamation of our event.

You'll be at the uh Courthouse Lawn July 11th from 11 to 1.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Kennedy, for uh being a great sponsor with Family Tree, and also you and Mr.

Ronquillo being the chefs of the barbecue.

A really wonderful delicious barbecue.

I always say come and eat free at at our event and then go across the street and spend some money at the Strawberry Festival, which is the same day.

We have uh Rim Rock Foundation here uh and newlywed uh with her husband.

Uh welcome.

Uh really not just a welcome.

She Riversone Hell, um Rim Rock Foundation uh and many other organizations have been great as Family Tree.

We have Mr.

Ronquillow, who is uh very much not only the chef of the event, but also it continued to encourage us to do it.

Uh Isaac Olungra is with Black Heritage Foundation and the uh Christian Fellowship Church.

And uh we have so many other sponsors on the flyer that have contributed.

We'll give out 300 t-shirts for free, free barbecue, and our keynote speaker is from Passages, and uh she always gives a heart-rendering uh emotional and very insightful talk about recovery and why it's good not to misuse drugs and be involved in violence.

But mayor, as I only have a couple minutes late left, I'd like to acknowledge uh Mr.

Ronquillo.

He he always has a few words to say and and like I say, um all like Elk's Lodge, we have DUI Task Force, Pilp 66, Friedell uh Clinic, Tumbleweed, Um, Hope, uh Bridgepond Bridgemont, Alternatives, uh, Yellowstone Boys and Girls Run, just a great group of people supporting this event.

Twenty-seven years.

And uh you were you were uh uh about ten years back then.

If you don't mind, Mr.

Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor also.

You know, I've been following this guy for 27 years, pulling that little damn red wagon.

Finally, somebody stole it, but we got a different wagon now anyway.

But you know, we we do this thing just for a reason.

Uh you know, we we push on this thing.

We have a lot of followers now.

Every now and then we pick up a new one.

We picked up Councilmember Kennedy, Councilmember Bayot.

You know, so we're coming a long ways.

And our goal is let people know you don't have to take drugs to be goofy.

You can do that anyway.

So our goal is to get off of that stuff and join our group.

And and like I said, we got hot dogs, hamburgers.

Come and see us on on the the fifth or the sixth, whatever it is.

But we'll be there.

But we want to thank you guys for all this.

And and it's been a tough road going pulling that wagon all the way.

So but we want to thank you guys and thank your appreciation for doing it.

And and it'll be July 11th.

July 11th.

Just make sure 5th, 6th, and 11th.

And thank you all for being here.

And we'd sure welcome you.

I'd like to acknowledge you if you come.

And thank you.

And you made great words, uh, Mayor uh Mayor Nelson that it is we are a half c half-filled cup city with much more to happening in our community, much more to take place, and it takes effort like this here.

Investing, we've been meeting for six months planning this event, and always it it's if just one person comes and sees you can take a stand against drugs and violence is all worth it.

And so again, thank you and have a great evening.

Thank you.

I I I don't see the little red wagon, but would you like to come up for a proclamatory picture?

Is that a right word?

That'd be fantastic.

Come on up, everybody.

Through here.

This uh Mr.

Mayor, uh, do we come in the middle or do we come up with it?

Council reports.

We have any council reports.

Mr.

Kennedy.

The legislative committee met last week and we had 17 proposals.

Um from the staff and different council people.

We will be meeting this Wednesday, uh, June 24th from four to five with the legislative committee, and then we'll go back to meeting uh once we set our meetings up.

Um we will meet once for the state legislative and we'll meet once a month for the uh federal.

That's all I have.

All righty.

Uh Mr.

Snease.

Did you want to cover the ops report or do you want me to?

Yeah, okay.

Switch it up.

Go ahead.

All right.

So we went ahead and we we reviewed the uh city administrator job description as was requested by council.

That uh I sent that out to your email today, so take a look at that, see if there's any changes that'll come to you probably on the consent agenda in the near future.

So all right, great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other counsel, Mr.

Pittman?

So I attended the big sky economic development meeting, and they have a new executive director, and I've invited her to come and introduce herself to the council.

So hopefully in the next couple of weeks, she'll she'll be here.

Great.

All right, I think that's the end of that.

Uh Mr.

Ifflin, we're ready for your report.

All right, Mayor and Council.

There's a couple of things tonight.

So next Monday, June 29th is a bi-week fifth Monday, so no council meetings are scheduled, and City Hall and other city offices will be closed in observance of the fourth of July on Friday.

So keep that in mind, and that's all I have.

There's no ex parte communication.

All right, thank you, sir.

That brings us to our first public comment session on non-public hearing agenda items one, seven B, and nine C only.

Is there any public comment on agenda items one, seven B, or nine Cod evening, Mayor and City Council members.

My name is Jeff Kettleson.

I live in the fifth ward.

Mayor Nelson, your invocation tonight was outstanding.

That's the best one you've done so far.

I specifically would like to make some comments about one D.

One D is the urban renewal district agreements between the City, BD, P, Bidworks, and Sabura to provide services for the three urban renewal districts.

Our TIFF dollars are dollars that should go to our children.

So citizens understand what I'm talking about here.

It's your kids' money.

And I'm not talking a little bit of money.

I'm talking probably somewhere between 25 and 50 million.

That's a lot of money.

Does a lot of things for your schools.

The downtown TIF district ten years ago was in a low-income neighborhood, according to the our governor.

Our governor just released another survey.

It was ten years later.

It's still in a low-income neighborhood.

Now understand, understand.

We've given you millions and millions and millions of our kids' dollars to improve our taxation.

We've gotten projects that don't reflect that.

But here's the worst part.

The East Bird District.

That wasn't in a low-income census track ten years ago.

We've spent millions and millions of our dollars, our dollars that could have gone to our children in this district.

And guess what?

It's in a low-income district now.

What kind of return on investment is that?

We can't afford that.

The policy needs to be changed.

If you take our money from our children, I think that we deserve something better.

Thank you very much.

Any other public comment regarding items one, seven B, and nine Cing none, we'll close the public comment period and move to our consent agenda.

Any um separations?

Mr.

Aspenliner.

Yeah, I'd like to separate agenda item one H approval of the 24th Street underpass study.

1H.

Mr.

Kennedy.

I would like to separate um 1A1.

1A1.

Okay.

Mr.

Neese.

I'd like to separate item uh 1D.

1D.

Anyone else?

Any other separations?

Okay, we've uh requested separations for one H 1A1 and 1D.

Do we have a motion regarding the rest?

Mr.

Boyette.

Thank you, Mayor.

I move to approve the consent agenda items except for 1A1, 1D, and 1H.

Any seconds?

Second.

Mr.

Neese.

All right.

Having a motion to approve everything except the separated items 1H1A1, 1D.

Is there any discussion regarding that motion?

All those in favor then will vote.

Um we'll say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

The motion passes 10 to 1 with Ms.

Shaw absent.

All right.

Uh first item 1H, Mr.

Aspenliner.

Yeah, I just I wanted to separate this just to vote against it and be consistent.

I'm certain that this will probably pass.

I hope we don't see this show up in a CIP magically sometime down the line because we approved a study that we didn't have any intention on actually execute.

So I just separated it to vote against it.

Thank you.

Any other discussion, Mr.

Nees?

Mayor, I'll make a motion to approve item one H as recommended by staff.

Do we have a second, Mr.

Lindley?

Okay, let me catch up with my notes.

All right, we have a motion and a second for item one H.

Is there any discussion?

Mr.

Boyette.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, over the years I have to agree with uh councilman Aspenliner that whenever we put something like into the CIP or we discussed it later down, the staff will say, Well, you approve this down the road.

Why aren't you doing it?

So I totally understand what he's saying.

The only thing is on this one that falls, there's four alternatives.

One is to do nothing.

So if we ever come back to this, that's my default.

It would be item number one in that group.

So I'm gonna vote for it, but I understand exactly what he's saying.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Kennedy.

This um 21st Street um bridge seems to crop up over and over and over again.

It's probably has many, many lives, and we spend a lot of money on it.

I'm gonna vote against it.

And um probably if it passes tonight, we'll probably see it again for discussion.

Thank you.

Um go ahead, Mr.

Neese.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I was on this uh study commission.

Uh there is a lot of um undetermination as far as how this is going to be funded, and I don't disagree with council member aspinliners concern about it just showing up on a CIP.

Um, my concern is um, you know, the study is there, we need to it needs to be approved, so it's on on file that we do have some options.

I actually prefer not the no-build option, but more the ability for looking at option uh one, which is actually involving the TIFF districts on both sides of the tracks to come together and make some improvements so it's a little bit uh uh less scary to travel on.

So it's a little bit uh uh less scary to travel on.

And and so there's not much you can do to that, but those are the things, and over time, there's lots of different things that we can do, whether it's option three or four later, I agree that should come to council for prior discussion before it gets on the CIP.

I I don't disagree because there could be other options.

If that money is there, maybe it's a better alternative to build something as opposed to working on 21st Street.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further discussion, Mr.

O'Donnell.

Uh I'd like to uh ask a question of why if I think would be the uh appropriate person.

Uh Mr.

O'Donnell, could you pull your microphone up, please?

Oh, thank you.

I think the uh sentiment is to uh retire this study and not have it live live another day.

Is that best accomplished?

I had never never show up on the CIP.

Is that best accomplished?

Do you feel by a yes vote or a no vote?

Councilmember O'Donnell and Mayor and Council.

I guess first just uh clarify.

So before we get to this in the fall, so this is actually in your long range section of your CIP right now, and that was decided by the council last year during your CIP process.

So it so it is there, it's in the long range section, not in the short range, you know, the five year, it's the beyond the five year.

So just to clarify that that's already in there, it's been in there.

You'll be revisiting that when you revisit the CIP this fall.

Um in terms of the question regarding, I guess your our impression and our the indication we've had from council so far was that since this plan has multiple options, including not to do anything that you moving it forward puts it out there.

If you do want to make minor improvements, you have the plan adopted.

There are uh the potential to be able to secure funds from different sources to do whatever those modifications might be.

And so to keep it you know, moving it forward, adopting it and getting it into your um as a part of your approval process, and it goes to the RPC.

Ultimately, that makes that possible in the future if there were mar minor modifications, whether it was you know not doing the full uh 13 and a half foot increase, but something smaller, you'd be able to do that because we could pursue funds based on the study information that is available.

Thank you.

Uh my uh impression uh after watching the uh council meeting last year on this subject was to not have it on the CIP uh uh uh list.

Uh but basically what I wanted to do from you was to find out uh if we vote yes or no, is the staff going to spend any more time on this project?

Councilmember O'Donnell and Mayor and Council, we're not gonna spend any time on it right away.

Um if it's in the CIP and we there's an opportunity for funding, we would bring that to you and you could can decide whether to pursue that or not.

So it would be a council decision at that point whether to do anything forward.

We're not going to go do a project or go get funding into a project without council approval at that point.

So what is the effect of a yes vote or a no vote on putting this thing to to death?

Councilmember O'Donnell and Mayor and Council, if you vote no, um, then it's completely off the table, and we would not pursue any funding or ever or make any future efforts or improvements with the property at all.

Anything else?

All right.

We have a motion by Mr.

Neese and uh my right?

No, we have a correct and second by Lindley.

Yes.

Okay.

So there you go.

Um ready for a vote.

Thank you.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed?

No.

No.

Could you please raise your hands if you're a no vote?

Uh we have three no votes.

That's Mr.

O'Donnell and Mr.

Aspen Liner, Mr.

Kennedy.

All right.

Item 1A1, Mr.

Kennedy.

Mayor, um, I'm looking at the Amen Park Recreation Center, the ARC advisory board.

Out of the three at-large positions, there is not a position that is uh from the uh uh ward three, which is smack dab in the middle of uh of the ward.

So I would ask that uh um that we remove um number four.

Um and designate that as a uh an appointment from someone from ward three and approve the the rest of the recommendations we don't have a motion yet, Mr.

O'Donnell.

He's made it a little bit of a discussion, but we got a frame a motion first.

Okay.

Yes, would you please?

I would move that we approve of um board appointments one, two, three, five, and six, and item number four.

We um designate that for a ward three advisory board member.

Okay, now Mr.

O'Donnell.

Mr.

O'Donnell seconds, do we have any discussion regarding the motion?

Mr.

Lindley.

Thanks, Mayor.

Just briefly, I I just want to highlight um because we have heard some concern from uh citizens that there are no board appointments happening right now.

We're about to take a vote on it.

So um there are there is discussion happening about uh which boards and commissions and committees should move forward, but we are making appointments, and I just want to make sure that that's clear.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

All right, so the motion is to approve um nominees one, two, three, five, and six, leaving number four unfilled uh for a future designee to be named later, preferably from Ward 3.

All right.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Okay, thank you.

Um I do want to just take a second to thank Mr.

Reitz for his application.

It was a great application, a great resume, great qualifications, and I encourage you to keep and keep it keep being involved in city government.

Um, and I appreciate the fact that you took the time to come here tonight and sit with us.

So thank you, sir.

All right, let's see.

One D, Mr.

Neese.

Yeah, Mayor.

I would like to um I'll make a motion to approve item one D with the modification of the term, which is section three of each of the contracts to remove the last sentence in that paragraph, which reads the parties may mutually agree in writing to renew this agreement up to additional one-year terms.

It does leave that this agreement shall be in effect uh from the effective date until June 30th of 2027.

So it effectively makes us just a one-year contract.

Mr.

Kennedy seconds.

Any discussion.

I guess we'll just chime in.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um, I think this is a good a good move.

We should be reviewing these things annually.

We should be making sure on all of these boards that they're doing what they said they're gonna do, and they're following the rules and they're they're executing and their performance is is proof.

So um I think we should have all this stuff up on an annual contract, especially these TIFF districts, which we're having uh some lively debates about uh with respect to budgets and management.

So um I'm fully supportive.

I think this is a great idea and a good catch by councilman these.

Mr.

Lindley.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um I I wholeheartedly agree with uh the review on an annual basis of contracts like this, and and maybe not speaking specifically to these ones, but but others that um that we're coming up to.

I mean, consistently if we have the long-term uh contracts, it just puts us in a bad spot if and when something doesn't go right.

So um, yeah, I think this is a good move.

All right.

Any further talk?

Seeing none, we'll call for a vote, then all in favor of Mr.

Neiss's motion to approve the contracts, but with a one-year term only.

Please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

All right, that motion passes.

We move to regular agenda item number two.

Excuse me.

Uh I have a question about the last one.

Is is the motion uh the motion as written was automatic renewals at two and three.

Was that still on there?

No, we had substitute motion.

But I mean the two to one.

But is that there were there were two parts to it, as I understood.

One was the two-year term, and then there was the automatic uh renewal of up to three years.

Yeah, we'll clear that up.

I think we'll we'll take a look at that.

But I think with um Mr.

Niece's indication that the term ends on 2027 that takes care of that.

But we'll make sure.

Thanks.

Good catch.

Okay, thank you.

All right, item number two, public hearing.

Ms.

Bowlman.

Public hearing for land use, contrary to zoning to install signs larger than allowed, located at 715 Commerce Way Building One.

No council action is allowed per section 76-2-402 MCA.

All right, thank you.

As stated, this is an application for land use contract of zoning to allow to allow a larger sign sign to allow larger signage on the new sports complex building where the basketball courts are going to be located.

As you can see, the location of the building sets way back off of King Avenue.

So this would allow more visibility for those signage to be recognized from either the right of way there or um I don't think it'll be recognizable from South Billing Boulevard, but the primary one is facing King Avenue.

Um the surrounding zoning is um public to the uh northeast and west, and then the corridor mixed use one to the south.

And here's a rendition uh of what the signage will look like and the location um the east end um as well as the south edge.

So land use contracted zoning doesn't allow us to approve or deny.

It allows us to get public comment or information from the council as well.

Um that concludes my uh presentation.

Uh if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions?

Tim Lindley.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um, is it true that the um if you if you're familiar with this, that the signal peak arena also had to get um a special approval for their signage?

The signal peak arena did get a variance for their sign signage.

It was not to this um extent, but they did have a little bit larger signage so that they had more visibility as well.

Okay, thanks.

Um, I guess my comment would be uh this the larger signage I think in both of these spots makes perfect sense.

Um my concern is that we have two uh we've had to do this twice.

And so if it makes sense for these larger signs in places like this, it makes me a little concerned with uh sign uh rules, signage rules.

And so my suggestion would be that we take a closer look at that.

Um I mean, I think it's especially, you know, when we're talking about a city building and we're basically breaking city zoning or making a uh a special case.

I think we should take a look at that and make sure that we're doing uh things that that make it easy for the businesses to put the signage up to make sense.

All righty, CM Nice.

Thank you, Mayor.

Actually, this question is probably for Gavin.

Gavin, if you don't mind.

Um I am I'm having no issue with this uh looking at this, but I know we're looking at doing naming rights as well.

And so, you know, one of the biggest name rights that we see is of course the first interstate bank arena.

You drive down Fourth Avenue, you see it from miles away, it's on the top of the buildings very prominent.

Are we gonna have, I mean, is this by our our logo being or our name being so big on this, is this gonna limit the ability for us to have a really large or uh sponsor name on this.

Um maybe I thought it would be on first, not not second, but on the top, and that's where I found if I was put my name on it, I want to see it on the top.

Is that is that gonna limit this, the placement and the size of this?

Mayor, excuse me.

Mayor and council, I don't believe it limits uh that naming right sponsorship at all.

I think what you're talking about is two actually different namings.

So you have one of the building itself, which would be the courts complex, whomever sponsorship that is.

They are the ARC is again, think of it as their aim and recreation campus.

Now with courts facility, the ice, soccer's already there, and then whoever comes into that fourth pad site.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

CMS Finlighter.

Yeah, thanks.

I'd I just echo um Councilman Lindley.

And I think this is a great opportunity for us to have the IPCC take a look at the sign code.

There's some guys that have been around on that since Recode that can probably be very good at helping navigate this.

We don't need to do that in a council work session.

We have a committee specifically for this stuff.

So let's let that committee actually do the work and come back with some recommendations, having reviewed our signed code.

That would be my tag on to Councilman Lindley.

All right.

CM O'Donnell and Boyette.

Thank you.

Uh so uh the uh information that uh came to us on this subject on the emails uh indicated that this is unnecessarily complex.

The sign ordinances that they're in very various different uh ages and issues and sizes and and technicalities.

So uh wanting a variance is uh sort of like uh having another hole in the Swiss cheese uh that that's already there.

Uh this uh came to my attention uh with the uh denial of the uh iconic sign of village in pizza a number of years ago uh in uh the fifth district.

Uh not exactly the beating heart, but I have to come up with some other acronym for it.

But uh uh you know, uh it seems to me that there is uh it's time for a review of that uh whole city signed ordinance.

Uh is that a monumental task or who would who's the best uh venue to uh take uh take that under its wing, do you think?

So mayor and council, councilman O'Donnell.

Um I would refer to my colleagues in planning to answer that question.

Okay.

Uh councilmember O'Donnell and Mayor and Council.

Um what we can do and what we would do is um have a review of our of the sign uh code as council member um asman lighter already mentioned what the the current setup now with Billings 2045 and the uh planning commission would be that something like that would go to the planning commission for review.

Uh we would take a look at it, we would talk, you know, internally, we've potentially talk externally and then bring through the IPC recommendations if if any for amendments.

Um, so that would be the process at this point.

Um I I would say that that would be something we since it hasn't been a priority or anything right now, we would probably be having to look at that in the fall or winter uh to bring that back to you.

But that would be the way we'd approach it.

We have a few things in the sign code that we've noticed recently also, so we would look at those as well.

Um I would just clarify that the village and pizza situation was completely different than this.

Uh that was a code violation.

So yeah.

All right, thank you.

Mr.

Boyet.

Thank you, Mayor.

Just for a little reference.

I spent two years every well, every week at the recode, and we talked about signs.

And we brought in all the signed companies, and we mainly talked about street signs, signs on offices and pizza huts, but we never ever had thought that it would happen that we would have a building this size where the sign code effect.

So we tried to do our job then, but we didn't have knowledge of this would happen.

So I think we need to reframe it a little bit and look at things like this.

I don't want every building to come up with a sign as big as this, though.

I think that's gonna look ugly.

But I think the sign our commission didn't go that far because we didn't know what we were doing at that two years ago, five years ago.

All right.

Any any other questions for our presenters?

So this is a public hearing.

I'm going to open up the public hearing now for comment regarding uh land use contrary to zoning to install the signs larger than allowed.

This is your opportunity to take your three minutes to talk about the sign in front of the arc.

Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and thank our staff for a nice presentation.

That moves us to item number three.

Public hearing and resolution setting annual tourism business improvement district T bid assessment for fiscal year 2027.

Staff recommends approval.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

I'm Sarah Lane.

I'm with the finance department.

Um tonight there is not a staff presentation on item three or four, the T bid and the downtown bid assessments.

They do reflect what you have approved in the last or in the June 8th budget cycle.

Um sorry, meeting.

There are representatives here from both to answer questions.

I will also be available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions for a presenter?

Mr.

Kennedy.

There is no map this evening.

Oh, this is for the T bid.

Okay.

Sorry.

Yeah.

All right.

Um we would entertain seeing no questions.

I guess we need to have a uh public hearing then.

So we will open it up for comments on item number three, the annual tourism business improvement district assessment for fiscal year 2027.

Is there any public comment regarding item number three?

Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing portion of this meeting and move straight to a vote, or I'm sorry, a motion.

Mr.

Aspenliner.

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

I move to approve resolution setting the annual tourism business improvement district assessment for fiscal year 2027 as recommended by staff.

So Ms.

Hagiri seconds.

Okay.

At this point.

Um I have to recuse myself from the vote, as I am a property owner in a small district with a very large tax increase this time, which makes it uh beyond the minimus in my opinion.

So I won't be voting on this issue.

All right.

No, I'm not actually T bid.

Mayor, that will be the next one.

Oh, you're right.

So I'm gonna unrecuse myself.

Pardon my and yeah, Mr.

Kennedy and I are uh moved into the future there for a moment, but we're back.

Sorry.

So I'm not gonna recuse myself.

Um see, do we we have a motion and a second then to uh approve the T bid?

Um do I have any comment?

All right, let's move to a vote then.

Um all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

All right, now I'm gonna recuse myself.

That's probably a little early to say, but uh item number four.

Uh Denise, would you read number four?

Yes, public hearing and resolution setting annual downtown business improvement district one, bid one assessment for fiscal year 2027.

Staff recommends approval.

And then Sarah, you didn't have any other comments.

So go to the council.

Any questions, anyone?

Mr.

Kennedy.

As we look at this for business improvement district one.

Is that the whole district that goes from the uh below the um railroad tracks all the way into the downtown area?

Okay.

Yes.

Yes, it is.

That's correct.

Thank you.

I will be voting against.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Councilmember Nees and Councilman Aspenliner.

Uh thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Um, I do have a question.

Um, as I understand, uh, thank you to Andy for sending me this email.

It indicates all the city properties that are within the bid and the total assessments that are paid are uh uh over $50,000 a year.

And uh um as I look at this um list, I mean several of them for the parking department has to pay 12,000 dollars, library page 3900, finance 2600 facilities 4300.

Um, and so there's quite a bit of money that's being sent out here.

And I I'm not so sure that the city is benefiting from this.

So I I personally am gonna also vote against this and would recommend the next time this comes up for renewal that the city seriously consider not participating in the bid uh until we get clear direction of what's being done uh for the city properties and for the city.

Um so that that's just my comments.

Council member Aspenliner.

Um second exactly what Councilman Neese said.

I I think the amount that the city is paying in from taxpayer dollars into the bid is is excessive for the benefit.

Um I would debate whether the city should be participating in this anyway at all in any property.

And so I'll be looking over the next year.

I'm gonna vote against it.

I'll be looking for the next year for for the city to get out of the bid.

Um I don't think we need to be sucking taxpayer dollars out of some of these struggling operations.

The library itself is running in deficit spending right now.

Um these are things that we should not be participating in going forward, and uh that'll be what I'll be looking for next year.

Any any other comments, councilman O'Donnell?

Thank you.

So looking at the uh resolution, uh it uh talks about uh not limited for uh public improvements and maintenance, including unlimited public sidewalk sweeping security, public sidewalk, snow removal, litter control group, graffiti, removal, and abatement of other services.

How if the city does not do that, who does it?

How does it get done?

So, Sarah, do you have anyone that could make a comment on that?

Good question.

Uh mayor council, councilmember O'Donnell.

Um, if the the city doesn't pay for those services, which every nonprofit, non-tax paying property owner within the business improvement district does pay into the business improvement district.

Um, so that's pretty standard across the board.

If they don't pay into that, the city would take on those those services.

So snow removal, sidewalk sweeping, um, trash removal, um the extra uh duty officers, private security, homeless outreach teams, those are all services that are provided to the city um as a uh property owner within the bid.

With with the money that's currently coming from the bid right now, yes, sir.

So the money is transferred to you to administer the downtown district to take care of all of these functions?

Yes, sir, that's correct.

Okay.

So if the city does not fund this, then you would the downtown uh uh uh association would then ask the members to pony up basically the same amount of money to perform the services performed now, but through this city financing.

Councilmember O'Donnell, the the city pays as a property owner the same as if I were to own a property um assessed using the same formulas and the same values.

Um so if we needed to make up that balance, the property owners would pay perhaps an additional assessment.

We might raise that assessment per the business improvement district board, and we would have to make up that that um gap with other property owners.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I guess it'd be time for a let's go to a public hearing then.

This is the time for a public hearing on setting annual downtown business improvement district number one piece.

Anyone wants to come forward.

And you knew the routine, you know the routine.

Good evening, Deputy Mayor and City Council members.

My name is Jeff Kettleson.

I live in the fifth ward.

The downtown bid, the downtown bid has set boundaries.

Inside the boundaries, there's approximately a thousand forty pieces of property.

These pieces of property banded together with the approval of the city council and took a vote to create the downtown business improvement district.

Good for them.

They need help down there.

I'll admit that.

However, what's happening tonight, citizens is what they're discussing, is using our taxpayer money that we pay to the city.

We pay our taxpayer money to obtain city services, police service, public work service, park service.

All the services that we pay in, we're we are expected to get equal services, each one of us.

So when you need police, hey, I'll pay to send them over when I need it.

They'll send them over to me.

But what's going on right now is they're talking about taking, I think it's 600,000 of our taxpayer money and giving it to this organization that's gonna use it for whatever they use it for.

They get flower baskets, they get a little extra sweet sweeping.

And they got the and they drive the homeless people absolutely crazy.

Good for them.

That's what we're paying for.

What could that $600,000 do for us citizens?

That could give us three police officers to be spread out across our city.

Now you have to understand something.

There's only eight of them out there at any single time.

So three more is almost 50% increase of public safety.

But no.

What they're gonna do right now is they're gonna say, you guys don't deserve it.

We deserve it downtown because we set up the special district.

You know what a citizens should do?

We should take a vote and set up the whole city as a special district and make the city pay us, because that's what they're doing right here.

It's wrong.

It's a bad policy.

And the services that we get out of it are next to nil.

So I I'm firmly against it.

I think it should be eliminated tonight.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to step forward for public comment?

Anyone else?

Councilmember O'Donnell.

Thank you.

Um so this is an uh annual assessment.

Uh when does it end by law?

So back in I believe it was April of 25, council renewed uh the bid for another 10 years by resolution.

But yeah, the assessments are annual assessments, but the the resolution adopted it for the for the next 10 years.

So if we vote no on this, does it cease when?

If the only effective way to not do the assessment would be to set the assessments at zero, is my understanding coming from the finance department.

If I may um council member O'Donnell, the statutory requirement is that the governing body shall annually assess.

So there must be an assessment in the governing body shall levy the assessment using one of the following methods that are stated in the statute.

So there does need to be an assessment set, and it does need to be by one of the methods.

Um the resolution does set forth the method used, but if council would like to take some time to look at this and set it by a different method, we could we could review that with you.

Um but we're obviously not prepared to do that now.

We don't have the slides ready or uh the statute ready, which I could certainly read you and I can refer you to, but um the governing body is required to set assessments annually So there's two issues.

There's the assessment and the uh and the the uh resolution.

The resolution says the city will is going to set an amount of money for these purposes.

If if we set that assessment at zero, do the city still have the obligation to provide all of these services by resolution by contract.

Councilmember O'Donnell, I honestly I would need some time to consider your question because it's my understanding that um I I don't I'm not sure at this moment that council could set the assessments at zero.

So I would like to take some time to consider that if that's if that's what the body is considering doing tonight.

Um I'm not sure if a majority is in agreement with you or not, but if that's where council would like to go, I I would need some time to consider that and come back to you with more.

And I'm not sure if Katie has the answer to that exactly.

So long do you think that two weeks?

Um it wouldn't take two weeks.

I would just need to look at it tomorrow to be able to give you a thoughtful response.

You don't really want me giving you an opinion on the fly.

So let's move to uh is there any motions here?

Councilmember Lindley.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Having conducted a public hearing, considered written and spoken testimony, I move to approve a resolution setting the annual downtown business improvement district one assessment for fiscal year 2027 as recommended by staff.

I move to approve a resolution setting the annual downtown business improvement district one assessment for fiscal year 2027 as recommended by staff.

Councilmember Nicholson.

Okay.

How about discussion?

Anyone?

Councilmember Linley.

Yeah, thanks.

I I um yeah, I mean, I would just briefly say I I understand the um the concern.

I I think it might be a little different with council member Kennedy to Aspen Lighter, I think, because of concern about perhaps services south of the of the tracks potentially, but at any rate I I mean I spend a lot of time downtown.

I see the services that are provided.

I think if the city were to potentially, let's say with the library get out of these services.

Um I think that would invite a lot of other issues, other businesses that maybe they don't want it.

And the way that this works is that the entire district um pays into these assessments.

Uh so um, yeah, I definitely support this.

It's not to say that I don't think that uh looking at this and looking at it closely in the future, of course that makes sense, but I'm gonna support this.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor and Council.

Um so with this one, I think this is one that's voted on by the association to assess themselves.

The fact I think what we're really struggling with is the assessment to the city and what we're benefiting from.

I guess this would be to the city administrator.

Uh, you know, this is kind of like trying to sort sort out sand in a sandbox at this point, because what would our cost be if the if the is the downtown billings association isn't clearing our sidewalks and emptying our garbages and doing all of that?

Does that just go then on to our staff to do?

And how would we budget that?

Yeah, that that's correct, Councilmember Kennedy.

It would be on our uh incumbent upon our staff then to take over those duties that needed to be done.

Follow up our costs.

So what would our yep, thank you?

What would our costs then be and where would that money come from?

Uh it would be a facilities, uh so general fund.

Uh you know, that's where I would come out of.

And as far as cost, I'd have to you know work with facilities to determine that.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Anyone okay?

So we have a motion.

Um, council member Lindley, uh seconded by councilmember Nicholson.

So we have a vote.

Those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

Hey.

So raise your hands.

So we have council member uh Aspen Leiter Kennedy and Nice saying nay.

So it passes.

Support.

So three.

Okay.

Thank you.

Number five, mayor.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Uh great hearing.

Item number five, is Bowman.

Public hearing and resolution adopting wholesale wastewater rates for fiscal year 2027.

Staff recommends approval.

All right, good evening, Mayor and Council.

Um, this item is for the approval of the wholesale wastewater rates for FY27.

Um, we just talked about this about three weeks ago.

So pulling up this presentation was probably the longest part of it.

All right.

So the wholesale rates are designed to recover the cost of providing uh the wholesale wastewater service to three customers, Lockwood, uh Phillips 66 and Par Montana, and it's to recover the cost of operations, capital replacement, and future investment.

Um the costs are allocated based on the actual use of treatment capacity and based on just the infrastructure that these three customers use.

So the uh wholesale rates are then driven by the flows and strength characteristics of the three individual customers.

Um and the overall increase for FY27 is very slight at about 14,000.

Uh the FY27 methodology is set to recover the cost of services.

Um it's slightly different than before based on rolling averages, which will provide better um more reliable and consistent rates uh for both the city and for our wholesale customers going forward.

So with that, I am here for questions.

Thank you.

Any questions for our presenter, Mr.

Pittman?

So I'm I'm assuming that the the Lockwood is just because Lockwood is growing and they're they're sending more our way.

Uh council member uh Pittman, Mayor.

Um, Lockwood is be they didn't have any decrease in their strengths and their um or their flow from any previous years, whereas both PAR and P66 did, so their share is just higher of the wholesale amount.

Any other questions?

All righty.

Um we will open up to a public hearing on this item, item number five, uh, regarding wholesale wastewater rates for 2027.

Anyone have uh the desire to come up and talk about wastewater rates, good day, Mr.

Mayor and City of Buildings Councilmember administration.

I don't know where all these people are at when we all held up our bill and said, why is our water bill so fetching high?

And now we can't.

Before you go too far, can you uh just for the record state your name and where you live?

Absolutely.

Paul Clark.

South side triangle, affectionately.

Again, where are these people at that were so upset?

And I know council members also couldn't figure out why did my water bill go up so high?

Where's my service at?

How can you have do this?

Then you add another line.

Perhaps it was discussed.

I'm not sure.

But this is uh the add the line on the wastewater bill.

And so where are the people?

Why aren't we upset about more increase?

Where's the people from Lockwood who have an absorbent amount of bill to pay?

The people in the heights have water bills.

That it's it's incredible.

When does it stop?

You have to figure out a different way.

You keep taxing the people, you keep talking about too much tax, and then boom, here comes the wastewater.

That's all I have.

Blessings.

Thank you.

Any other comment regarding this item?

Okay.

Um council, we're missing um one of our members whose stepped out.

How would we handle this, Mr.

Neys?

I do have a question for staff if you don't mind.

That'd be great.

I can fill a bust.

No, I won't.

Um Jennifer, uh, we've had these contracts with Phillips 66 in part for quite a while.

We know it's because of the their systems are just really more pre-treatment, and so then we process it.

But Lockwood water, do they have their own wastewater plant?

And then it's just we're just getting the overage, or what is the where they just don't have a wastewater treatment plant?

Uh Councilmember Nees, Mayor, um, Lockwood does not have a plant.

So they have the collection system um, and they they collect it all through their system and then they transmit it all to us.

No pre-treatment.

They do do pre-treatment, yes.

Pre-treatment.

Yes.

All right, thank you.

All right, Mr.

Esman Liner.

If we're good with comment, I'll make a motion.

Umducted a public hearing considered written and public written and spoken public testimony.

I moved to approve resolution resolution adopting revised wholesale wastewater rates for fiscal year 2027 as recommended by staff.

We have a second, Mr.

Boyet.

Mayor?

Yes, sir.

I'm I'm gonna request a separation or splitting of the vote between Lockwood and the two the two uh refineries.

I think we would uh I'm not gonna I'm not gonna accept that suggestion.

You'll have to amend the motion if that's what you want to do.

We would need an amended motion.

If we can check with the uh um parliamentarian because these are these are standalone uh rates.

If you would just give me one moment, council member knees.

Okay.

If you wanted to address your motion while she's looking at that.

Mayor, if you're good with that, I'll speak to the motion.

Yes, go ahead, please.

So we sat through this uh last year when we had the dust up with the refineries, and and that was a lot about the way that this was calculated.

We went through that year modifying the way that we calculated this, taking into consideration strength, volume, and peaks, you know, uh spikes or hot loads, however, whatever you want to call those things.

I think staff has done a really good job with with some high highly paid professionals uh from all three of the wastewater uh wholesalers, including our own consultant to come to a methodology that's acceptable across the board.

Um the way that you get your rate down is to send better water, and that's evident by the rates for par and P66.

That's the way this works.

And so I I think if we try to monkey with this, we're gonna get ourselves into legal trouble because we're arbitrarily then setting rates that are not supported by the data that could get us into a legal situation because we're not following the law as it comes to rate setting.

So I would caution us in in trying to monkey with these because they've been done through a statutory process following a procedure that's outlined and that's repeatable, and that everybody is accepted, including the three impacted ratepayers.

So be careful if that's what what we're talking about doing, because I think we would potentially get ourselves in a in a tricky situation.

Mr.

Boyet.

So I mean, a year ago we had all the people in here, the all the players, and we asked them to get together with our people and figure something out.

This is what they both came up with.

Why wouldn't we take what they came up with as rather than us trying to figure out, well, I don't like this or that.

We hired the people, they met and they came up with a plan, and this is the plan.

We should vote for this.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Neese.

Mayor, I I don't disagree with the what councilmember Astrainler said at all.

I think methodology-wise is I'm not in disagreement.

I actually agree with that, and that's one of the reasons I would support the the two.

Um, and and if if if the parliamentary says no, that's fine.

Uh I'll I'll make my my comments and vote no, but knowing that I'm uh vote would vote for for the two refineries.

My concern on this issue is um it's similar to what we do with providing any other waste water services to residents who want to come in and aren't in part of the city.

We're actually what we're doing is is facilitating a development outside of the city where businesses can grow and and produce and grow outside of the city and not be a part of the city.

And then we as a citizens have to pay for that.

Yes, they're paying a 15% return on it, but it's not really developing within the city.

And so I think this is this for Lockwood in particular is contrary to what we should be doing for our city residents.

And so that's why I was going to separate that and want to vote against that.

Um, because I think we should really take a hard look at that contract and really determine okay, what is it that we need to do with Lockwood?

Maybe they need to actually fit the bill for their own wastewater treatment plant so that they understand what the true cost of living outside the city is.

Mr.

Aspen later.

Yeah, I'll just speak to that because we started down this road and and entered into that agreement, and then the citizens of Lockwood, after we agreed to take their wastewater, then agreed to assess themselves and tax the heck out of themselves through SIDs to build that collection system based on the assumption that we were gonna take it.

The cost associated with then going and building their own wastewater treatment plant.

I don't think they would have built the collection system if they had to, if they knew they had to also build the collection or the treatment plant, because that cost was another tens of millions of dollars, plus getting you know a discharge permit into the Yellowstone River.

So I understand and I don't necessarily disagree, Councilman Neese, with your with your sentiment, but I think that would be the ultimate like bait and switch, leaving the citizens of Lockwood holding the bag for something that they can't possibly afford, nor do they even have they even contemplated a solution for.

Let's see so we'll just come this way so councilman Nicholson and Ms.

Mr.

Pittman and Mr.

Kennedy Thank you Mr.

Mayor um the question about selling um wastewater services and water to uh entities outside the city limits is certainly a topic to have some debate um but I don't think this is the time to do it Sam Pittman thank you mayor counsel so um I believe uh councilman kennedy was on the the commission side but I was on the city side of it um just as a little historical background for everybody um the EPA was coming really hard at point source pollution into the Yellowstone and one of the sources they figured was somewhere between Laurel and Lockwood something was getting in the in the Yellowstone and they they were going to force the city to mitigate it.

One of the simple ways we found is a way to to go negotiate with with Lockwood was to take their wastewater treat it and then that was the the EPA backing off on requiring them to open up their own facility and and we couldn't prove or disprove where all this water wastewater was coming from so uh I think it's a good contract to look at and review to make sure that they're paying their fair share um and and as far as infrastructure and and all of that and and to the levels they're sending it to us but um the this really does they pay a huge portion of of the cost for this same kennedy I sat through probably five years of meetings on this as we negotiated um and trying to figure it out and um you know it was it was uh a compromise at that time um for the people in lockwood um they were agreeable to pay a little bit more and and to do it but the um biggest problem is it would have been exorbitant for them to try to do their own plant for their own wastewater and um when we negotiated with the city of Billings it was negotiated it wasn't negotiated for a couple of years it was negotiated for a lifetime because they just couldn't do that.

The other things that come into place if you really want the full history and everything you need to go back to those meetings and look at the negotiations and all of that is um the city of Billings looked at it looked at the possibility of annexation all of that was had taken place and it wasn't feasible for the city of Billington it was a high cost for the city of Billings to take over this was the compromise and I think it's uh it's very fair across the board to go forward with this today.

All right thank you Ms Dall.

Thank you mayor um as to council member niece's question to divide the um divide the motion that is an appropriate because they are complete propositions that can stand on their own it's appropriate motion to make the motion must be clearly stated to in the manner in which the question is to be divided um the motion must be seconded it's not debatable um and it requires a majority vote I understanding your intention if if you'd like me to split it I'll split it no I I as long as I I spoke I spoke I bringing up the issue I think is is we've discussed it well enough is as council member Nicholson said this is probably not the time to discuss it so I will vote no just in into to reiterate what I had said.

So thank you very much for discussing this I appreciate taking the time to uh bring this air this out any further discussion all right we'll move to a vote on the uh motion to uh approve a resolution adopting revised wholesale wastewater rates for fiscal year 2027 all those in favor please say aye aye aye all those opposed nay mrnees is in opposition item number six Ms.

Very short presentation tonight.

If the screen will switch.

Uh tonight, but basically these fees are uh based off a vape cost of services for providing all the services that we do for inspection and administration of uh different projects in the right-of-way.

So just a little background for you.

Public works does not receive any general fund money.

Um and the engineering fund was the last fund in public works to get out of the general fund back in 2011.

And um, so going forward from that time, we've used cost of services in order to make sure that we're self-sustaining fund and not not relying on general fund for money.

So this uh the passage of this is needed to uh employ the people that are needed to perform these services for FY27.

And I'm here for any questions.

Any questions for a presenter?

Mr.

Boyette?

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I I see uh people pulling like a fiber optic cable up and down 24th and grand.

Which one of these fees would be covered under that?

And would you know, uh Councilmember Boyet, that depends on what all they have to do and and dig up to do that.

Um a lot of what they're doing is boring, but they are driving a lot of our services right now, those fiber companies.

In fact, we had to add an additional uh inspector just for that.

But they are um thousands of hours of our time is spent doing the following the fiber optic and making sure that they're putting things back the way they're supposed to.

Thank you.

Mr.

O'Donnell.

Yeah, excuse me for uh really I I'm asking your forgiveness.

I really don't understand what this right-of-way is all about.

I look at this uh figure right here.

I have no idea what that means, asphalt right-of-way driving, I mean uh the curbs and sidewalks.

What what does that what does right-of-way mean?

So right-of-way is that portion in between the property line and the other side of the property line.

So that street portion and anything in between.

It could be sidewalk, it could be multi-use trail, all of that is your right-of-way.

So if any construction is needed, um, whether it's telecom, fiber, um, Northwest Energy, MDU, if they're doing any work in the right-of-way, they have to get permits, and we have to follow up with every one of them to make sure that they restore everything to our standards.

So the grass unimproved.

What triggers that charge?

So if they're disturbing basically landscaped areas or unimproved areas, um, if they're they're doing anything in in those type of areas, that would be the fee.

Whereas if they're actually uh digging up asphalt, it's much higher because there's more inspection costs.

I mean it's 123 dollars for what per what?

What per permit?

Oh, per permit.

Oh, now I understand.

Thank you very much.

Sam Lindley.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, you brought up a topic I was really curious about, which is all of the work being done by the fiber uh companies, and I think you know, I think all of us have seen the pictures, and I've talked with people that have had some issues with with what's going on on property.

Um, and you just mentioned that you had to hire another person to cover that.

We did, yes.

Do you so my question is do you feel like the fees that are being paid by those companies?

Is that covering the cost of that person?

Yes, we are fully covering the cost of the extra person through charging these fees to them.

Yes.

Okay, thanks.

CM Nice asked and answered by Sim Lately.

Oh nice.

Thank you.

Any other questions for our presenter?

Thank you.

We'll move to a public hearing on this particular item.

Or any public comment regarding item number six.

Paul Clark, South Side Triangle.

Mr.

Mayor, City of Billings Administration.

So right of way.

What is the right-of-way?

And you were guys in your area discussing how fiber optics has is come into their front.

No sidewalks, curb and gutter, barely.

And then what?

So when you plan these developments in new neighborhoods, or even the one that we have down on King Avenue that's coming up, those all have to be planned accordingly.

But what about the old area?

How about the telephone poles that are over 125 years old?

What are we doing with those?

It's already existing in the city.

Um fiber optics at $575 a permit.

And it went up, what, 20 bucks?

Do everything across the board for another 25%.

If if you're going to keep taxing billings residents, why don't you start taxing the people that need to use the right-of-way?

Fiber optics, telephone poles, these kind of things because you're hitting us so hard.

We got to figure out a different solution.

That's all I have, God bless.

Anyone else?

Seeing none, we'll close that part of the hearing.

Do we have a motion?

Mr.

Boyette.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, having conducted a public hearing considered written and spoken public testimony, a move to approve a resolution adopting revised right-of-way fees for fiscal year 2027 is recommended by staff.

Second.

Ms.

Agiri seconds.

All right.

Mr.

Boy, you want to speak to your motion?

Well, just that uh I I want to make sure that we are covering our costs on these uh only because I see them all over town.

We've had personally, I've been out a lot of people that are not happy.

So we do need to be watching these people on a regular basis, and we do need to cover our costs, and if we are more power to them.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

Seeing none, let's vote.

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

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

That's unanimous.

Item number seven.

Okay, this is a two-part, one with a public hearing and one is just a bid award after um the SID is created.

So it's a public hearing and resolution creating SID 1429, Clearwater Estate Subdivision, second filing, and 44 West Subdivision Street Lights.

Um staff recommends approval.

And then the next one would be for um the award of a bid to Millennium Electric.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes, sir.

Uh I'll be recusing myself from both 7A and 7B as our firm represents the developer in these subdivisions.

Thank you, Mr.

Aspen Lighther.

This one right here.

Uh what we have before us tonight is uh is a two-part uh project, if you will, uh, Ms.

Bowman.

So first of all, we have the resolution that would create the street light district district, and then if council approves that resolution, uh we have kind of a contingent bid award that would award uh the construction of the street lights.

Uh so where we're located as is out on the west end of Billings, uh south of Central Avenue, east of 48th Street.

So if you uh regulatory requirements and some of the project purpose, uh there's actually two uh developers within the project.

Uh, this covers two subdivisions.

Uh and the purpose of the SID is very simple, it's to cover uh construction of the street lights in these two subdivisions.

Uh a little look at again where we are, uh kind of highlighted the area.

This is an old photograph.

The streets are now constructed uh within this area, don't have a fresh aerial.

Uh but that those are the the location of the two subdivisions, and then over in the lot, uh, the blue are the lots uh that also are cut covered by the SID for the street lights.

A few of the statistics over on the right, uh there's about 71 uh street lights, 128 parcels, uh total total cost, all in.

That's with bond costs and uh construction 1.1 million.

Uh schedule on the left, we did the resolution of intent uh before council May 26th.

Obviously, the tonight is the resolution to create the district uh as well as the contingent bid award.

Uh looking ahead, uh, if that moves forward, we would hope to have construction uh complete yet by this fall.

And then these assessments uh would go on the record uh in the winter of 26.

So uh open obviously open the floor for for any public comment.

Uh you can uh create the resolution and award the bid, or or theoretically, if you were to uh deny the SID, then the developers would have to then uh construct those street lights at their own cost.

And be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Fogusong.

Uh CM Kennedy.

Mac one of the uh looking at this, this is gonna be over 15 years, 8,000 and something per household.

If Northwest Energy put them up and assessed them the $7 a month for the 15 years, they'd be paying 1,200.

Why would they go this route instead of just setting it up and having the Northwest Energy to it?

And uh because the average person stays in their home anywhere from seven to eleven years.

Um that's an awful lot of money.

That was one of the reasons I voted again against putting, I like street lights, but the cost was so high that um we look at the cheaper method of supplying that so it doesn't go back on the homeowner that are going to uh um buy the house.

Yeah, thank you, council member Kennedy.

Um, my presumption is that the subdividers uh did I mean there's there's three choices to install street lights.

My my presumption is that they looked at those three options and um they came to the city to request uh this method.

Um and we looked at it on the merits.

I I can't speak to what you know if Northwestern Energy gave cost to this on that other alternative or not at this time.

Thank you.

Mr.

Nece.

Thank you, Mayor.

Mac, um, I mean, this I I also voted against the requirement to have street lights because I didn't think there was enough flexibility.

And if I understand correctly, you said there's three options to do street lights, either and all gonna be pull lights, either sub uh developer through SID or private, and then HOA takes it over and Northwest Energy.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

But there isn't an option for the developer to say, listen, we're gonna put a street lamp at each house.

And that then they have their HOA make make sure that the lights are on or whatever it is.

Is that is that correct?

Uh currently, yes.

Okay.

Yeah, I I think there needs to be alternative options because you know, eighty, six hundred dollars, you know, adding to the cost of that house, you know, over the 15 years is is a lot.

And we're trying to get affordable housing, but I just want to make sure that there is no option there.

I I'll speak against the motion later, but I just clarify there is no other option, and I hope that we can look at giving developers alternative options to put lights where they want them.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

All right.

Thanks, Mac.

Mr.

O'Donnell.

We might call you back here just a sec, Mac.

Go ahead, Mr.

O'Donnell.

I just wanted to say, so yeah, it's either in front of us to create, allow them to create an SID so that the cost of the lights are on the tax roll, or they're attached to the cost of the house.

Obviously, the developer or the developers are not going to pay this out of their pocket.

They're going to charge for the homes.

That's one question.

The other one is is there an HOA?

I mean, how many, how many parcels have been sold?

Uh at this point.

Councilmember O'Donnell, a couple questions there.

I'm not aware of how many uh parcels have been sold.

They just created construction of the streets.

Yeah.

Um, so we just took this one at face value.

The developer came and said, hey, this is one of the methods allowed by regulation to install street lights.

Um, and then you know, is moving forward as the 100% owner of the lots.

Um with respect to HOA, um, I I don't know that they're uh creating an HOA for these kinds of things.

Um back to maintenance in the future, there would be a street light maintenance district created for ongoing maintenance of the street lights moving forward, but that's not with an HOA.

Yep.

So my point is it's gonna be paid for by the homeowners, whether or not it's on their tax bill or on the property uh on the cost of the house.

Doesn't make any difference really, except who who uh whether Northwestern pays for it or whatever, and I'm not sure in the resolution.

Uh uh if if we voted no to allow them to not do an SID Councilman Nice was talking about the HOA takeover.

Without there being any uh residents there, there is no HOA.

So would there have to be we'd have to wait until the HOE was constructed and had enough voting members in order to uh for them to decide to do the street lights?

That seems to be awfully burdensome, it seems uh I'm confused.

When if we allow them to do an SID, they can put the the uh street lights up uh as soon as they get the roads and the sidewalks in.

That's correct.

They can put them up.

They want to sell houses soon as possible, I'm sure.

So I'm I'm sort of confused on this.

Somebody can help me clarify.

All right, council member niece and then Mr.

Pittman.

Mac, if I uh try to clarify this, but if if we vote no on this, then the the developer would put these street lights in themselves because there is no HOA.

And the average c the cost for the bid is 827,000 divided by 120 homes, then the cost of the average lot is $6,400 versus the $8600.

And the difference being the finance charges over the 15 years that the homeowner is going to be paying.

So those street lights would still be put in.

It's just the developer would be required to, because the city ordinanced says you you shall put in street lights, that they would have to bear that cost up front and then sell those houses for $60400 higher to cover that cost, roughly.

Yes.

Is that help you understand that?

So it if I understand correctly, thank you for your question.

Uh, that it's cheaper for the house, makes the house more saleable if the uh the uh uh pay for the lights is on the SID rather than in the cost of the house being jacked up by eighty, four hundred dollars.

Dollar for dollar, yes.

I don't know what the carry costs the developer's gonna charge for carrying that, you know, eight hundred thousand dollars.

But yes.

Thank you.

Councilmember Pivot.

So thank you, Mayor Council.

I think it's this is a good way of doing it because it's it's not it's not after the fact.

I mean, the people they're they're building this.

This is what the developers say they want to do.

It's gonna be laid out to the people looking to purchase the house, whether it's buried into the price of the house or your monthly fee or it's on your taxes.

This just kind of lays it out as they're developing it so that um everybody knows where they're at.

I think this looks like it's probably a fancier light pole as well versus what what maybe a standard would be Northwest Energy.

Uh Councilmember Pittman, that is correct.

I I don't I mean it it they the developer chose with this particular design and bid the the light uh fixture, yes.

All right, any other questions for our presenter, Mr.

Boyette?

Just one, Mac.

Uh didn't and this is a little bit farther away, but on 48th and Central, did we put in a stoplight or did the county put in one?

Um councilmember Boyette, the uh the county, yes.

Um so county's in the process of constructing a signal there.

They're they're partway done with that project.

They don't have the signal polls yet, but they are in the process of I think probably toward middle of July, uh completing that project, yes.

Thank you.

Um we're gonna open this up now for public hearing.

Creating uh SID.

Is there any public comment regarding this item?

Any public comment regarding this item.

Seeing none, I think it's time for a motion.

Uh Mr.

Boyette.

Thank you, Mayor.

Umducted a public hearing considered written and spoken public testimony.

I move to approve a resolution creating SID 1429 as recommended by staff.

Thank you, sir.

Do we have a second?

Second, Mr.

Pittman.

Mr.

Boyet, you want to speak to your motion?

So all of this happened a year ago, but we we had a long debates about street lights and whatnot.

And in my subdivision, we have like five street lights.

Two of them went out.

I called Northwest Energy.

Took them a couple of weeks to get there.

You wouldn't believe how dark it was in that neighborhood.

It was terrible.

We got the new lights in that made the citizens, the 14 people live there much happier because they have street lights.

I think the police department, when I was a cop, I always wanted to see street lights.

I want to see lights on neighborhoods.

I this is a good program.

Uh the taxpayer is going to pay for this regardless, the homeowner.

They pay one way or the other.

So we need to continue with this.

Thank you, Mr.

Boyd.

Any other discussion regarding the motion?

Mr.

Neese.

Thank you, Mayor.

As I said, I won't support the motion mainly because I don't think there's enough opportunity or options for the developers.

I I don't disagree that good subtead lighting prevents crime.

I'm not against the lighting.

Um, but I think street lights doesn't just do it.

One one solution is all the developer has.

Build and put in street lights.

But there's other options you can do with the neighborhoods, especially if they have neighborhoods that are built like this who may have HOAs.

They don't all have HOAs, but if they do, those HRAs can help manage the light a lot better and more efficiently than through uh large street lights.

And so I I won't support this in a lot of different ways, but also at the additional cost that is adding to these properties when we're trying to do things of affordable housing.

So thank you.

All right, thank you.

Any other comment regarding the motion?

Well, I'd like to vote then.

Uh seeing none, so all those in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed?

Mr.

Kennedy is a no.

I'm sorry.

No.

And Mr.

Neese is a no.

Thank you.

That brings us to item 7B.

Mr.

Fogelsong, is that you?

Uh yes, uh, Mayor and Council.

That that is uh that's an item we'd normally have on the consent agenda for a bid award, but since it's tied to this action, it's just simply uh whether or not to award the the bid to uh Millennium Electric, but no no presentation or hearing Mr.

Boyet.

I'll just make a motion since there's no public hearing on this.

Very good.

Second to approve the bid award on the SID 1429 street lights to Millennium Electric LLC as recommended by staff.

All right, now Mr.

Pittman.

Second.

Mr.

Pittman seconds.

All right, any discussion regarding the motion, Mr.

Boyette?

No.

Seeing none, let's vote.

All those in favor of the motion to approve the uh the bid.

That would be uh item 7B.

Please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, nay.

Miss Messrs.

Kennedy and Nece again.

All right, great.

We're now into item number eight.

Ms.

Bullman.

Public hearing resolution for zone change 1084, a parcel of land generally located at lot two, block one.

Hunters point subdivision.

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

Welcome back.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Zone change 1084.

As stated as a zone change request from mixed residential three to corridor mixed use one.

Property is located on the south side of Central Avenue.

And the surrounding zoning.

Excuse me.

To the north is um mid-century neighborhood and two across central, and then to the south and um west is the mixed residential three.

To the east is also corridor mixed use one.

Oops.

And from the aerial photo, you can see that this is an infield development opportunity.

Umters Point subdivision just was created.

Um this there's three parcels within this little subdivision.

Um surrounded by mostly multifamily.

Um to the south and west, you have Hunter's Point Apartments and Hunter's Ridge apartments.

And then to the east, we have a um a small commercial node area.

There's a financial institution, um, a dentist, orthodontist, and then some other retail um to the rear of the property.

Um sorry, this is Hunter's Riz Ridge Subdivision to the south.

And then the Hunters Point to the West.

And then just a couple more.

This is to the um southwest and looking across central to the northwest.

So there's a few differences.

The NX3 does allow for multi-family, whereas the CMU one allows for multi-family, but also allows for business services and some commercial um that can be right up against Central Avenue.

The zone change request allows a mix of housing choices as well as some commercial development.

So it um it runs along the lines with a um excuse me, just one sec.

So my slide says staff recommends approval.

That's actually the zoning commission that's recommending approval and adoption adoption of the proposed criteria.

Um it's in line with uh growth policy strong neighborhoods, walkable communities essential investments.

Um, as I stated, this is a good infill opportunity.

It's also in line with with the West Billings Neighborhood Plan.

Again, commercial nodes along uh commercial corridors.

Um that concludes my presentation.

If you have any questions, Mr.

Boyette.

So uh Karen, at this point, they didn't they have no business or whatever they're just doing the zone change and then we're gonna worry about it later, what they're gonna put there.

They actually have had several inquiries about this property before they even had the final approval of their um subdivision.

So um there's quite a bit of in um interest in the property for commercial.

Mr.

Pittman.

Thank you, Mayor Council.

So one of the questions I have is this one is coming before us because it was submitted before the land use plan map was approved.

You said there's like three other lots, so we probably won't see those.

Those will just be covered under the the new map.

Correct.

If they do choose to change the zoning on those parcels, Mr.

O'Donnell and Mr.

Nees.

Thank you.

Uh, are the uh representatives of the developers here?

Okay.

Yes, he's available for questions.

Yeah, I just wonder what uh what type of projects are are you thinking about for that area?

And and the other thing while you're coming up, I really would like to see that uh sidewalk developed along central uh before the uh apartment houses get built right there because it looks nasty.

It does.

Thank you.

My name is Cedar Jordan, I'm a land manager with Balkhomes or Salt Lake Days.

Okay, Cedar Jordan Barcombs land manager or Salt Lake Bay's family owned developer builder.

Umestly, what we we were just finishing up Palmer's Point phase two and 24, um, and then also another large project in Salt Lake, and then beginning and one in Canada.

We're sort of just sitting with this parcel or this all the three lots now, and then out of the blue, we had someone come in and it's a financial financial institution or in a contract, and they said, Hey, we'd like to do this, but you need to rezone it.

And we said, okay.

Um the sidewalk is in the um DIA or the improvement agreement requirement.

There's a timing there for that to be done.

Yeah, I just didn't know if the sidewalk was going in before the apartments got built or afterwards.

And I'd like to see it done as soon as possible, but thank you.

No problem.

Mr.

Nece.

It's quiet question for this for Wyatt.

All right, Mr.

Freddy.

This this uh project seems pretty similar to the property next door in a lot of ways commercial residential kind of what they're looking at mixing.

As council member um Pittman mentioned, I think there's a comment that this matches the Malupa map area.

So in this case, if we weren't looking at this, you would have approved this particular zone change and wouldn't have gone to zoning commission.

It would have gone to your your people who looked at it, send it to you to say yes, approve it, and send out a fifteen notice day notice uh to the surrounding landowners, and then it would be done, correct?

Uh Councilmember Councilmember Nee, Samaritan Council.

Yeah, if this came in um at c it comes in after July one, which is when we're starting the new review processes, then basic your summary was basically correct.

We would look at the map, we would look at the plan and if if it looked like it um matched, which in this case it does, um, we would yeah, move forward like you described.

I think something like this is probably one of the good things of the Milloopah.

It really helps with moving the projects along like this.

Um I because I see no objection to it, and I don't think the neighbors would either.

I think there's no public comment anyway.

So my concern is when the staff gets some of these that may be more contentious that we that the staff would really use some good judgment on what the neighbors would consider and and uh making sure notices are posted.

But thank you very much for that.

All right.

Mr.

O'Donnell.

I wanted to make one other comment to the developer.

Thank you uh for developing this area.

This is exactly the type of Infill project that I think the uh West End needs that the city will benefit from.

I really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Very good.

You're welcome.

Okay, any other questions for presenters.

All right, this is a public hearing item, so I'm opening the uh meeting up to public comment and uh uh testimony regarding item number eight.

Or any public comment regarding item number eight.

Seeing none, I'll call for a motion.

Mr.

Boyette.

Having conducted a public hearing considered written and uh spoken public testimony, a move to uh approve a resolution for zone change 1084 and adopt the findings of the 10 crite review criteria as recommended by the zoning commission.

Thank you.

Now, Mr.

O'Donnell.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second for this.

Is there any discussion regarding the motion?

Mr.

Boyet, you want to speak to your motion?

One more to the the moneymaker of of uh bellings, our area.

Well said.

Any other discussion regarding the motion?

Seeing none, let's vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

All those opposed, say no.

Motion passes.

Yes, it is 723.

Um, so let's take 10 minutes.

All right, we're back in session.

Let's have a seat, folks.

Number nine.

Ready, Miss Bowman?

Yes.

Um, this will be a joint public hearing for Annexation twenty six oh two and zone change ten seventy nine, long subdivision.

Um public hearing, but two separate votes.

Staff recommends conditional approval.

So good evening, uh Mayor and Council.

So once again, tonight we have annexation 2602 and zone change 1079.

This is regarding a 144 acre piece of property off of Shiloh Road and Hesper Road.

Since we have previously gone over this item a few times before, I'm going to keep my part of the presentation brief.

So just a brief reminder for everybody.

And to that effect, the property is intending to do a phased annexation and zone change.

So they're going to be going from A agriculture to a mixture of CMU2, commercial mixed use two, uh NX3, which is our mixed residential three, as well as P1 parks and open space.

Staff recommendation, the recommendations from staff and the zoning commission have remained unchanged.

And there have not been any alterations to uh to the staff report or resolution of the zone change in annexation.

Uh, due to the previous two times, the item had been forwarded to a later date, was due in part due uh due to issues surrounding the annexation agreement itself.

Um, if there are no any further questions from you guys, I am going to surrender my time to uh public works so they can answer any questions regarding the annexation agreement.

Thank you.

Any questions for our presenter?

Mr.

Nees.

Um I think the questions I have about the annexation would be to public works anyway.

Okay, thank you.

Surrender away.

All righty.

So good evening, Mayor and Council.

Um, a few items I want to follow up on.

Uh, if we kind of roll backwards to uh May 11th, um we had some tough conversations around uh dirt, uh shortage of dirt, too much dirt, whatever that might be.

Um there was enough uh gray area there, if you will, that council was not comfortable moving the annexation and the annexation agreement forward uh until that issue is resolved.

Um roll ahead to a uh meeting or two ago.

Uh staff did uh work with uh the folks at Knife River, and we came up to uh a resolution to that uh issue that's been solved, uh memorialized in writing.

Uh so roll ahead to uh where we are today.

Uh brought the annexation and the annexation agreement back.

Um here we are tonight.

Um recently, so I have the map up here.

There's been a question over uh one of the elements uh in the annexation agreement, and it kind of I we have some some green squiggles around the area in question there.

So that's pretty close to the intersection of Shiloh Road and Hesper Road.

And the question is over what does that uh template for Hesper Road look like?

Um so uh Mr.

Boyet, I think asked for a picture of what that might be look look like.

Obviously, there hasn't been any design, so I want to give you a picture of what that looks like, and that's probably the root of some questions here.

Um, what what are the possible Hesper Road?

What is Hesper Road look like in that area uh in its future?

So I'm gonna start uh and try to tie this to the current annexation agreement.

I'm gonna start at the top of the page.

Uh I'm gonna try to read this like a book, starting at the top left.

Uh, so there's potential future access and what that is, that's a potential future development uh approach that they would construct at their uh own cost.

That's a by design here under the agreement.

That's a write-in write out uh for intersection safety.

Uh stepping down the page from the north, uh, the knife river or the the buyer of that property would construct the 10-foot uh shared use path, 100% on their cost.

And then we kind of jump into moving further south.

What does Hesper Road look like?

Um, so you kind of have current Hesper Road, Shiloh Road roundabout on the right.

Um, there's probably a through lane uh going west and some sort of median or access control uh going down the middle.

Uh those improvements don't exist today.

Those are knife river uh or subsequent buyer uh constructed improvements.

Uh the next lane down would be kind of an eastbound uh lane that's that's basically currently constructed today.

Uh the what's missing on the south side would potentially be like a new uh right turn lane.

Uh so we've tried to show that overlaid with what's what's on the ground today.

Uh there's nothing under that except a couple of approaches uh to the property to the south.

Now I'll tell you the the property to the south uh is also owned uh by JTL group.

It's not a subject to the uh annexation uh petition to the north.

Uh, but the question I believe is what what is this look like?

So we also sketched in the uh five foot boulevard sidewalk on what that what that might look like.

Um so I have some other uh pot potentially this raises some more questions, but I wanted to kind of show that picture on uh what this area looks like.

Any questions for Mac?

Yeah, Mac.

The Hesper Road is um as it gets developed all the way out to Lakes and Pass.

Is that an arterial street?

Yes.

So fully developed, is it going to be a four-lane road?

Um that that's a fine question.

Uh it it depends on it could be even up to a five lane potentially someday.

Yes.

Okay.

And the lakes are going to be um completed uh next year?

I'm gonna look to this way.

I have Mr.

Angles here, probably more in 2028.

28.

Okay.

So soon this the area is going to be uh a lot of people possibly traveling to look at the lakes, maybe walk around the lakes, stuff like that.

Yes.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Um I'll let others question.

Mr.

Boyet.

So our conversation was Hesper is not going to be completed to our standards.

Hesper the whole way home because of the short distance, correct?

Is that correct?

Is that fake English?

How wide, how long is that piece, a strip that isn't going to be completed?

Do you have any idea?

Um, like the the piece that's in the in the exhibit here, uh, roughly that's about 350 feet plus or minus.

So if we don't fix this, what's what's the potential good or down about that?

If we if this stays the way it is.

Um, so let me I'm gonna paraphrase and you can uh give me a thumbs up if I interpret the question right or not.

Um so the question would be if we don't, if we say do not change the annexation agreement as it's currently written, how how would this potential uh improvement get done?

So that is that the fair statement.

Um couple couple different ways.

Uh as part of the the development to the north that's under consideration for annexation, they they have to do a traffic study.

Uh and with their development traffic, uh, they will be contributing some cash contribution to that intersection.

Uh theoretically, we could use some of that cash uh for that improvement.

That's one method.

Um another potential uh method could be an SID.

Um, those are the two that I can think of that how you would get this done.

For that that shorter distance, do you have a just gonna be a ballpark figure on what it cost to to make that work?

Yeah, and I don't mean to be uh flipping or humor, but but we've talked about that.

It's probably on the order of 100 to maybe worst case 300,000.

That's that's that's the bookends on the cost uh for that improvement.

Mr.

O'Donnell.

So I voted no on the um the Kunkel development on the wet fruit farms, what was it called?

Barber Farms uh project.

Because uh the uh uh the road uh central was not capable of uh handling all that traffic.

And as I understand the financing method is the developers contribute money towards redoing the road, but by the time that the road is 80% developed on both sides, it's it's a mess because the road is not able to handle that.

I'm looking at at Hesper Road as uh uh looking ahead on that.

I'm looking at Hesper Road as uh uh looking ahead on that, is that I if we wait to get the whole road redone until there's enough development there to pay for it, there's going to be gridlock, there's going to be traffic jams, it's going to be all use of the road uh far more than it was designed to carry the load load carry.

Uh so I'm I'm wondering can we uh avoid that problem by having the road rebuilt ahead of time?

And number two is that I don't know I I wasn't privy to the things about the infill dirt and all that stuff, but I noticed that from Hesper Road down on the north side of that to the JGL property is about a three-foot drop-off.

That doesn't seem to be very developable, very safe to me.

Is that part of is that going to be filled in or how's that how's that three foot drop-off gonna be uh handled?

Uh thank you, Councilmember uh O'Donnell, uh kind of to paraphrase two questions.

One is okay, how how does Hesper Road, if you will, uh improved as the development is ordered.

Um one option would be to uh go out and construct an entire brand new street and you know, wait, wait for development somehow to do something.

Um the other hand would be to uh sort of incrementally, I guess, improve the road.

Uh when an impact arrives, they have to pay and mitigate that.

Uh, for example, in the north, uh, let's say the development requires a a tapered or a D cell lane, we we would require those to be constructed with the development at that time.

So I don't I don't think is as polar as as what was described.

Uh we we wouldn't let impacts happen that aren't mitigated uh based on what the what the plan is actually submitted.

Uh second question.

Uh let me think here.

May have to repeat that drop-off.

Oh, the the drop-off.

Um, I don't know if the if the development the uh one of the representatives is here uh whether they're gonna raise that more or not.

Obviously, they don't have their gravel in for their parking lot that may come up.

Um I do know as a parallel to this project, if you look east of Shiloh Road and Coles, uh if I'm taking a drive to uh down into McDonald's, I probably drop six or seven feet uh below Shiloh Road to get into, you know, first interstate bank is in the corner.

Those are actually probably uh set even a little bit lower.

So I don't know that that's I don't think that's in the purview of the city to tell them what elevation they need to build to, but for comparison, that other site is uh substantially lower than Shallow Road.

Well, just is that one of the one of the areas where the invil was the the contentiousness uh uh um I don't know.

Yeah, there uh the if if I just kind of put a bow on that issue, there was just uh a question over how much it was a quantity of dirt.

Dirt's tough to measure sometimes, uh, and we've we've rectified that.

Is on that side of the road though, north north of Hesper.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, Ms.

Neys.

Yeah.

Yeah, Mac, when we were in this, I wish this is a little zoomed out.

I don't know if you have the full Hesper Road between the landfill, the water reservoir and and uh has and Shiloh, but um if you look at this zoomed out, um this 300 feet, it would be undeveloped because I think you said the the southern half is all city property.

And so we would be responsible for developing that out.

And I believe you mentioned that would be uh probably put in the CIP funded through gas tax.

So that's actually has could have a potential funding source, depending on how city council prioritizes road work development in that area.

And so from the from the entrance of the reservoir to Shiloh, um within a year or two uh development from the north hand, north side knife river doing this development and filling doing it, and us, the city filling up the rest of it because it's our property on the borders.

The within we would have only 300 feet that would be completely undeveloped.

And if we wait like we normally do to for someone to buy this line and develop it, which is could be 10, 15, 25, maybe next year, who knows, then this would be a congestion point for everyone traveling on Hesper Road to the lake and and stuff.

And and that is that so the I guess the option I'm looking at to make sure we have a good developed street between Shiloh and uh the lake entrance, not all the way to um, I think it's 48th or something beyond, whatever is beyond the lake, um, only to the entrance to ensure that passengers can travel to and from, you know, in and out from the east and back out to the to the east, would be to modify the annexation agreement to require development um of that road.

And we spoke also about a um a potential um reimbursement uh possibility, kind of like we do with water pipes and stuff like that.

I don't know if that would fit within this, but where there'd be a reimbursement agreement that if once that is developed by another owner of the property, then that uh reimbursement would go back to the original developer of of JTL.

And that is that would that fit within this uh the program to make sure that road gets developed at 300 feet?

So council member niece, um I'm I'm gonna say yes, but it's a qualified yes to probably 80% of what you said.

That the one assumption that you made there is that on day one, um, with you know, depending on the timing of the development plus the city uh project is that we do have a problem here.

I don't I don't have any traffic studies or any data to say, yes, we will at this point.

Um, you know, in terms of traffic flow uh through the roundabout, et cetera.

Um so there is an unknown there that I I can't tell you, you know, with certainty, you know, 25 years from now, yes, likely, but I don't know when that uh trigger point will be hit.

One of the one of the trigger points that we will know is when uh the development to the north, you know, does their traffic study that is uh specifically tied to their you know, whatever their demand is.

Uh let's say it's you know it's the Shields branch office.

Uh we will know those impacts and potentially that development may have to uh pay for part of that and mitigate their impact directly.

But I I'm speculating a bit on what those might be and when they are at this point.

Okay.

Thank you.

Ms.

Milletter.

Thanks.

Um Mac of a series of questions going down that line.

Um it looks like right now there's that's a 60 foot right-away.

Old county 60 foot right-away is that is that accurate.

Um so currently there's a current 60, yes.

Once you get out of the MDT roundabout designation.

Yeah, yeah, but we are requiring the property to the north to dedicate 60 feet.

Another 60 feet.

Another 60 feet.

So that was my next question.

Let's say the annexation goes through as is today.

Uh we will end up with 60 feet on the north and the existing 30 feet to the south.

So nine 90 feet.

90 feet.

Okay.

And that is plenty enough to build what you're what you've shown in this exhibit, right?

It seems like uh outside of that probably does not encapsulate the five foot boulevard walk on the south property, I would imagine.

That's correct.

So kind of with with where councilman Nice is going.

The the only concern that I have about this the traffic study ideas, you know, with the traffic study, what we look at is intersections.

This is you know, close enough to the intersection, I suppose we would we would see what kind of queuing we have, and it's tight enough to the intersection, that 350 feet that you know, that queuing analysis for intersection impacts on Shiloh and Hesper would take into account whether this needed to be widened or not based on the queuing and the traffic volumes.

But generally, that the I mean those traffic studies are not gonna evaluate the road themselves.

They're they're gonna look at the turning movements and the intersection impacts and in this one, maybe we'll get there because we're gonna catch queuing, but I mean we we also may not either.

So I'm I'm concerned about can making this contingent upon a traffic study because we might not get the information.

Um in this instance where the same owners on both sides of the road, but they're only annexing half of it.

This may be one of the few times in which it makes sense to have the owner build out the full road section because the minute that they annex the south side, they're the same owners, they're gonna have to come in and build that.

But that south side office may never get annexed in, at which point in time we may not ever have an opportunity to get that built unless we the city then choose to go in and do that ourselves and and apply an SID on the very property that we're contemplating asking to do this anyway.

Um, and making the developer who is the appropriate person pay that cost, probably.

So I mean, I I support where a councilmanice is going in this instance because you got the same landowner on both sides and a very short stretch.

This isn't you know, improving Hesper from Shiloh to 48th, this is 350 feet on a on the scale of a project like this, that's percentages of the overall project cost.

It's not it's rounding error type of assessments, but for the city to come back and have to eat this or monkey with this through an SID or something like that later, it's gonna be more expensive at that point in time, and it's gonna be more complicated than doing it when we do the construction on the road to begin with.

Now, to be clear, this does not work when you have two different owners on two different sides of the road.

That does not work.

That is not this situation though.

So I would support where councilmanice is going and requiring this 350 feet or whatever that is through from Knife River's ownership on both sides, they're stopping where the city picks it up and and just in the annexation agreement requiring that to be be built at the time.

It's not a giant exorbitant cost.

It's the most prudent time to do it for the public.

And if we don't, we're gonna kick ourselves in how long this takes.

Because that office can stay there for all long, long, long time and not have to annex.

And we may have that congestion built up to then have to try to figure this out at a later with with a later council.

So I like where councilman Nice is going.

I think it's probably appropriate and prudent in this specific instance because these are specific circumstances that would support it in in this area.

Thank you.

Any other questions or Matt?

Just one other comment.

Councilmember Aspanler brought this up.

And I think this is really important because I've seen it done in other developments, is the developer looks at the public interest in the public interest in this case to continue to keep the south side of that road safe for travelers on bicycles or vehicles, whatever, is they sometimes spend.

I we saw it up at Barrett Road.

Um, when they they built this the uh development there, they actually put a sidewalk in further down the road to connect to Hawthorne to keep the kids safe off of Barrett Road.

And so developers sometimes spend a little bit more to make sure that the people can travel within the public right away.

And I think this is a perfect example, and I agree the owners match and it makes it perfectly good sense in this one.

So I hope that when in my opinion, I can't support annexation unless this is in the agreement.

And so I'll support the annexation, knowing that we when we come to approve the annexation agreement, I'll make an amendment to add this into it.

Great, thank you.

Um, do we let's see?

Do we want to talk about want to hear from the developers?

Anyway, any questions from the developers?

Gentlemen.

Do we need to talk about the zone change in any way before we open the public hearing?

All right.

So we are going to open up a joint public hearing for annexation 2602 and zone change 1079.

Is there any public comment regarding this?

Mr.

Mayor, Councilman, my name is Malcolm Long.

I'm the vice president and general manager of Knife River Billings.

My public comment is this would be an interesting concept, but we are not developing both sides of this.

Knife River, that's our office, our headquarters, we will stay there.

We are annexing only what's to the north.

And so try to coerce the developer, which is what you're doing.

You're you're trying to say, okay, take care of the we can work on that, as council member Aspenleiser said there's time to work this out.

This doesn't have to be all combined.

We can look at this because it's a separate parcel from what's being put forward for annexation than zone change.

This isn't part of the same parcel annexation zoning, any of that.

Um, you're correct in that if we keep that as our office for the next 10 years, that could be problematic.

We don't plan on that.

We would like to also sell this as a development property.

And at that time we could you, as the council or us as a community, as Mr.

Nice has said, we can look at that.

We have no problems working with that as knife river, but that's not part of this annexation.

And again, we could keep discussing it.

And if you wanted to put everything on hold, we might as well put it out a year, two years, three years.

We're not going to be coerced into something on a small parcel on the south side when what we're trying to do is annex the north side.

And why we're doing it in phased annexation is so we can keep talking and working and doing the traffic studies and try to do this in a manner that helps the north side.

We have no problems working with this city, because as you alluded to, that's the only chunk left.

And when the time comes, we can talk to it because we are landowners.

But it is interesting.

You're trying to force someone in the county into your city rules and holding an annexation as hostage, which seems very unique.

I've been in the city quite a long time.

I can't remember any other time that an annexation, you might not like what it's doing, but I've never had it held hostage or coerced for 350 feet.

Not that we can't talk about it, but I don't think that's the way I would approach it.

Thank you.

Other public comment?

Anyone else want to speak to this?

All right.

Seeing none, I'll close that portion of our hearing and move to motion.

We're going to have two votes on uh number one annexation, and number two, the resolution for zone change.

Do we have a motion having conducted a public hearing considered written and spoken public testimony?

I move to approve a resolution conditionally approving annexation 2602 as recommended by staff.

Second.

Mr.

Neese seconds.

Would you like to speak to your motion, Mr.

Aspenliner?

Yes.

And I'm a little taken aback, uh, Mr.

Long.

You and I've known each other for a long time.

I'm a little taken aback by the way that you approached your commentary there.

Um most of this kind of relates to the annexation agreement, which will be a different motion.

Um I take issue, I guess, a little bit with um using the word coercion.

Um the city has every right when annexing a property to set the conditions of annexation, and you have every right to choose not to.

Um the project that Miss the Councilman Nees refers to is a project that we did up in the heights.

Was a tough project.

There was some opposition there.

Uh, I think Mr.

Nice was even in opposition when he was on the heights uh task force before he was a council member.

I I remember that task force meeting well because I did it um representing that.

But one of the compromises that we came to coming out of that task force meeting was that those kids were walking on a congested street trying to get to the middle school.

And so the developer said, we suggested, hey, why don't we build the sidewalk well past our property as a sign of good faith and to try to do right by the community and to make this situation better for everybody?

And boy, that was really well received by everybody.

Um, and we we earn the support by extending the olive branch and saying, hey, this isn't a big cost.

It was a cost.

I mean, I think it was about a hundred thousand dollars, as a matter of fact, to stretch that sidewalk another, you know quarter of a mile um off of our property.

And you know, it it did a heck of a lot of goodwill.

So I, you know, this isn't unique.

It it is done when there are two willing parties that want to get to an agreement.

Um, but this one's been tough from the get go.

Um, but this one's been tough from the get-go, and I thought we were there, and then you know, the language there sounds a lot again like we're we're getting litigious, and that's not a comfortable position to be in.

I'm gonna support the zone change, but I fully intend to support you know uh an amendment to the annexation agreement requiring the full improvements, and I think that I think it's appropriate in this.

This it's not being punitive, it's not being coercive.

It's it's making sure that we're taking care of a section of road that's gonna see a lot of traffic, and it's the right opportunity to do it.

It's the same developer, it's the same owner, and and it's appropriate.

So I mean, those are those are generally my comments.

I've I hope we get there, and and I hope we can make this work.

One moment just for clarification on Mr.

Aspen Leiter, your motion was uh approving the annexation, correct?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

9A.

All right, Mr.

Nees.

Yes, and I fully reject the the insinuation of coercion and a host holding things hostage.

We are not doing that.

We are looking at the best interest of what the public needs to be developed.

And annexation time when we have a development coming in, and we see an issue that we can take care of probably 60 or 70 percent of it because that's what the city is gonna do, then the small little portion that we need to ask the developer to to finish off.

And it's very appropriate.

If there's no coercion, there's no holding hostage.

It is an option for the developer to choose to participate in the goodwill that they'll have, and they can will be in reimbursed.

We're not asking to pay for it and never being reimbursed.

It is their option when they sell the property, they can include that in the sale of the property to be reimbursed.

There's nothing that's gonna cause them to lose any any uh any funding on this, and so I I think um that I also agree with some of the insinuation that's been uh made against this council.

I disagree with it.

We're looking at the best interest of what's good for the public in this.

Thank you, Mr.

Lindley, then Mr.

O'Donnell.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, yeah, I just I guess my comment is when you look at the picture on the screen, and the entrance point into this future development is right in right out, which means that when you come out of that, you're gonna go right and you're gonna go right back to Shiloh.

So the development of the north is absolutely gonna impact traffic coming back to the east.

Um these are the types of things that I hear from citizens of billings on a weekly basis.

Why do we make bad decisions when we're uh approving development on the West End?

So I think what we're talking about is 100% the right thing to do, and I'm definitely gonna support that.

Mr.

O'Dell so uh the question for uh council member Ashman Leiter, you seem to suggest that we could vote yes on this and then have an amendment to the annexation, which would require the rebuild that we're talking about on both sides of the road.

No, there's two motions.

One to annex the property conditionally, right?

And then there's a motion for the zone change.

That'll be a second motion, and then there'll be a third motion that sets the conditions of annexation in the annexation agreement, which is where we would make that amendment.

Very good.

Thank you.

Any other questions or discussions?

I need a motion.

All right, seeing none, uh point of order.

Sorry, Dr.

Nichols.

Would this be appropriate time to uh uh asking the parliamentarian?

Um would this be an appropriate time to um move to postpone this um issue yes, absolutely.

If a council member wanted to make such a motion now would be an appropriate time, no, we can do it.

Thank you.

Any further discussion regarding the motion?

All right, let's move to a vote then.

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

Aye.

All those opposed say no.

Motion passes item B resolution for zone change.

Do we had a public hearing?

Do we have any uh a motion?

Mr.

Boyet.

Thank you, Mayor.

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

I move to approve a resolution for zone change 1079 and adopt the findings of the 10 review criteria as recommended by the zoning commission.

Second.

Mr.

Nees seconds.

Discussion regarding the motion.

Seeing none, I'll call for a vote.

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

Aye.

All those opposed, please say no.

Motion passes unanimously.

Item C annexation agreement.

Annexation agreement with JTL group incorporated.

Staff recommends approval.

Do we have any presentation regarding the annexation agreement?

So mayor and council, um, I like to think engineers are solutions oriented and Tyler and and Mr.

Longhair.

Tyler's our development services engineer, and sometimes he has some interesting ideas.

Um so I want to want to throw an idea out that just patched.

Um so the concept would be um the parcel to the and I want to make sure that what I heard from Mr.

Long was correct.

Parcel the the JTL office building uh might be they might sell that say within the next seven years.

So there could be uh some wording that we do.

The annexation is phased as we have it right now, but maybe that is phase four of the annexation, but we also tie these improvements to that.

But then in as with many of our annexations, that has a time cap on it.

Uh so maybe that's seven years, which which would obviously guarantee these improvements, but might not be on day one.

Uh, but that would that would solve the issue.

Is that is that accurate?

Is that does that make sense to council?

So the the condition that that I'm hearing, Mr.

Aspen, you know, yes, we would add those improvements to this annexation agreement.

Uh I'm hearing yes to those uh improvements and the and the right-of-way dedication, but it would be a phase uh approach.

So I'm representing that.

All right, so we'll I'm sure we have a plethora of questions for you, and we'll start with Mr.

Aspen Later.

Yeah, and and Mac, I don't know if you have it loaded or if planning has to load it up.

Can you show us the phased?

I think that was a part of the original presentation was the phased annexation map, like what phases were what this right away is part of phase one currently, which would mean that the the north side is getting constructed as a part of phase one.

Um so that you know the north side, the north half of the improvements naturally would happen as a part of the phase one development.

Phase two is further down the line, the south side of phase two is all city property, and then phase three is internal.

Um, and you're proposing a fourth phase, which would be the south half.

And and so I guess my question then to maybe planning is that's not a part of the application.

So it's not a part of any of the documents that were published and publicly noticed.

Can we make an amendment like this on the fly without having run through public notice and publications and all that kind of thing?

That doesn't mean it's a plausible solution, maybe, but I don't know that we can make that big of a modification to an application without public notice requirements.

Yeah, go ahead.

Um council member aspinlighter and mayor, uh another solution to that might be just putting a time limit on that improvement that is tied to these uh phases of annexation saying, hey, it's got to be done in this time period for that that improvement.

So you would tie it to a phase two or a phase three, correct?

Not you wouldn't want it as part of phase or just a flat out time of say seven years, you know, not like you got to do this improvement on the south within seven years with this annexation agreement that's before you.

You know, not like you got to do this improvement on the south within seven years with this annexation agreement that's before you.

Mr.

Nece.

Yeah, my concern on phasing, especially phase four.

I I wouldn't agree, that would be way too late.

Um is, and I don't know what they're planning is timing is for phase one, two or three, but if they're doing phase one, they're gonna complete the north half of the road.

Phase two, they're gonna complete the north half of the road.

We should be completing the south half of our road as well at that same time, which means all that south half should be done.

So I would, if we're gonna time it, it would be timed with in my opinion, ways to phase two, so that that road is completed uh at the same time.

I do you see any issue why why we'd wait till phase three on that?

I think because you're doing road work and we and they give our city staff time to get this in the CIP and schedule out to make sure that all the work is being done at the same time on that road.

I I I'm agreeable with putting in a phase to a phase two, up to a phase two.

All right, Mr.

Boyet.

Um, does anybody have an idea of when phase one would be completed and phase two wouldn't be completed?

Is that six years, five years?

I mean, does anybody have any idea to give us a reference point?

Mr.

Mayor, council, Mr.

Mayor and Council members.

First off, my apologies.

I didn't mean to come across as argumentative or less than humble and grateful.

I'm sorry about that.

Um to answer your question, Mr.

Chairman, Councilman Boyet, don't know the question you're asking me, I can't answer because even though we're doing this all under Knife River, this is scheduled to be sold to a developer in October.

And so he's buying that lot one, and then three years later, they're buying phase two, which would be 20 to my math, 2030, I believe.

Roughly 20, well, close 26, 29, and then phase three is four years after that.

And so I don't know, I don't even know what they're going to do here.

And so that's why the the north and south is somewhat separate in my mind.

But like the city, Mac and Mac were just talking, that we will glad we as Knife River will gladly do that when the city's doing theirs.

You're you're right, Chairman As Councilmember Aspenlighter and we don't want to stop.

We don't want to hold that up.

But let's why force an office building to put that in until the city starts coming down until all of Hesper is done.

So that's why we're we're trying to come up with creative ideas back here that yes, we'll gladly do it, but let's do it in conjunction with the city.

So when they they put out the bid, let's do that whole south side.

So this this phase one is pretty big.

Let's say you sold it in October and they start construction October one.

Is that a one-year, two, three-year process?

Do you have any guesstimate about how long phase one would take to be completed?

Just to get through, I will defer to our engineer IMEG, because again, it's still going to take a master plan.

It's still going to take, and they'll probably do that in phase construction.

Um my experience says it could take up to six or eight years.

Um it's like everything else.

The front will go faster than the inner ones.

It will depend on the market.

There's a lot that could happen.

I mean, coal sat there quite a while until the next one came along.

I I I wish I had a better answer.

But do you see where we're at?

Yeah.

We we want to get this the whole street, the whole road fixed.

Exactly.

And that's what I'm talking.

That's why I'm saying Mac and Mac are saying, yes, we'll once the city starts, because you're actually the biggest landowner on the south side.

I'll gladly jump in because again, as the two other councilmen have alluded to, our best chance of doing it is doing it with you guys.

You drive the train.

We'll just jump in and say, you bet I'll take on to that because I mean, Mr.

Councilman Aspenlier's right for 350 feet, and then the city's doing basically a mile.

I'll gladly say you bet, just send me my invoice and be wonderful.

Sorry, I mean, Mac, one more last question, and we'll let you go, I guess.

But if we started billing the road and he said he would finish the rest of it, is that can we live with that then?

Um, yes.

And do you have any idea when we would start the road?

We're probably a couple years out at a minimum, you know, three years ish.

So could we put that into the annex agreement?

You could.

Um, the only other the the other salient point that the planning is no uh we do have, I think that phase three in the current submittal has a December 31st 2031 timeline.

So that's a five-year window.

Um, so we could we could leave that as the same deadline for simplicity.

All right, I when would we be starting the road?

R section though.

We're we're probably a minimum of a couple years out on that.

We Mr.

Nice was gonna make this this motion, but I'll offer a suggestion if I can.

And please using the developers' comments and timelines.

What I would was I'm not interested in tying this to phase three.

I I think that's way too long out, and you're gonna have all the impacts of the frontage at that point.

But if you tied it to phase two, and the developer said phase two should close three years after phase one, which would be 2029.

So if you made your condition, it's tied to phase two or completed by the year 2029, whichever comes first.

That puts a definitive timeline in that also kind of aligns with the build out of phase one that the developer said would take a couple years also.

I I don't disagree with that.

My can my I I I like that because that's gonna be a shorter time frame.

I also want to make sure it's tied to when the city builds the road.

And so I'm assuming then in phase two, the city will build in, because I think Mac said a couple of years, so that's two to three years, probably three years before we actually did.

So if the timeline is phase two, but the sooner of that and when the city builds the road, then I then I would be agreeable with that.

If it do you think that would work, because then it's got do you think that would work as far as saying the sooner of the city building out the southern half of the road or the phase two deadline of and I'm not sure there's two there are two deadlines to phase two when and when it starts when it ends, and you you're saying tying it to the start of phase two?

Yeah, okay.

Okay, all right.

My only my only caution, councilman Nisa is that we we get into word salad, and not only does Denise have to try to take this down in some capacity, and staff has to try to dictate this.

We're also can creating a boatload of ambiguity about the the meaning of the meaning of what was said and the intention.

And so to me, I it's easier in my brain and and as a developer for you to say you're going to do it upon the start of phase two is gonna trigger when the the improvement gets done, or a year it will be done in that year.

One one of the two, that is very clear, that's very concise.

If you tie it to the city's project, then you create the question of okay, well, is knife ever gonna do it, or are they just gonna pay?

And how's the pay gonna work?

Like, then you start to get into that ambiguity that I think is make it clear, clean, and concise.

My concern is they can actually delay phase two opening, they can request a delay to start that, and then we could be three or four years down the road.

That's why you put the year bracket in there, phase two or 29.

29.

Okay.

So mayor and council.

Conferring with staff here.

Would it be best if we just delay this and then we can come back with wording kind of so we're clear, so we're not creating this word solid and making you know everybody try to interpret what's going on there and bring that to council with some of what you're trying to get across here tonight.

Would that be the best solution?

I think if the council's agreeable with what was just said, then I don't have an issue with either making the motion now, but you're right.

There could be other things that could impact.

So having it a little bit longer time to look at it and making sure that that's that would be okay with me to um delay this till the next uh business session so that we can um bring it back, craft it as we've discussed.

So just for my clarity, is the intent council would like the south part of the road built out close to or approximately when the city's building out that south side of the road?

That's the intent.

No.

Yeah, or when phase two goes.

Or when phase two goes one of the two, because that's when we're gonna see the next phase of construction on phase two is gonna come when they annex that in and start development on phase two.

So there's another opportunity to get this done because they'll be doing improvements on the north side of phase two as a part of that development.

And I I think we'll we're going to prioritize that southern half to on the CIP to make sure that it's being done, getting it ready to be done all at the same time.

So that road will be complete by 29.

So I'm guessing, Ms.

Parliamentarian, then uh we would have a motion to postpone to a time certain.

I correct.

Mayor, yes, I think that would be best.

And um, when you make the motion, it would be helpful if council restated its intention so that we just are absolutely clear in the amendment that we bring back.

So I'd say written amendment we bring back to the first one.

I've supposed to that's the way we're gonna go, then the motion should either come from Mr.

Aspenlighter or Mr.

Nees.

Okay, I'll make a motion to postpone until the next business first business session of July.

Logger?

First business session of July.

Uh with the modifications discussed here to have the south uh half of the road that's owned by Knife River developed and concurrent with the start of phase two or 2029.

So that's whichever comes sooner.

Correct?

I'm sorry?

Whichever comes sooner?

Whichever comes sooner, yes.

Is that concise?

Yeah.

It's gotta be to a time certain with this motion, so we have to set that right now.

July July 6th.

Sorry.

July 6th July 6th is the work session, so it would be July 13th.

July 13th.

July 13th, excuse me.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

We need a second, Mr.

Lindley.

Seconds.

Is there any discussion regarding the motion?

Mr.

Boyet.

So I guess to the staff, is that reasonable amount of time to talk on our business section on what is it?

13th or 14th of July.

Is that enough time?

Anyone?

I think so.

All right.

In conferring with staff, they think that if that's, I mean, that's very clear of what council is directing to do, and that they can come up with that wording and it'd be very easy to draft and just get it settled tonight.

Correct.

Take a recess.

Yeah.

Mr.

Mayor.

Go ahead, Mr.

Aspen Light.

I I don't care if we do if we delay to make sure that we see something in writing.

If everybody's more comfortable with that, that's fine with me.

Or I don't think we need to take a break to let them figure out the word salad.

I mean, if they know the intention, then they know the intention, put it in the agreement, and it's up to you then to review it when you sign it to to make sure that it made it in.

Um, but if everybody's more comfortable bringing it back in two weeks and having seen it, then I let's let's give the staff two weeks.

Okay.

That's what our motion is.

Is there any discussion?

We have a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion?

Then let's vote.

All those in favor of the motion to postpone to a time definite, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no.

That motion passes.

All right.

Item D, public hearing of first reading ordinance expanding the boundaries to ward five.

Okay.

A parcel of land generally located west of Shiloh Road and north of Hesper Road.

Staff recommends approval.

And just to kind of make a correction, it won't be two weeks, it'll be three because we've got a bye.

Yeah, you're you're absolutely right.

We have a bi-week.

So Mr.

Kelly is not here.

Do I see him here?

Mayor and council, we have no presentation for this.

It's simply adjusting the word boundary to match the annexation that was just recently performed.

Great, thank you.

Uh any discussion regarding this?

Yes.

Questions?

Go ahead, Ms.

Yep.

There are any discussion or questions for staff regarding this.

All right, so this is a public hearing regarding expanding the boundaries to ward five to include recently annexed property.

Is there any public comment regarding the this item?

Last chance, any public comment regarding this item.

Seeing nobody rising, I will close public hearing and ask for motions.

Mr.

Mayor?

Yes, sir, Mr.

O'Donnell.

Having uh conducted a public hearing considered written and spoken public testimony, I move to approve the first reading ordinance expanding the boundaries of ward five as recommended by staff.

Sir, a second.

Mr.

Boyette.

Mr.

O'Donnell, would you like to speak to your motion?

Is there any other discussion regarding this motion?

Well, let's vote then.

Um all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

That motion passes.

We are now done with our regular numbers one through nine on the regular agenda.

And it would take us to public comment on non-agenda items.

Is there any public comment on non-agenda items?

This is such a lively crowd.

I'll close the meeting.

Uh the of the public comment and go to council initiatives.

Do we have any?

Mr.

Boyette.

Um I'll be bringing an initiative and then probably in the next three weeks about uh consolidating the TIFF statutory boards from three into one.

Just as a heads up.

Thank you, Mr.

Boyet.

Any uh discussion regarding that?

Okay, any other initiatives?

Thank you, folks.

We are adjourned.