Does anyone on the board have any disclosures for today?

Hello.

We're starting early.

We just started.

Or starting on time.

Get started.

Very on time.

I'm not feeling super great.

So we're gonna kind of go move quickly.

And Sky has to go back.

No, you're good.

I suggested it.

I'm sorry, y'all.

Yeah.

Wow.

Um if no disclosures, anyone have any changes to the agenda?

I feel like we uh maybe I'm mistaken.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um public comment either in the room or online.

Not in the room, but online.

No, no public comment.

I figured I I wouldn't set up chairs unless someone else arrived.

So obviously no public comment today.

Anything online, Emily?

Didn't we add, didn't we need to like approve the previous minutes?

Was not something we added on our agenda.

Is that not for make that up?

Um so we have not actually formally approved minutes, I wanna say since July, and they switched the minute software through the commission.

So um we will batch, we will approve them in in a batch.

So let's we'll just not worry about it for now.

Okay.

Well, that's all yours, Ellie.

We're gonna move into our agenda items.

Um I apologize, y'all.

I'm not feeling my best today, um, but we'll we'll move through this, and I think um also eager to get through the ethics training um if we can do it with you here, Sky, if that sounds okay.

So what I'll do everybody is I'm gonna just run through our executive director's um report.

Not much has changed since I sent it the first week in January when I do that monthly to all of our board members.

Um so I will run through this really quickly unless you all have um any concerns here.

All right.

Emily's back.

We are so happy that she is back.

And um her daughter Tatum is doing great and and in um daycare.

So thanks, Emily, for for coming back.

And yeah, we're just really happy for you.

Congratulations.

Uh Susan Seibert.

Um, not all of you got the privilege to meet Susan, but Susan was our bookkeeper with the partnership for almost 20 years.

She was awesome.

We um considered her our um office mom and um and really just an amazing human.

She has retired, so she has been spending more and more time in Hawaii for the last few years.

We transitioned at the partnership um to do payroll out of office.

So um we work with Holmes and Turner to do payroll.

Um that was kind of the first step in um her moving towards retirement.

Um and then we did hire Casey Miller with Mark to LLC.

Um, Casey has been awesome.

She has started, um, and we are we're already, you know, working our way through through even our budget season.

So um we'll miss you, Susan.

And um just uh a reminder to um shuffle your walkways.

You know, this is something that we always get out to um our businesses um through all of our avenues um and just a good reminder.

And since we haven't seen much snow and today we actually have snow, it's a good reminder for today.

All right.

So next co uh city commission meeting is tomorrow, Tuesday evening.

Um sorry, not this Tuesday, not tonight Tuesday because of MLK.

Um, their next meeting will be on January 27th.

See here.

BID board meeting tomorrow.

And a couple of um updates that are um currently on Engage Bozeman.

I'm sure you all visit the Engage Bozeman page relatively often.

And these are two of the projects up there.

So if you're interested, the UDC update, of course, has been approved.

They are working their way through some additional outreach and information about how to use the code and that sort of thing.

So we'll continue getting that out to you guys.

And then we also submitted an RFP for C Bozeman Creek.

A contractor has been chosen for that project.

And we'll keep you updated through the Engage Boseman page.

Yeah, any questions?

Is Joey going to be coming to like all of our board meetings or is he has he said anything about that?

Yeah, and actually I did.

So when we get to the ethics training, I did include everyone's terms.

I think a couple of you, your terms are up in June of this year, so we can talk through that.

And then yes, by state statute, um, the mayor, because the mayor does do appointments for our board, um, and through statute, um the mayor will be our liaison moving forward.

From what I gather, they haven't actually made those appointments.

Um, if y'all remember when when someone new is in office, they do go through a priorities process and then they will make all the appointments.

This is one of the only boards that it is assumed the mayor will be our liaison.

All the other boards are a little bit of a, I think they work through it, like I really want to be on this board or I really want to stay engaged in this board.

We're doing good work, that sort of thing.

So I think that all happens through their priority setting meetings.

And I don't have a date for that.

Emily, do you I think we we don't have a date currently?

I think he'll probably start to join us February or March.

So that'll be fun.

And I will um try to do an onboarding with him before he attends um the first meeting.

So I'll keep in touch.

Maybe Jake or Tony, you'd want to join me for a little onboarding with Joey.

And um, and so I that's why I do know that they haven't made the appointments because I was gonna do that before we met.

So any other questions.

Okay.

Um a few project updates, um, mostly URD projects.

Um, as you guys know, EHO Peace Park is moving forward, full speed.

Um, they have done stopped their made their winter stop.

Um, the fencing is just around the project site itself.

It's not around the parking, so all the parking is reopened in that site.

Um, we are projected to wrap that event or that project up in June of this of this summer.

And um, we are looking to do a ribbon cutting and event potentially um the night of our walks in August, which I think is August 8th or 9th.

So I'll keep you updated.

Um the family has um some family friends and and such that they want to bring, so they're pretty excited for that.

Um we do need to discuss the next item um in a little bit more detail.

I'm gonna give you a quick update.

So um, since I want to say October, uh, we have been working towards the possibility of an RFP for parking, um utilizing the five million that we have allocated in our budget.

Um we've been working through the details.

It was put on hold through the UDC approval process, which I think was a um the right call, considering um, you know, height requirements, um setbacks, things like that would certainly affect a bigger or larger project in the B3 like this, um, regardless of if it's a large project or multiple projects.

Um, and so it has been put on hold with the idea of potentially bringing it back now, right?

Um, in the past couple weeks, actually, um, I've received several phone calls, and so has um uh city manager Chuck Wynn regarding the potential of the federal building um becoming a potential site once again.

Um there has been a um a full staff and admin changeover at the GSA, and um there has been a few of our um working group members for the parking working group as well as um downtown stakeholders who have called me directly or Chuck mentioning the fact that they are trying to be in discussions again to get the idea of the federal building parking site a possibility.

I will just go back um, I don't know, maybe six years and let you know that um the federal building was one of two or three sites that were established as um ideal um parking garage sites.

Uh this did include for security bank, um, the library, the courthouse, the federal building was I would say second to first security in the way of location and um just ease of of the site, the um location, the size of the of the site, that sort of thing.

Um thing that isn't ideal for the federal building is that it's not currently in the downtown URD.

There has been a change in legislation, just um the pet this past session that does change the definition of blight.

So if we wanted to add the federal building to the downtown URD, which is certainly a possibility, um, we would have to prove blight.

So if we wanted to hold tight on this allocated funds, potentially wait for the fire station funds to um you know become available once again and explore um the idea of the federal site, we would need to do a couple things in the process.

One, we would have to begin researching um blight on that site.

Um from the last time that we talked about this, I was again on pause with this because the definition of blight was changed, it will make it more difficult.

But I do believe that there, if there is a desire that we could do it if we wanted to.

I don't I don't think I I don't think it would be cut and dry, but I think that that we could prove blight um for that site.

I guess the question is, where do you all land um with this?

How quickly are we of interest to move forward with this RFP?

Um do we do we think as a board that the federal site is ideal enough for us to take another pause on getting this RFP out?

Um obviously this isn't gonna move incredibly fast, um, but I certainly um want to make sure that we have this conversation.

So why would we wait on putting the RFP out?

Why can't we do them both at the same time?

Like look into the federal building and put the RFP out at the same time.

Well, I guess that's for you all to determine.

I mean, I think if we put the RFP out, um, we would want to have a deadline to you know get projects submitted that that would be of interest.

And the reality is is that do is there more of an interest in looking into a larger project um that is maybe tied to an SID or something that it would be you know deemed as as largely beneficial to the whole area.

I'd I I don't know.

That it really is up for discussion.

I think the there is concern that if we go out with this RFP that we will exhaust the funds for parking, knowing that one of these ideal, you know, sites is a possibility once again.

I really am looking for you guys to deem if that's if the do you know how long the process is for if it's claimed as blight and going through that to get it into the DURD district?

Yeah, I mean, I think we could probably accomplish that in about I'd say 90 days, if I had to guess.

Um I don't think it would be a huge push to to move forward with that.

Um I just don't see how we could does it seem likely that it would be considered, it seems very unlikely to me that we could make the argument that like our downtown, anywhere in our downtown would be considered blight.

Well, you know, specifically things, it's mostly things that are happening underground.

So if you take, you know, you know, just about a a few steps, 10, 10 steps off of Main Street, um there is blighted situations underground.

Infrastructure.

Infrastructure.

Yeah, it's it's purely infrastructure.

I I would I would imagine that if so lots of ifs.

If there's a there's momentum on a state and federal level to allocate the federal site, the federal building for a parking structure.

And if there are funds available to make the parking structure exist, and if we are the delta that needs to make this thing go, there's a way that I'll say the public entity, all public entity, whether it be Bozeman, state, federal, we'll be able to find a way to put the TIFF funds for it.

What I think there's so many ifs in that statement where I struggle the most is coming back to kind of what we've dealt with, it feels like the last couple of years of like waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting.

And what I know you don't know this, Ellie, but I would love to understand the even just like how where is this in the process of conversation?

Yeah.

You said you've gotten calls.

You know, have they been from a senator or have they been from an aide who is your you know, daughter's mom's friend?

And you don't need to answer that now.

No, I actually do have an update on on what this where this conversation, why it has come back around.

So about well, about two years ago, there was a full changeover in the GSA staff and admin.

I don't think, I think at one point they had discussed actually selling the federal building.

And I'm not sure if y'all saw that.

Um, and I think everything from there, everybody got a little up to you, like, wait a second, if this is happening, why aren't why have we not been able to at least talk about this?

Um, because there has been interest, and I think there was known interest.

Um, but when that staff turned over, I think that they thought, oh, we're gonna just kind of do this.

A lot of phone calls were made to senators um and and other, you know, political leaders at the time saying, don't sell, don't sell, don't sell.

I believe it was just paused.

No one heard anything for quite a while until a few months ago, um, that they decided potentially not to sell this property, and that things and that they hadn't essentially made a decision.

At that time, some of these stakeholders got um to the ear of Senator Danes, um, and they have been talking about making what they call a congressional appropriation, essentially taking this property and giving the city of Bozeman potential um rights to the property.

They haven't made a decision, and from what I gather, they're making this decision as of June 1.

So we won't know anything about what they are, what the future, what the fate of this sale of this property, or if they would be willing to do this congressional appropriation, but they are pondering the idea of it, and we will know as of June 1.

Wow.

So we are in a very specific pause with that project.

Um with the idea of of it potentially so there were two main issues with the federal building in my memory.

Yes.

One was that there were issues around safety, like much higher levels of because of potential explosions and/or do you remember this?

Yes.

Um, and then two, the other issue is if the city acquires this piece of land specifically for the parking garage, okay.

It's it's a free piece of land, fantastic.

We have five million dollars, not enough to build a parking garage.

Do we still need a private entity?

So 100%.

We exactly.

So we are still going out for a PPP, right?

It's like still we still need a private entity to come in.

So um it still poses a problem.

Can we what I what I would think is it feels like the best approach for us.

I don't know that we can put the RFP totally out because once it's out, if someone responds to it, um in the sort of honest um approach to the RFP, we have to review that proposal honestly.

So if someone has a PPP down the street here, I don't think I don't I don't think I wouldn't feel right saying, hold on, wait a second, we're not gonna look at it until we know what this federal building is.

What I think we can do though is get the RFP done and have it in hand and be ready to go with it, because right now it's not done.

Right now it's still in draft, there's questions, there's comments.

I I think at a minimum we get our ducks in a row and be ready with the hope that I mean it'd be good, let's be honest.

That's what it would be a good thing if the city acquired that land.

It doesn't mean it's gonna happen.

Doesn't mean that if it does get acquired, that here's the ticket, here's five million bucks, city you're gonna raise the other 35, and we're gonna have a parking garage.

Like there's still a long way to go.

But I think if the dominoes start falling in that direction, we should see that through and see if there is viability to put a parking garage on that site.

Or some, I mean, it doesn't necessarily I mean, maybe it's a parking garage, but maybe it's a parking garage with affordable housing, or maybe I mean, whatever that ideal thing is.

Um I totally agree.

I wonder if we can somehow combine those things, get the RFP done, submit it to the public May 1st and say the cutoff is September 1st, right?

That gives us that timeline that we're talking about to include the federal bill or the federal property and also public property owners.

I I mean what?

Sorry, what's your hesitation, Jake?

I I just don't see if the city if the city is given, if the city is able to make a transfer and acquire that land, they're gonna get something now what?

Even if they like we want a parking garage, there's gonna be a long unless we unless we write an RFP for that site.

If we write an open-ended RFP, which is what we have drafted right now, and we release it in May, um, and and someone responds to that RFP wanting to do a project on you know on the firehouse building.

I don't think we could bury our heads in the sand and say we're not gonna look at that because we want to see if anyone's gonna come out for the for the federal building site.

I think we it's almost like we would need, I don't know, now I'm talking circles.

It's like we would need an RFP for the federal building.

I see what you're saying, like a developer two pair with the city for that if the city gets it.

And at that point, we shouldn't we shouldn't do that because that's almost the city should do that.

Yeah.

But what okay?

So you're saying wait until June, see if that land is going to be and if it doesn't get transferred, have the the open-ended RFP in hand and give that to the public.

And if the city does get the site, then we all will have to reconvene.

If the city is given the site, then I think there's another conversation that we can't have now because we don't know yet, is hey city, what are you gonna do with it?

Because if the city is gonna say we're gonna push hard to figure out if we can make a parking garage here, and part of our pro forma is gonna be the five million from the URD, then I think we just pump the brakes and like because that's a long pro any process is gonna be a long process.

So then I think we pump the brakes and let the city lean into their, you know, they have to have feasibility study to your point.

Like, what's it gonna mean?

Can the pencil is this gonna work?

Um, and let them go down that road.

But I mean, Ellie, if you're confident, I mean is this June first date a pretty yeah.

I mean, that came straight from Senator Danes.

Yeah, so I think um, you know, I think it's pretty reliable that that that June date is gonna stand in the way of us knowing the possibility moving forward.

And sorry to a federal side of the right.

Yeah, sorry to jump in there.

And so is that a decision, June 1st decision on the appropriation?

That would be just the decision on the fate of the property, fate of the property, and then uh how long does it take to actually transfer the property?

Yeah, I just frankly, I don't know that.

But this came up last time.

Is that no matter what the situation is with the federal government, there's a timeline consideration, and that's why we kind of we're just waiting.

I mean, it's like yeah, you know, or do we punt and not wait?

Or do we not say like, I mean, I don't know.

Well, no, I guess I will tell you this that there's only one other benefit that I see of waiting.

Well, uh a couple one, it gives us time to determine if we can to see if we can determine blight, right?

Because if we if we can't, if we can't do that, then we really don't have a project here.

We are we are controlled by state statute with URD funds, right?

Um, so I think there's that thing.

The other part of it is there is the 1.7 from the fire station that I do believe will have a much clearer picture.

I think our picture is pretty clear right now, but we'll have a very clear picture in the fall.

So I guess those are the only two things that I think would be would would support the concept of waiting, but but you're right.

I mean, there is a part of me that's like we're in the same position we've always been in.

Um, but I do also on the other side of it know that part of the reason we have sat in this limbo for so long is because we've never been able to determine a site.

It's like, you know, first rule of development.

I I don't know.

I'm I'm not a developer, but I do know that we have been trying to make this project happen for a long time.

And number one, we don't have a site.

So the RFP for a PPP, I think is certainly a possibility, but I also believe it's a little bit of a last resort because it's us going out and saying we don't have a site, we have money, but we don't have a site.

And I think if we have a site, I think everything could actually fall into place.

I just don't know how long it's gonna take to get to the point where we have a site.

Don't we have an MOU with the county for the courthouse parking lot?

You know, that was actually tied to paid parking revenue.

So um if we wanted to explore that site once again, it would it would be tied to to paid parking revenue.

So I I share a similar thought process, Jake.

I mean, as far as the federal site goes, personally, I do like the site.

Is it the absolute best site?

I would maybe argue against that a little bit.

Um but it's a great site.

I'm not gonna hold my breath though on it.

And so I really think that we keep moving down the path of the RFP, not to put it out there to everyone, but to get it get everything to a point where we like it so that when we want to release it, it's there and ready to go, and we can do it like instantly, right?

Um and I think because there's no reason not to at least make some progress while we're waiting.

So if we can make progress behind the scenes, let's do it.

Okay.

That would be my take.

And then in the meantime, can we determine blight or not?

Because if it's only a 90-day process, let's just do that.

That'll give us all the answers.

So, you know, I I'm thinking I'm hearing y'all.

I I've been writing down, and this is where I think we are going that I will move forward with the idea of establishing blight in that area.

I think it would be good to know in general, um, you know, if how difficult it is to for us to expand our district, you know.

I think most people think, oh, there's no blight in Bozeman.

That's wrong.

It is wrong.

Um, but you really need to get underground to determine that.

So I think that will be a good thing.

Um, I will take our RFP.

I do have a couple of um thoughts and and concepts, both have come from Amy, um, John Howe.

I will get those to you guys, and I think that we should get it to a relatively final um this is the general language.

We can certainly change the details of the RFP.

Um, this would just be the the legalese, right?

And we'll get that to um city legal.

I have a question about RFP actually.

Um the way it was written, and maybe I misunderstood it from the beginning.

Like all RFPs are written, it's like a definitive timeline of we're requesting a proposal, here's a time to submit the proposal, the proposal's due, the RFP's over.

I kind of thought that we had sort of an open-ended, hey, if anyone comes up with an idea, we're we're all ears without a definitive end to it.

Okay.

Um, I don't know.

I mean, it was written in the traditional way of RFP's open, you have 20 days or I don't know, the number of days, you respond, and then we decide.

Um I don't know if there's a way to rewrite it where it doesn't expire, or maybe it expires at our discretion, and that it's just sort of like it's it's less definitive of its start and end.

Um, I'm with you, Jake.

I I'd be curious to know if you guys would think that because that was one thing that I have been stuck on with this is if we do release it, what is our timeline look like?

Um so yeah, I mean, maybe that is a possibility.

I do not know.

Like our fiscal year, like if we open it up in July, it runs to like the end of fiscal year.

We can just renew it.

2027, right?

Because I think property, you know, it is tricky in Bozeman, and so that might trade hands and somebody else has a different idea for something, and um yeah, you never know what's gonna come down the pipeline to be flexible and keep it loose, right?

And it's not like it's an opportunity, like it's like I think our it's not like we have a project and we're trying to find someone to be our consultant for X job.

It's like we have an idea.

Does anyone can anyone fit this mold?

And if if we just leave it open, that was my only feedback to that.

Or can multiple people fit this mold.

Yeah, exactly.

That's where I was gonna go too.

We might there might actually be two parties that bring concepts forward, and we might like both, and both might be a great thing, like two decks in different areas, and that might be perfect for us.

Right.

Um, the other thing I think we should consider is you know, the city's gonna do that paid parking experiment or whatever pilot study up on college, and I think it will be interesting to see the kind of funds they raise up there.

And again, like I know that you know Bozeman has been like no paid parking ever, but I do think it's gonna be an interesting observation to see how they do up there.

And as this board starts to, or as this fund starts to tick tick tick towards 2032, I I do think you know, as we up that got brought up, that just dinged in my head, like that is always on the table for our downtown.

I just want us to remember that.

And and can we modify them the MOU with the county to take out the paid parking connection?

I mean, requirement.

Um, I you know, I'd have to really go and look at the MOU.

I I will tell you that I think um, I mean, it was very much tied to a really assumed revenue source, right?

It was like 6.1 million a year.

So I mean, it was it was just worked with a bottom line.

And so do I think it works without a bottom line, but you know, potentially through a PVP.

I just I don't I I don't know, but I I will look into it.

You know, I I guess my only apprehension is that I think the county site is just not nearly as good of a site in general, I think in a lot of folks' minds.

I think it was almost like if there was revenue, it was almost like a backup.

I don't, I don't know how to get more detailed in that.

But I but I will tell you, I am really interested, how interested to see how this paid parking um, you know, situation on college goes specifically because I think what they're realizing is that there is no ex access for people if they don't park in the parking garage or they don't walk.

So they're trying to write figure out some way to allow people to stay longer than an hour somewhere.

So and maybe you have some more insight on this guy, because you guys are up there, but I think and and I if you look at downtown, I think that would be the argument of looking at a paid model, is not necessarily just the revenue behind it, but the potential for people to actually stay longer and do more work or be downtown longer without having to go and just leave after two hours.

So I think that's how the the campus is looking at it.

So yeah, it's like switching the narrative a little bit.

It's not about the revenue so much.

And I I think that's why paid parking got kabosh is the focus was so on the revenue, the potential revenue.

And I think everybody could see through that.

It was like, it's not let's not make it about that.

That's let's look at why we're doing this right from a management perspective, which is why I think it could be discussed again, is because it's a management tool, it's not just a revenue tool, right?

So I'm not saying that to be in favor of it, I'm just saying it's it's it can be looked at in different ways.

Sorry, go ahead.

No, I was gonna say with the RFP for the PPP going out.

If we have a longer duration, I think it'd be important to establish some goals, like what do we want to get out of it while it's open?

Um, and narrow it down a little bit more than just wide open submit whatever you want, what you think is possible, because it's not gonna help us make a decision to move it forward in any direction either.

So, and maybe that's what the parking committee is doing already.

Um but it'd be good to cue in on that.

So there's more action behind it.

The other thing that made me reminded me the last thing I thought was it again, it's written as a on RFP where you score it and there's a first place and second place.

And I think um I seem I don't know, I don't I don't know that we have metrics to compare one RFP or one proposal to another, if we even need metrics.

And I almost wonder if we like remove them the language of metrics out of the RFP and make it more subjective.

But that's I mean, Scotty, your proposal is like what's like if even this group has goals, you know, what are the qualifiers to the selection process?

Whatever that ends up being, it's important to have something because if anyone asks why'd you select this person, you're gonna have to show why at some point.

Yeah, I think going back to like do we keep it open-ended?

I get concerned, like if we want our community to take this seriously and actually put the time, money, and effort it that to have to put in to to make a submission.

Are they going to do it if that's if we're just sitting here saying like, well, there's no timeline, we don't have to make a decision.

Are they our developers really gonna take the time and the energy to make a submission?

Yeah, and they also need to make a decision, right?

Like they're gonna submit something they need to know if they're gonna get that money or not, because that's gonna play into their development.

Yeah, we owe them a response at least.

Yeah, so I don't have an answer, just I have a concern about just keeping it completely open-ended.

No, we could open it and close it and then open it again.

And if we we just need to get people answers.

Yeah, or we'll just keep spending money and time on it and get nowhere.

Um I will I'll schedule a meeting with Greg.

I'll talk to him about the open-ended concept of this.

Um, you know, what what he would suggest in the way of how we want to look at this RFP moving forward.

I'll get back to you guys on that.

Um, I will also um look into the blight study and just let you know like what does that timeline look like?

And then maybe we can obviously make some more decisions we go through the budgeting process too.

And then I would say actually arguably the most important thing is as you hear more from your cohorts, like how real is this June 1st date, how real is this transfer?

If you get an ink clean that it's not gonna happen or it's really going to happen, obviously let us know.

Um and also what's the process after June 1st?

I'd like to have an idea of like what does the federal government have to do to actually transfer the property over to the city and how long does that take?

Yeah.

Yeah.

And I think she's done that a lot, you know, a number of times, and so they probably have a fairly defined process for that.

I mean, that could totally that could preclude us from any other decision about that property, if it's gonna take like I don't know, five years or whatever it might be for it to actually be transferred to the city.

Well, and these are all valid concerns.

I mean, I hopped on a call with David and Chuck on Friday to talk through this, and you know, it was like we had the same conversation that we all just had, right?

The blight to you know, the the you know, appropriation and what the timeline is, and of course, timing with anything involving um, you know, federal GSA, it's extensive.

So that's the big question mark.

Um, but I think there was um at least a nod that a decision will be made on the sale and use of that property and the possibility of an appropriation being made in June.

So and that seemed like a set date to me.

Um, but they have to decommission a post office.

What's that?

They have to decommission the post office.

So I mean, there's a process, this a lengthy process to do that.

Exactly.

I mean, maybe it's not as lengthy nowadays than it was in the past, but um, yeah, like that.

Well, and there was discussions about if you know this sale happens, if they if they would in fact, you know, move the post office, that sort of thing.

I don't think they've actually made that decision, which is slated for that June date.

So and there are some other things involved, like having to make sure that we park vehicle, the federal vehicles, if they do stay there and it does stay a post office, we'd have to park those vehicles off-site during construction.

I mean, there's some other things that I think are you know, issues, but we could definitely get around, including the blight, but the time and all of that is definitely the biggest concern.

All right, well, I guess we'll you know, move forward with at least talking to Greg, um, the blight study um so that we know what we're at and I'll keep you guys updated.

Obviously, we're gonna be making some big decisions regardless as we move through the budget period.

So um ethics training.

Do you want to like chime in to like a BID board meeting or I'm sorry?

No, we didn't.

I'm sorry, Sky.

Um what time is it?

1240.

We could do this in February.

We could do the ethics training in February if you guys just want to wait and then we're all here.

Yeah, yeah.

Is that work better?

Yeah, sure.

I just know it's a little bit of a P in the eight to have to do it separately than at a board meeting.

So let's just plan on that.

Are you guys okay with that?

I'm okay with that.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, Emily, do you are you aware of any requirements that it needed to happen at our January?

Okay.

That's what we'll do.

These discussions are more important.

So no worries.

Thanks, guys.

All right, so we'll just move through this and probably wrap up a little early and then look to do the um sorry, Ellie, one more thing.

You you you mentioned the the firehouse uh project.

What is that date?

Like there's a date of the year.

October 27th.

And that would be certificate of occupancy.

So the 27.

27, 2027.

2027.

2027.

Oh, I thought you said October 27th.

October 27.

Yeah, like 2027.

Sorry, sorry.

Yeah.

But you mentioned that there's a decision in this fall, or there's there's gonna be a well, I would just say that it we're just going closer and closer to the idea of that project, not taking it.

I mean, the decision you're gonna be if someone actually can develop it, they're gonna need to ask us for an extension because uh a certificate occupancy by 27.

It would be impossible.

I don't know about impossible.

I don't think they start now.

Right, we can we can do it.

Yeah, but I mean you haven't even submitted that.

We need to start right now.

Yeah, I mean, impossible.

So someone's gonna have to come to us to ask us for an extension.

And at that point, hopefully we know if the federal building is real or not.

I mean, the only way here's here's what I think.

The only the only thing that I think makes it possible now is that the URD change from the 70 foot to the 90 foot allows for affordable housing to go up to 120 feet.

So that makes that project potentially viable, right?

Because they can go up quite high now for affordable housing.

Maybe that makes that project viable financially.

I don't, I still don't know.

That is an incredibly good point.

Um, but I do want to remind you all that the idea of them coming back and requesting an extension is not likely.

And um, and I was told Greg has repeated this to me a couple different times.

This, these specific allocated dollars are tied specifically to this project.

So if they wanted to come and request funds, they could, but it would not be an extension of the current funds.

And that is part of the reason we did move forward with that infrastructure grant platform so that we there could be requests larger than that $50,000 earmark.

And I think the thought was if these dollars go back into the budget, but there is still interest either on that site or other sites that there could be requests that says, you know, can we request a million dollars for this?

Right.

Um and it wouldn't have to be tied to that specifically.

It'd be a new project.

Same site, maybe not.

All right, should I keep moving on, you guys?

I appreciate this.

I will move forward with both of those items.

Um John Howe has been very much involved in the conversation.

I'll connect with him, let him know where we're at.

Um, and we'll just we'll just keep plugging away.

All right.

And let's see here.

Oh, just you know, a few DBA updates, um, ban applications live.

Um, we do have um a lot of interest in our DBA board, lots of applications out there.

Um if you haven't been out, the walk the block Mondays um that occur on every Monday.

We meet at the Baxter Hotel.

They're really cool.

So think about joining us.

Okay, let's see here.

And on your own time, maybe I'll just let you do the tracking sheets for businesses and such.

We have had um a lot of progress in the way of um new members, new businesses, lots of changeover.

Um, it's kind of fun to keep track of those lists.

All right, so um, this is really just a reminder.

We will do the uh ethics training in February, really no big deal.

You guys know it doesn't take particularly long, but in the meantime, um just a reminder that um a few of your terms do end.

So let's see, J.

No, nope, nope.

Let's see, skies, Amy's, and John Howe.

So if you guys would like to reapply.

Oh, I think John took somebody else's um term, if I remember right.

I don't know why or how that worked.

But did he take um Parker?

No, no, no.

Aaron Parker was up earlier.

Oh, or maybe um maybe Aaron Barker.

Aaron Parker left.

Oh, maybe it was Aaron.

It could have been.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, I'll remind you guys of this, and then um, you know, in April, May, I'll make sure everybody knows that please reapply, or we'll go out and see each other.

So um, and then again, Joey will likely be joining us in February or March.

Um, a quick finance report, and I will just go through this really quickly.

Um, let's see here.

I do have some final um cash balance numbers.

I will update this for February.

Just been touching base with financial, and I will get that to you guys.

Um, let's see, our financial management fee has been paid to date, although the numbers don't totally match.

Um, we usually invoice the city biannually for that.

So um that has been paid out.

Let's see here.

Park improvements.

We do have um some fall cleanup expenses that were paid to green space that came in a little bit late.

Um 211 were paid for some e-ho signs.

If you've seen up at that park, we put up some signs to let people know um what's going on over there.

And let's see, moving to utility infrastructure improvements.

Um, we did pay 83,000 um over 83,000 to Montana Lines for the fifth and main lighting project.

And that is complete if you haven't seen our beautiful pedestrian lights up there.

Um, let's see, street furniture and streetscape.

Let's see, I can't even, yep.

We um let's see, paid Christie Electric.

They did a pretty big project for us.

Um, and then Sunshine Lighting, they go and replace the light bulbs and the ped lights.

We have had some um computer board issues, and I think it's just on very specific properties downtown that we didn't go and install the ped lights on.

The actual ped lights are wrong, and instead of being bulbs, they're like computer boards.

So we're having to figure that out.

Um, who knew?

Let's see, going into grant programs and such.

Um, we had did spend 10,000 out of our ant art enhancement grant for the Western Cafe Mural.

If you haven't seen it, it's pretty cool.

That was spent out.

Let's see.

So we do still have 30,000 left in our art grant.

So we should see if we can support some spring projects coming up.

Um, let's see, we haven't spent a whole lot um through our term contract, um, but we do have a term contract with Sandbell, and that was to rewrite that infrastructure grant as that expense.

Let's see, parking supply.

We have spent um 25,000 to date with a lot of consultants recently at 11,580.

And um, and this is our vision parking plan.

And I will tell you, I this is kind of happening behind the scenes, but we will pull you guys into this process.

Um we're pretty excited about the progress we've made with this parking vision plan.

They're gonna be doing audience insights over the next month, and we have a list of about 20 that they're gonna be doing one-on-one interviews with.

Um, we're gonna be doing surveys.

We've decided that we want to get information from users before we proceed with this.

And I'll tell you what, it's I know it's hard to believe, but we haven't actually gotten um information from users from a very generalized perspective.

It's always had something in mind, whether it's trying to move forward paid parking, whether it's trying to um, you know, change a management philosophy, whatever the the mission was, um, going out and getting audience insights or doing surveys or getting information always had an end goal in mind.

It never just was a broad how do you use this, why do you use it, you know, what are your feelings towards this?

And I think it's gonna be really useful.

So we're pretty excited about it.

And um, we may get information we don't want, but I think that's the point.

So um, and I will tell you that um McLaren and and her team has been awesome about really trying to get us through this plan.

And um, and we've been working really closely with Nick and Ben with the parking um team, and um, and it's just been a really great process, really positive.

Um, there is a dashboard, just to let you all know with parking data, Tony, and um, and we are starting to actually collect consistent data through this parking platform.

Um, we're gonna be using this, these dashboards and these platforms to help us um gear towards some of these questions and audience insights so that we can also make sure that the dashboard reflects the information we want to get.

So the city has been a little bit apprehensive about diving straight in to getting a lot of this data because they're just starting to get some of the numbers together.

Um, so we're gonna help them through that process.

How are they physically giving the information?

It is.

Yeah, they but right now it's just Monday through Friday.

Um, but we're at least starting to get the consistent data.

So it's starting to happen.

There is a plat, there is an actual dashboard um on the parking website.

So we're starting to move forward.

You can go on.

And you can see they also have a citation platform as well.

So you can see um, yeah, like when are the busiest times of you know, citations are made and things like that.

Hall of fame.

You we can't see that, but they can see that, yeah.

So does that dashboard is that basically kind of an updated version of the parking flow or the traffic flow study that we had done five years ago?

Kind of.

Um, you know, they're still starting to develop it, and we're just trying to see like where how can we get decent trends through the times that they capture this amount right now with staffing and such, they really can only capture these um this information Monday through Friday, which isn't always super helpful to not have like the full batched out week of data.

So we're just really trying to work through like how can we capture this data and use it accordingly, and what do they need to do more on a more regulatory basis so we get the data we want?

They think it's like it's built now.

Let's figure out how we can use it, is basically where we're at.

But it's built, so that's great.

So is that part of the goal to have a kind of kind of a comprehensive traffic flow um understanding of the data similar to that report that we got from I forget who the firm was, but 100%.

Right.

Yes.

That said we were at like 85% capacity, and that's yeah.

Okay.

It's just as of right now, because we don't that it's not batched out Saturday and Sunday.

We just don't have the data from those two days.

So it's not always we've just got to figure out how to use it.

Yep.

But it's there and it's been built.

And um the city IT folks and and the folks who built it are are really proud of it.

Um, John and Ben and Nick are are you know figuring out how to use it.

Um, and then we're kind of combining this vision plan and some of the responses from the audience insights to go, okay.

This is the stuff that we really need to know.

How can we use this dashboard to really get this information?

Um, like we know capacity rates.

We need that information, and they're working towards that.

Um, but we can get more than that.

So I'll keep you all updated.

I mean, I guess that's just kind of where we're at.

It's an ongoing process, but it's moving forward and we're feeling pretty good about it.

So, and these meetings really are so positive.

Um, and just I just feel like we're on the right track.

So any other questions, concerns, thoughts?

Finance report.

All right, see here.

I am just going to run through this super duper fast because this is really just an informative um form.

I I just I really wanted to just send this to you so that you guys weren't surprised by some of the projects that were moving forward.

Um, and I'm always looking at these projects and then referencing our priorities, right?

It's like for me, I'm like, okay, do we want to do this project?

Do I want to, you know, look to move forward with this project next year, go reference our priorities and where we're at in the big picture.

And so this is really just for you guys.

Um, of course, the parking requests for proposals, um, however that looks, this is obviously at the at the top of my my mindset.

Um infrastructure grant projects.

I do believe that we develop that infrastructure grant with the idea in mind that these upcoming projects are gonna request funds from us.

And frankly, I hope they do.

Um, because a lot of these projects that we're looking at from the Bozeman Hotel to the, you know, the the hotel that's um on Babcock and and Rouse to um block A to you know, the the uh thank you.

Empire site Empire site.

Um, all of these projects really are lacking infrastructure, um, public infrastructure.

I mean, from conduit to sewer lines to water mains.

I mean, they are in order to make these projects work, they are gonna have to update um their public infrastructure in in sometimes pretty big ways.

I mean, the the public infrastructure um ask improvement ask for the Bozeman Hotel project over there is is massive, right?

He is going to um have to reroute water lines for his project.

So um I just yeah, just get ready.

And um fifth and main lighting project phase two.

So this will be something that I'm gonna come back to this board and and specifically ask where do we want to go with this?

I need to sit down with Jody and Sam Bell.

We um are in for a couple portions of this.

One, um, the intersection.

So improving the lighting at the intersections of um fifth and main um and then Mendon Hall and Third.

Um, we're in.

We started doing this project with the assumption that we would team up with midterm Midtown and really get those two intersections improved because they need to be.

So that was always gonna be phase two.

Um, but then there's the idea of running um PED lamps all the way down Main Street from that third and main third to grand.

Um, I'm gonna get some some um costs together um and see where you guys land on this.

So I'll keep you all updated.

Uh Babcot Curb and pedestrian safety improvements.

This was a request from the city of Bozeman.

They are gonna be using capital improvement funds to um mill and pave and do some curb um uh improvements along Babcock.

Um, and the city has come to me and said, Do you want to improve those curbs?

Would you guys be willing to pay for it?

I think the answer is yes.

Those are um, as you've seen from our Babcock and Mendenhall safety um plan project that we take took on a couple years ago.

Uh the Tracy Black Babcock and Mendenhall intersections are probably our most unsafe intersections in downtown Bozeman.

Um, curb extensions can go a really long way.

Improvements, um, the uh cutouts, cutouts um for the ped ramps.

Um I think these are pretty critical at the both of those intersections.

And so would love to see a nod to move forward with those projects.

I do believe it's a really good scenario when we can team up with the city when they already have it dug up, right?

If we went out and did this project on our own, it would be much, much more than 100,000 per intersection.

I also really like that they're like coming to us and asking for it.

I think the lesson was learned on the fire station.

And I've actually heard that from multiple higher ups that were like, we made a mistake.

Lesson learned.

And I have also heard that, you know, there is a real desire to be much more strategic about decision making, like careful, conscious decision making led by their elected boards.

So that that was really good information.

Yeah, Marlene, I'm I'm really getting the the same the same feeling with all this.

You know, I think there was a time period, even in most recent history where projects like the you know, the county site and the paid parking and thing just move too quickly for people to actually absorb um what we were trying to do and you know what is the outcome and and and why, right?

Um, and and I think we're moving quick too quickly on a lot of projects.

Um, and I think we the city has taken a step back.

Um, they realize that partners are important, um, whether it's you know the sewer um line replacement, whether it's working together on Tracy and Black, um, that also included, you know, additional fire lines um being done during that time.

These are all huge benefits.

They're cost savings, um, and they're really just smart decisions.

So I do believe we're in a good place to to have that be the norm moving forward.

So, but yes, it does make me very happy when Nick says we're doing this, we kept you in mind.

Here's the cost.

It's like, let's do it.

Let's do this together.

So and keeping CIP funds in downtown, which is also critical.

Yeah.

One quick comment on these, and this is totally minor, but um these intersections.

Uh the Babcock and Bozeman one, they should think about adding a mirror on the south side, the southwest corner.

Mm-hmm.

Because if you're at backcountry on Bozeman there, trying to see traffic coming down is is brutal.

You know, Tony, did there used to be a mirror there?

And it's not there.

Totally.

Yep.

Good point.

Also, a little unrelated on that specific one.

So in a situation like that, you say the city wants us to partner with them.

Does that mean that they're already doing a project and we're just gonna kick in some funds to help it happen?

Exactly.

Um, like, I just can't help but like can't it's not gonna cost 200,000 to do those intersections.

We're at the end of the day, whatever we kick in is actual construction costs.

Actual construction costs.

Yep.

Yep.

So they would go in, they would do the the full mill repave, and we would essentially pay for the curb extensions and you know, concrete and actual construction.

And we'd see like you see invoices and you pay yeah, great.

Yep, yep.

And it's a hundred thousand per intersection.

So they're thinking they could do those two intersections next year.

Um, we haven't moved forward quite yet with this.

This is like I said, just very preliminary.

Um, and as soon as I know to the um details behind the phase two and three of the fifth and main lighting, I will bring this all back to you.

These are just all preliminary, and really just this is informative.

Just know that these are things that I'm thinking about when I'm you know thinking about the budget and it's coming up pretty quick.

Um the SILD for downtown is coming back around.

And frankly, this is a must for downtown, long overdue.

This has been something that Chris Nauman, when he worked in in this position, talked about for years and years and years and years.

And I think the reality is the city just wasn't in a place to really support our efforts with this because so many other SILDs were being formalized around town, and I just don't think there was enough inherent knowledge of how to develop at SILD.

Um, there is um an already established SILD in downtown.

So it was great to learn about that.

I'm meeting with Kyle from T DH later this afternoon or later this week.

Um, and I just want to let you guys know I we really need to move forward towards this.

It may not be a super easy process, but I think in the long run it will it will be better for everyone.

Our costs for utilities for the pedestrian lights over the past five years have gone from about a thousand dollars a year to I think we'll be close to five thousand dollars a year.

Um so for the DBP, that's a lot for individual property owners, it's like sixty dollars a uh a meter.

So um this is just something that we just need to to make happen for the sake of really the DBP not funding this.

It really should not fall in the DBP.

This should have happened a long time ago.

Um, wayfinding planning.

You know, the reality is is that we really need to start moving towards this project.

I think it is a great project to also move towards after we develop this parking vision plan in collaboration with the parking team.

So I'll keep you all updated.

I just think that we see this as a natural progression towards not only creating a vision plan then, but then visually turning it into something.

Um shared use parking program.

You know, I'm I'm gonna be frank with y'all.

I can't do this on my own.

I thought maybe, oh, I just like develop this shared ease program and it'd be really easy.

And it's just not.

I've met with a lot of folks who are doing it well, actually, um, have an idea of what a shared use program looks like.

Amy, um, you as one of them.

I um I've met with a couple of the churches who are doing paid parking programs, a formal shared use program.

Um things are working well for for groups that are doing it well.

Um, not many groups are doing it, um, but some are, and they're doing it well.

I thought that could create a platform for me to take notes and then go and maybe put together a program.

I need outside help um to create a shared use program from a formal sense.

I just need to know what everybody's doing.

I can't have just a handful of examples and then un and then release something.

And I guess I just needed to kind of come to terms with that.

So I am gonna start to seek out a little bit who who can help me get through this program.

I don't know who that group is, frankly.

I don't know who's doing it well.

It may need to be out of state.

So if you have any ideas, let me know.

I just I think I need some more help.

It's really it's data collection, is what I need help doing.

I'll keep y'all updated.

Um eHope Park moving forward, mentioned that.

I think there will be some miscellaneous funds moving into the next fiscal year.

Um, I am going to take the same grant revision concept and move it into the planning grant.

So um we kind of talked about doing this about this time of year.

Um, pedlit year two, I don't have the details together quite yet.

I will.

I'll put the costs, um, the benefits, you know, if better roots on board again, I will bring that all to you guys in order for you to approve um supporting that.

And any just questions or concerns about just some of these upcoming projects.

All right, I'll keep y'all updated.

Like I said, nothing's set in stone currently.

Um, and then this is um our priority list for fiscal year 26.

Um, I would like to um, I guess either reapprove this or you know, look at it again so that this is your priorities going into fiscal year 27.

Um, and so I will, you know, maybe bring that back once we continue these budget discussions.

I don't think we need to decide anything now.

And these are really just for your own knowledge about what are our missions and guiding principles are that's that.

Any other questions here?

Okay.

Any projects or thoughts on these projects?

Like don't do them or you know, why is this on this list?

Any concerns?

Okay.

I figured there wouldn't be, but never know.

Um, let's see here.

Yeah, right.

Yeah.

As long as it's been real costs.

It is absolutely real costs for sure.

And those were pretty preliminary.

So it was like about a hundred thousand per intersection.

So all more set costs.

Um really that's it, everyone.

I just want to make sure I you all reference our current work plan and budget.

We are going to be moving into the work plan and budget um process, and I just wanted everybody to be aware where we're at currently.

That is all.

Anything else?

Anybody, anybody?

I don't even know our agenda is somewhere.

Oh, there we go.

That's it.

Adjourn.

All right.

Thanks, everybody.

Goodbye.