No, no, there we are.

All right, let's call the meeting to order Wednesday, January twenty second.

Emily, go ahead and take it away.

Let's get to see all of you.

I'm glad to be back.

Thanks, Ellie, for running the meetings while I was away.

Are there any disclosures from the board?

Changes to the agenda.

Could I just have a little time after public comment to talk to the board about just a couple updates of what's going on in with the city commission?

Yeah, I think following up with that, maybe a quick uh reference back to David's letter comment to maybe tie that in and get a little input from Douglas on on the letter, so public service announcements.

Public comments on non-agenda items falling within the purview of the board.

And this is the time to comment on any non-agenda matter falling within the scope of the BID.

Um I know we have a couple of public comments, so if you'd like to come forward, please just say um your name for the record and um we're not too strict on our time here.

Um district, that's the South Central Association of Neighbors on the city's INC uh board, inner neighborhood council.

So uh and I'm here today to echo in some respects what David Losef had sent you all earlier today from Spain, and certainly David and I have had many conversations about the B three ninety foot height part of the UDC that um certainly is still being talked about.

We feel the city did a great job on the rest of the UDC, but this one, at least in my humble opinion, I don't think it received the proper public notice.

I'm not sure that David does either, and that's being kicked around, and I'm not a legal beagle, so I don't know for sure exactly how that shakes out, but just trying to in the most respectful and diplomatically way possible.

And I'm not a legal beagle, so I don't know for sure exactly how that shakes out, but just trying to, and the most respectful and diplomatically way possible, just spread this out into other channels to get people thinking, hmm.

Should we have a conversation about this?

Should we try to pause the implementation of the 90 foot limit rather than just plowing into it again?

Could be issues with that, but I just look out at all of you and say, you know, I'm not sure if you've had many conversations before on it, but certainly what comes to mind is parking.

That is if more height and density is added to that B3 area surrounding the main street B3C area.

You know, where does that leave business owners and whatnot there?

I mean, that's just one thing.

The affordability housing um not stipend, but the amount that maybe could have been raised the you know, the million dollars going up to 90 feet if people wanted to build higher that they would do a cash and loo.

I mean, that was out there, and there's obviously uh thoughts about that too.

So again, I kind of dropped what I was doing to run down here and speak to you all.

So I appreciate being able to do so, but certainly there is a lot of buzz out there in the community, and I know probably at our historic preservation board meeting tonight, where I'll be up there sitting where you are, and I think there's gonna be some public comment there too.

So we're in interesting times.

Thank you for listening, and I hope that the community can engage in constructive and productive dialogue going forward.

Thank you.

Is this appropriate time for me to make a public comment?

Not as a VID board member, but as a public person.

Uh or should I wait?

I'm not sure, Elena, that it would necessarily need to be a public comment.

I think there can be a discussion uh about this currently.

Um and so I I think as a board member, you can state your your opinion.

I think we're gonna discuss it at all until that point.

Thank you.

I just didn't want to be in the wrong way of doing it.

Thank you.

Thanks, Alina.

And I also wanted to just mention um if you haven't checked your inbox yet, I forgot a public comment from David Lose.

Um, there was an attachment as well as um a message in his email, so um feel free to review that.

I'm not going to read it.

It's fairly lengthy, but I know that um deputy mayor Fisher also has an update regarding B3.

Go for it, yeah.

All right.

Um maybe maybe uh can I start first by saying that this may be my last meeting as your liaison to the uh to the BID.

Every uh with a new commission, all those committee assignments get reshuffled, and it's at the mayor's discretion.

Um so that the discussion is kind of ongoing.

Jen Magic Um may be your next uh person sitting here in my place.

I've thoroughly enjoyed, you know, um being with all of you guys.

I've I've learned a lot from all of you, and I really appreciate this the uh the well-run meetings and the um just the stuff the the information perspective you guys all bring to to the city.

So um you will be in good hands with with Jen.

Um it's again it's somewhat uncertain, uh you know, but but that's where it's it's looking like it's had it.

Um second, we you know, as as um Mr.

Webster and Mr.

Losef, and you probably we have had this big discussion about the B3 height in in downtown.

Just to step back, there's B3, and then there is B3C.

And the B3C is kind of that historic main street core downtown.

I think it runs from like Grant to the Wallace, and it's really just Main Street.

And there you can you you I think it's like you can't go higher than um I should have had this before, but you can't go, you have to go up two stories or three stories before you step back.

And I think the maximum height for your on Main Street is capped at 60 feet.

I think you can go no further up than 45 feet uh on the you know on the from the sidewalk.

They do have to step back, and you can go up another 15 feet from that before you max out at 60 feet to kind of keep things in scale with historic downtown.

The B3 is a little larger.

Uh that is our densest zoning district in this city.

The the theory is that you want um to kind of promote density where you have the most services, the most most crowds, you you know, you want a thriving downtown, etc.

Obviously, there's a bit there was a we um the UDC, the draft UDC had said 90 feet.

Um you know we part of the confusion is that we went from stories to feet, and so it was seven stories.

A modern story is, you know, you often think of a story as being 10 feet.

A modern story, and I wish Randy was here, uh, is more like you know, 15 feet these days.

And so we thought we, you know, the the thinking was, and I believe maybe even this group, um, there's some downtown business plan said go to 90 feet to allow for that modern kind of construction.

That was what was in the thing.

We the commission um on December 2nd switched it back to 70 feet at the like at 10 30 at night after a six-hour meeting, and then we pushed a uh, and then we realized, oh wow, that had a lot of unintended consequences, both for and against.

So we went back to what was in the on the second meeting, which is fairly unusual to change an ordinance at the second reading.

But on the second meeting, we went back to what the September draft said at 90 feet.

And now, you know, we've had this ongoing.

That was we it's it's we kicked over the Hornet's nest on this one.

That said, our options are really limited.

We cannot pause the implementation of the UDC.

Um, only a court can do that.

Uh we we could legislatively kind of go in and you know, there's various options.

Um you know, you can go in and you can uh part of the problem is that that that B3 component is just one fairly tiny detail in a 500-page UDC ordinance, you know, ordinance.

And so we um so we could go in and and and and and change that just the B3 ordinance with a separate some rulemaking, um, but that is a whole legislative process that um would require public comment and so forth.

It would it would the UDC goes into effect February 1, and and there's no kind of easy path forward to put a moratorium in or a um or a pause on the on the effective date.

That said, I also don't think you have three votes on the commission.

I'm not one you know, to to say we need to relook at this.

I think the desire of a majority on the commission is to say, look, we had a big long public process, a huge three-year community discussion on the UDC.

Let's let this thing, this is a very complex rule, kind of go into effect for three months, four months, five months, see what you know, as we encounter problems, put those in a bucket and then see, and then bring that bucket forward to the commission and say, okay, we have some problems here, and we need to work out transitions, we need to work out the B3 height and so forth.

I think there's a lots, there's a lot of pros and cons to having that 90 feet, and this is where I would love kind of your input and discussion.

You know, there's um you you build a big building, as you guys know more than anybody, right?

You build a big building, that's gonna be on that's gonna be downtown, it's gonna be on the tax rolls for a long time.

And whether it's 70 feet or 90 feet, you know, that has implications for um tax revenue, it has implications for the amount of people coming downtown, it has implications for services we we are able to provide, etc.

So let me that's a lot of speaking for me, but um, I would uh you know love to hear to the extent we can uh you know your thoughts on this, but uh, with the understanding that that that it this is likely going to roll into effect on February 1.

There will be likely some changes to some buildings that are maybe in the works.

Um, but that's that that's where we are.

Thank you.

That's a very good explanation and very helpful to understand the pause.

Um my thoughts were that the group, the historic preservation group and David Lowe's have brought up some really valid points.

And um, so my thought was is there a way um to look at just that B3 component, and perhaps um if it can be modified without a whole pause, and maybe a variance system be applied.

And um, so I understand this the history and all of it, and I feel like perhaps the parking impact, the potential for the neighborhoods to be impacted with such dramatic heights without having some tool that that would maybe provide some funding for the affordable housing effort, like a lot of other cities do, which was this uh proposal to give a million dollar donation to the affordable housing act.

If you go above the 70 feet, I think that was kicked around.

Um, that perhaps this is the opportunity to, if it's really possible to make that type of a variance notation, and also maybe there is a donation toward the parking future parking garage that goes with that additional height, and that way we can offset those real very serious challenges that downtown has, but still perhaps have um the revenue, half the tax revenue when people do decide to go forward.

So though those were my thoughts.

I guess I'd say the you know the the frustration of my point is that it are we currently doing about parking.

We've had a parking study, it's pretty conclusive that we've got a parking issue downtown, and I know that we're striving towards a garage to help mitigate that need.

But what is the go forward plan of continuing to add parking as we're continuing to add density?

That I just haven't seen much of a I haven't seen those two things sort of talked about in the same framework, right?

Like we we talk about how do we make the projects pencil and get them higher and add enough people to them so that we can build them, but then we don't have any conversation about parking along with that.

And so I guess as the city looks at this and says, yeah, it's more tax dollars, okay, great.

Where's the breaking point for the downtown on parking?

And who's shouldering that burden?

This is this is very helpful.

Any other um I from visiting other towns, I'm not afraid of the height, I think that happens downtown in these vibrant cities is height comes downtown because that's where people want to be.

Retail follows rooftops, so higher density downtown, I think is a good good thing for our shop owners and our business owners downtown.

Parking is always an issue though for us.

So if we are gonna go higher, I think we need to go deeper too.

I think we need more parking, uh, not lesser parking requirements on on new construction.

Um as far as the affordable housing, uh, I don't think this is the only mechanism this the city has for raising funds for affordable housing.

Uh I'm I'm one who thinks affordable housing is kind of a myth in that you can't make the numbers work.

Cost of construction, you know, you're trying to take from other people to give to people.

Um so affordable housing isn't part of the the equation in my mind.

Kind of echoing that a little bit.

I mean, it seems to me as I recall that the height had been in the UDC drafts from the very beginning, and this only became an issue really kind of in that one 1030 at night at night moment.

Um bit in all those documents.

So I'm I'm a little forgotten a little surprised it came up at the last minute.

I I want us to be careful not to conflate that issue with either parking or affordable housing.

Those are both issues I'm concerned about, passionate about focused on believe that we need to address.

Those are both super important issues to deal with.

And I just would hate to see this get wrapped up in that.

I mean, obviously, we have tall buildings downtown.

I totally agree.

I'm not I'm not afraid of height.

I think height in a downtown is what you want, but once it gets over a certain height, you know, being a couple more stories aesthetically doesn't bother me at all.

I mean, I think that's what contributes to a vibrant downtown, more people, more people on the street, more people in the shops.

I think all that's positive.

So maybe all that is to say um letting this roll for a while and kind of see how it works, might be might be a way to go rather than swirl us back through a whole other public process.

Having just finished a fairly long and painful one.

Yeah, wow.

You said it, Douglas.

You guys kicked over the hornet's nest.

Um, so in the I guess there's kind of two problems.

One is the logistics of what what approach you can actually take and what you know, you know, the opinions about whether 70 or 90 is the right answer.

You that's a separate thing, but I don't know what you what you guys can actually do.

It doesn't sound like you have many options.

Um I suppose there's you know a trajectory that says like you have to wait until a couple months until you know somebody comes in with an application to identify what the problem is.

It seems like you could probably remedy something.

Um but I think I would probably lean more towards the the mindset of um that attaching it to whether it's 70 feet or 90 feet, attaching it to parking doesn't seem like I mean you should have parking standards that are commensurate with what's needed, irrespective of what the height is, because there that's always going to be an issue, and I don't think in some respects that one and a little bit um with the affordable housing I see is sort of a red herring towards an idea of like hey, this is a bad thing.

I'd rather have the debate focus about what the aesthetic impact is relative to the housing or relative to the height and what's what's there.

Um but that said, I know also that you know the way building code works and the way construction works.

Currently, unless that changes, people will build four over one, and that's what they're gonna do.

They're not gonna build steel structures in Bozeman, you know, in the very near term, I don't think.

Um but all that aside, I think you there started with sit with 90 feet.

I would just stay the course.

There's probably a million other things in that code that you could have identified and made some last minute change on that would have kicked over the Hornet's nest too.

So stay with where it was.

There's lots of opportunity to edit.

I think there's even text amendments that can get made individually or legislatively that would remedy whatever the problems are.

So at a certain point, I think it should just move ahead.

That would be my two cents.

Um I think I agree with second Eric Bowman's comments.

Um I mean, yes, they aren't inextricably linked, but at the same time they are, because the more people you put downtown.

And I'm I guess I am also exhausted by the parking conversation, because I mean, since I've been on this board, which was kind of a long time ago now, we've been talking about parking, and we've been having study group after study group after, I don't know, you know.

I we need a parking plan, and we need it yesterday, and we need it to just be a plan, and we need to execute it.

So I guess that for me is sort of number one.

And you know, affordable housing, all those things I also agree, super important, but I don't know if they are all linked together with height.

And I guess the other only other concern I have is when we have these you get you know, you get money for height.

Where's that money going?

What's it doing?

It's like in this pot that says affordable housing.

Well, I think I guess we need more specifics and more constructive avenues of making all this work.

Well, this this is really both fascinating and helpful.

Um I I sense almost like you there's six of you up there, there's this is almost like you're split through evenly somewhat, right?

Uh, and uh that's kind of similar to I think what we're hearing from the community.

There's there, but what I'm to let me just recap what I heard here and make sure I've got it right, right?

That that there's um, you know, on one side there's concerns about there's a concern about I would say maybe there's just a general concern about parking downtown, right?

And that um that as we bring in more height, we're are we thinking about where people are where all those people are gonna park, and it doesn't that that's not clear.

I wouldn't even just say more height, more density, more density, right?

Like I I agree, I don't have a problem with the height per se.

But we keep going after more and more density, and now we're figuring out how to get more density on more density, and we still haven't talked about parking.

Talk about parking.

Yes, okay.

So more density.

I concur because that density is directly related to how many vehicles that we're gonna deal with.

Did they change the parking regulations though?

Like they haven't made it, so it's if you build a building, you still have the same number, whether you build 70 feet or whether you build 90, you still required to do a certain amount of parking.

I know B3 has the lightest of all of them, but isn't it?

Yeah, yeah, so you're you're rapidly water over my head, but um, but the legislature is kind of driving that is tying our hands on some of that.

Like we you would like we no longer can afford, we we no longer can require a parking spot if you have a condo or housing unit unit that's under I think 1400 or 1200 square feet.

So I don't know about you.

Right.

And so I'm not sure about commercial what you know, what I don't know is kind of the commercial requirements, you know.

If you put a hotel in, for instance, how many hot spots do you need because I don't know.

Um then just also kind of you there's an opportunity perhaps that we're we're giving up here in terms of of leveraging this for affordability and some affordability dollars.

But I also hear concerns that that maybe is it appropriate to leverage height for affordability that that maybe that's more of a myth to try and and that that has other downstream impacts.

Um just to answer your question, you know, we could take a million dollars.

It's like right now there's a whole big discussion on developing a parcel of property near the New Fowler extension.

We need almost six million dollars to kind of bring that up so we can turn that over into a for sale affordable housing.

And so that's one place that we would likely sink some money into.

Um but then the the um kind of you know, also I hear kind of concerns about what's the aesthetic impact, maybe we should be focusing on that a little more and that and that maybe don't fear the height.

It's been in the UDC all along.

I gotta say that that was my personal feeling.

Uh and and the city commission, you do not want the city commission making big decisions like this at 1030 at night on these things, frankly.

But um, but so um so again, it's it's it's a lot of parking, is what I hear also in the question about affordability, but then there's also this question of kind of um thinking more holistically about parking, not just related to density or height.

Am I did I get that right?

You know, so like regardless of where we go with this height requirement.

Perhaps one of those things that we need to put in the basket and examine in a few months is how is parking you know, working downtown with this new UDC.

Well, I I would guess that the parking if that's across every single zoning district.

Yeah, that I would assume that you're the city should be planning its own resolutions to figure out how to solve for that logistically or not, whether that becomes an enterprise on its own, but I don't think it has it it it's specity to this one issue has zero connection other than the city writ large should figure out because you could be in any of these other districts and have the same problem.

Sure.

So I know we have an acute issue, but you know, the other one I don't know, it just feels like very Austin powers us to have like the one million dollars, like it should be attached to like an an amount of housing or some other metric that is associated with it, not necessarily because you can imagine how that's gonna age so poorly in the next five years when that's gonna be you know, if if the rates of cost of the construction head on the same trajectory they are, it's gonna be worthless almost.

So I I think it should be attached if if that is a a piece that wants to be included, it should be different than a singular dollar figure because every project will be different sizes will be different and they should have a different impact.

But I might clarify the background on that statement.

I suggested was a goes back to the days of the parking SIDs.

So we in our building downtown at Maine and Black, put in a restaurant.

So we had to pay a hundred thousand dollars in the 80s to put in a restaurant to allow for parking, and those funds went to a parking SID fund, which that fund was applied to build the parking garage as you see today.

So that's where I saw that parking SID actually have some function and some purpose.

I just pulled, I mean, a hundred thousand in the 80s is a million now.

Roughly, and so with that in mind, say we did the athletic club across the street.

We had another parking SID in order to be able to use that as a facility, an athletic facility.

And so there was this whole program all over town, and and that wasn't perfect by any stretch, but my suggestion was maybe that is part of the parking solution.

I don't know if that's worth revisiting, but the parking as uh gonna always bite us, and it's been going on for years.

The other comment on the aesthetic I wanted to make is that there have been some buildings approved that are right up against the sidewalks that go straight up, and there is no setback.

So what it has effectively done is taken away from the aesthetic of our historic entryway corridor and all of the um you know context for the human walking on the street, the vibe and the feel of it diminishes greatly.

I I don't mind the height at all, but there has to be an aesthetic quality and a parking solution to go with it, is my suggestion.

Yes, okay.

I I hear about the the parking SIDs being a useful tool, and perhaps we could we could leverage that height or you know, some some downtown, some element to density, perhaps for a parking side.

I should note our that new code, like I said, is very complex.

Like the the Freestone and the Hampton Inn that were being built on the on the west end of Maine there, you could not build those buildings under our new code, or you will not be able to approve you cannot have build a building like that starting February 1.

There needs to be some you know breaks.

It's the the new code has but uh uh enforces a design that's much more like the where um Cafe M is across from the host for the the library where you have some breaks both um horizontally and then vertically in the facade just for your what it's worth but we you're right the in that the commission we did not say you need to do a setback, you can go you know in the B3, not the B3C, but the other B3 you can go you can go straight up straight from the sidewalk.

So what you're saying is that that has been changed that kind of monolithic for like Freestone Hampton Inns approach is gone in our new code.

Yes.

So it was in existence in the B3, not in the B3C now it is.

So I just wanted to clarify because I caught that, but I just wanted to make sure you all do that.

But that's a I'm taking up a lot of time.

Is that is did I did I miss anything here?

Is there anything that you really want me to take back?

No, I think you got the gist of it.

Okay.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you, Douglas.

Do we need to skip any of the what we have today?

I guess we have the training, Helen's training take.

Um, we'll start with ethics training and get through that.

Okay, and if we need to skip the reports for some reason, we can the reports if you guys are able to just review those on your own if there's uh not enough time, then we can do so.

Sounds good.

Perfect.

And if you don't mind, I'm going to skip the ethics training.

I'll be going through this myself.

Yes, please do.

But thank you, Douglas.

This discussion is really helpful.

Again, it's been a huge honor serving with you guys.

Thank you.

Does it make sense to pull up our business tend to have a little ethics later?

So the button that we looked at.

I don't think we have any other business other than just the ED report and the budget.

And I'll I'm I'm gonna catch up with Bella here in a little later this after you know later this month.

You don't know that yet, but we're gonna have coffee.

Well, thanks for all of your time.

Thank you guys.

Thank you.

Feel free to stop into our meetings whenever you want.

Yeah.

Okay.

Annual ethics training.

Thanks, Jim.

This is the same format as years past, so they have different scenarios.

We'll probably just read them, and then if we're able to um chat about it, that would be great.

Um conflicts of interest, board of ethics, um main point of this is just the use of public office for private gain is prohibited.

Um, you guys all complete your applications and your financial disclosures, I believe, annually.

Um, and then this is completed amongst all the citizen advisory boards each year.

Um, in short, the city is required to establish standards and guidelines for conduct and provide annual trainings for all representatives of the city to avoid the use of their public position for private benefit.

You guys are experts at all of these.

Um I think the big takeaway from this is if there's ever a question whether for Elliot I and a staff or as board members to always contact the city's um legal department and Greg Sullivan will be um your key resource for how to handle anything moving forward.

Any volunteers for the first situation, Eric Nelson.

All right.

Oh my god.

All right.

Well, I'll read it like I'm reading to my kids.

A member?

No, I'm kidding.

A member of the tax agreement financing board owns a restaurant in a district and is very invested in improving the district for both their business and Bozeman in general.

They are diligent about filling out their financial disclosure form each year and notes the business and property interests on the form.

A developer recently brought before the board a proposal for a hotel in the adjacent unused lot.

The board member very excited about the hotel as they had some conversations with the owners and expects the two to share some parking facilities.

The hotel will bring in customers for them.

They don't mention this at the board meeting because there is no direct business interest in the project.

And since their form is on file, staff can bring it up if they think it's a conflict.

The board member enthusiastically approves the hotel.

What are the ethical considerations?

Stop being so happy.

Clearly.

Well, am I supposed to respond as well?

You can if anyone.

Okay.

Well, I think in this one, it's it's pretty evident that I think the visibility of any of this should always be front and center because the and not rely upon some form A that you filled out.

You should always mention it at the uh at a decision making process and potentially even recuse yourself from a meeting or a decision on something like this.

So that would be my two cents.

Yep, so conflict of interest says a um while the financial disclosure form is a public record, staff members typically do not have direct access to these documents and will not necessarily know of potential conflicts.

It's a responsibility of the board member to recognize and disclose any potential conflicts on the record.

You get to stay any other.

Seems pretty straight.

Yeah, right.

I didn't even mean to skip you either when I was calling out who was reading it.

Eric was just putting on his glasses and he looked eager to read.

Um it uh yeah, just financial interest and disclosure.

So not only conflict of interest, but um just the financial interest as well.

Um just being mindful of recusing yourself if anything comes about.

Not that we're voting on anything, but an active member of the urban parks and forestry board and vehemently opposed to proposed change of the tree maintenance district.

The subject has discussed, has been discussed at a board meeting.

Sorry, the board a number of times.

And while a few members agree with them, the majority of the board supports the changes to the district.

The board member feels like their voice isn't being heard, so they submit a public comment to the city commission and writes a letter to the chronicle expressing their concerns about the district, acknowledging the experience with the project given their membership on the UPF board.

They make sure to include on behalf of UPF in the letters to reinforce their legitimate opinion and so that others will take their opinion more seriously.

What are the ethical considerations?

Seems fairly obvious.

They did not consult with the rest of the board.

I'm assuming their subject has been discussed several times.

Well, I mean, unless it's like a board decision, though, correct?

Yeah.

Um get to personally state your opinion as an as an elected person or a member of the board.

Uh but you can make your own public comment aside from that.

Right.

So the the whole one body, one voice, um, so representation as a board, board members and all officials and staff have free speech rights and can express opinions as private citizens, however, individual members cannot write on behalf of UPF on any communication unless said communications were expressively approved, expressly approved by the board at a public meeting.

Um they do not speak on behalf of the board unless given that permission and should not represent themselves as much as such.

Um then also just uh has another section highlighted um classifies board members as officials as they're appointed by the city commission.

Board members are appointed by the commission and to advise the city commission.

All city officials must act within the course in scope of their position.

And city commission liaisons sit on almost every board and hear conflicting viewpoints during meetings.

Umicing their concerns to the board and city commission is appropriate, but the member goes further by writing to the chronicle as they are no longer acting on behalf of the municipality, but instead on their own interests.

The chair of the downtown urban remote board handles setting the agendas.

They also own a hotel in the district.

Recently, the agendas have been pretty full of new activity in the district.

So they want to prioritize retail and food service projects as they saw, as they view that as a gap to fill with new development.

A proposed hotel has asked the board to be considered for financial incentives.

The chair knows that this level of request needs to be approved by the DURD and does not go before the city commission, but doesn't want to put it on the agenda as their hotel is covering the needs of the district at the moment.

They didn't get any incentives when building their hotel.

So if they are in a time crunch, they can proceed without the incentives.

The chair informed the applicant.

And that the request will not be considered at this time.

What are the ethical considerations?

It's conflict of interest, obviously, he's or she putting their interests ahead of the public at large, and should take that whole thing to the board and ask them for what the board thinks is a priority and how they want to do it as a board rather than making a singular decision.

So misuse of position.

Um public official may not perform an official act directly, affecting a business or other undertaking to its economic detriment when the official or employee has a substantial personal interest.

Um while the chair has authority to set the agenda, they've already made the call that the new hotel doesn't need the incentives at this time, which they then use to justify keeping the item off the agenda.

Um definition of improper governmental action, includes action taken by the official that is intended to retaliate against a member of the public.

Um and then the financial interest.

Lots of uh URD scenarios.

I know, and really luckily we have plans in place to not allow this to happen.

So when I read through these, I'm like, wow, this is not gonna happen because we have a due process of filling out forms and we brief, you know.

So not yet, but there's a couple more.

And we have very ethical board members to Eric Bowman, do you mind reading the next one?

I think there's two more scenarios.

A member of the community development board also works for a local nonprofit that helps to coordinate placement of low-income individuals in affordable housing.

They are happy that their involvement on the board can help facilitate a community need.

Community need their job also addresses.

Since they are an expert in the area, they make sure the developers coming in before the CDB are fully aware of the different resources of the community and gets frustrated when someone asks for an incentive that they haven't gone through all of the steps to minimize development costs.

They vote no on these projects since there are so many local organizations that could also benefit from a developer utilizing their resources and only votes yes on projects to maximize these resources.

What are the ethical considerations?

Any thoughts from anyone?

That was a little confusing.

Has financial interests listed, but it says does not need to be tangible.

While the board member may have good intentions, they're using their position to build up business for local nonprofits, which benefits their job, benefits their job security and community relationships.

This is just not the role of the board member who has a city official needs to be put on a different hat to advise the city commission and act on behalf of the municipality.

And then also has section six of the ethics handbook states that the officials must discharge their duties impartially and fairly.

As a decision maker, all board members must consider the information before them with each application and not apply standards not expressly given to her by law.

All right.

The last one, Eric Sutherland or Mark, you guys can duke it out for the transportation board is working to coordinate an expansion to the downtown parking garage.

This week the board is considering the construction contract for the garage, which includes as a subcontractor and architecture firm for which a member of the board's daughters works.

The member wasn't sure if approving the contract would show favoritism to a relative.

So they emailed the chair of the board to let them know of the relationship.

The chair thanked the member for letting them know.

When the board got to the item, the member did not disclose the conflict since they already did.

Since the relation was once removed from the contract before them, they voted to approve the contract.

What are the ethical considerations?

Well, a little nepotism because they are related.

Um they did disclose it, but they should have disclosed it at the meeting as well as probably recuse themselves from the vote.

Right.

Yep, that's correct.

It also highlights that the chair should have also brought it up if the board member did not bring it up themselves since they're aware of the conflict.

Yeah.

That was way better.

We used to have to go off site.

Like we used to have to go to the library for like an hour long ethics training at the library on our own time.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Brutal.

15 minutes, way better.

Um so again, never hesitate to contact the city attorney's office for assistance prior to decision making.

There's Greg's contact information if anyone needs it.

And congrats.

We're done for another year.

We never get to help make this scenarios.

Yeah.

They're pretty good.

They they did a good job this year.

Yeah.

Legit.

Um not too much of an update.

We're when you hear back from our vehicle insurance for our latest uh possible new hire for maintenance employee um for weekend and help Mike out a couple days during the week.

Um so we're about 99% of the way there.

We have a temporary employee, Russ, who worked for us maybe a couple of years ago.

He's helped filling in on the weekends.

Um you've seen Mike and Russ kind of buzzing around.

We've finished up another holiday season.

The holiday spiders got quite the beating this year with um all the wind.

So we'll probably see a pretty hefty um maintenance bill next year.

Travis has to rebuild some of the stars.

Um of the strands were just completely stripped of the lights and the tinsel, but um the white spider did look nice while it was up.

Um it was the last of the spiders to get refurbished.

Um then we will start plucking away at Garland to replace Garland and Bose, which have been on the list um and just didn't happen this last year with me being gone.

But that will be our kind of our next phase of money in the holiday um reserve fund.

Those insured the spiders?

They are insured.

Yes, they are.

Yeah, it was pretty it was breaking my heart seeing them in the wind, which is cute after we just had them all even.

Yeah, I think uh Tim and Travis with the fire department may have broken his spirit a little bit more than but and they fixed them several times.

I think two different soldering attempts, taking down the star, redoing them, but yes, and yes, they are insured.

We went through a whole audit process this last year, and they are in fact insured.

But basing that is that I mean honestly, I hadn't thought of it.

You know, I'm not sure I'm not totally sure, but maybe we should inquire about what that looks like.

What it's supposed to cover that was pretty dramatic.

And it brand now.

Right.

Yeah, yeah, I will.

Thanks, good thought.

Um, and then yeah, the amount of tinsel and garland that ended up downtown.

I know the city and we received some comments just about the little strain.

So we're slowly getting it all swept up and finding it in different bits and pieces.

But with it being mostly dry, it's been easier to pick up than most years.

It's 1250, so I just kind of want to touch on the highlights, but yes, I think everyone would appreciate an update on that.

You know, I will I'll make this short and sweet, but um one note you um your comment, Susan, um I I took to heart.

It's let's make a downtown plan and use it.

Um I think that you know, the last I don't know, three years that I've been in this position, that has been my like motto.

Um, and I I I I do believe we're getting there.

It it's slow, um, but I I believe we're getting there.

And um, so a few a few updates.

One, we are working with uh McLaren and Vision or excuse me, um Indigo West, and we're developing this vision plan.

And I think the city, this the city staff, the parking staff, they need this in hand so that they know what we want so that they can make decisions without everybody getting pissed, frankly.

Um and so that's where we're at with this vision plan.

We're moving forward with it.

It's been um a really great process so far.

I'm working very intimately with uh John Henderson, um Nick, and Ben, who are our parking and code enforcement officer.

Uh we do have a platform built.

Uh so there's a dashboard on the city website, and it is um monitoring capacity levels of parking spots, the garage and surface lots, as well as citations.

So we are actually meeting this afternoon to get started on what do those numbers mean, how could we use them, how is this data going to be useful moving forward?

Um we are not fully there in the way of them being able to batch it seven days a week, but we are getting there.

So um we're getting some of the data and we're absolutely figuring out how to use it.

We have taken a little bit of a step back um on the vision plan in the way of um moving into an audience insight step.

So we are gonna be doing um, and I say we, I mean vision or um Indigo West.

They are gonna be doing lots of one-on-one uh interviews with uh working group members, our parking working group members, as well as um folks who have been intimately involved in the parking plans over the years.

I say plans because there's multiple, um, as you know, and um and we think that that's really gonna provide a great framework for us to continue to build this plan.

We are looking to release this plan hopefully um in the summer or fall of this upcoming year, and we're we're really staying on track with this plan.

So we are um we're we're pretty happy with with where this is going.

We are also prepared to hear things that we didn't want to hear.

Um we have realized that there has been a lot of data collected to this point, a lot, a lot.

Um, but it's always had a mission in mind.

It has always been to institute paid parking or to build this parking garage.

We do not really currently have any data to give the city for them to make truly educated decisions regarding parking, and that's just the reality bit.

Um so we we think we're in a good spot, and we think the city is ready to once we give them this plan, we formalize this plan to truly make decisions on behalf of parking.

So they are prepared, they know those are the next steps, and I do believe that we're getting there at least faster than I've seen in years past.

Um I will any questions on that?

So yes.

Who's we what do you think?

You keep saying we we think and we're there and we're getting there, and we think we're in a good place.

Who's we?

Um well, well, we have um our group that is um Nick, Ben, John from the city, myself, and we're working directly with the Indigo group, Indigo West, um, that group, and then of course I'm bringing it back to the URD board um on a really consistent basis on where we're at.

We don't have anything to release currently, um, but I did certainly get their approval to take a step back from an audience insight perspective, um, and have been keeping up them, keeping them updated with data collection and that sort of thing.

So um I guess when I say we, I mean yes, an internal myself, Nick, Ben, and John in the way of moving this vision plan forward, um, knowing that a scope has been approved by our board, um, we we know what our our wanted and needed outcomes are, so I guess when I'm saying we I'm saying that that group and the and and what we're doing.

So is that help?

I guess the last question is you know, the plan moving forward.

I know at one point the city had sort of such a take on the stance that the public was a private problem, right?

Like that they were gonna infill and it was the private problem to figure out what was happening.

Is it there's been a change in that?

Is I mean I think so.

I mean, they're they're not accepting a responsibility to well, I think when their concept of paid parking got turned down, they you know, I mean, I say they, although that has really changed, right?

Um came back to the working group and essentially said, well, if that's not the answer, then you tell us what is the answer, right?

And so we got together, we formulated some concepts and some some ideas, and they said, Yes, we're we're willing to step into some of these things, but we need more from from you guys as a group on how to approach some of these things.

So we've given them some short-term and long-term concepts.

I think they're very supportive of them, and I think they really just need more input from our end before they really start to make big decisions.

And I will tell you all they do need to start making some big decisions, as you all know, but they were not in a place to do that after paid parking got voted down.

No one wanted to touch it.

Every commissioner, the economic development department department, and I think in a way they passed it off to us to really just say what is your opinion.

And we've come back and said, you know, we want to put employee parking, you know, as a priority.

We want to build more parking supply.

Uh, we want some you know, smarter short-term and long-term solutions like shared use lots.

Um, we want to explore ideas for employee parking.

Um, so you know, we have these ideas, but we don't own the parking in downtown.

So they're they're basically ideas that if they are attuned to them and we can help them figure out a way to implement them.

I think they're ready to do it.

And I think we're in a good place to help them understand how to implement these things and why, why we think these are the priorities to implement them.

I don't believe the idea of paid parking as a whole downtown district is gonna come back around.

Um, but just know that that is you know part of all of these discussions because it is a management problem.

There are expenses and you know, all the things attached to managing something that that is of value.

Yeah, I guess I would emphasize that part of the problem with the paid parking was the way that it was presented and it was gone after.

And if you really want to sabotage an idea, then let's go after it the way they did the first time.

100%.

So it's unfortunate that that's the way that went down, but yeah, it's probably gonna take a while before there's an appetite for people to reconsider that, or it needs to become we need to come about it in a much more constructive way, yeah, an open way about how we're gonna come to come to that.

And I think that's why I'm saying we're in a good place, is because they're open to that discussion.

They are, I don't believe that they're in a place to bombard any situation at all at this point.

They've got to make decisions based on what you know our downtown group feels is the right thing to do.

And I think we have a really good framework of what we think downtown wants.

And I don't think that's necessarily paid parking currently, but it could be in the future.

I think we need to truly be smarter about how we manage things, and I do believe it requires a lot of communication and education.

And I don't believe the city was at all in a position to do either of those things.

Yeah, as I mentioned to you before the meeting, I think the work of that parking working group that had representations from all three of the downtown boards.

I think it was productive, and I think it it could really help you in the city with communication, with ideas, with communicating to the three different boards out in the greater community.

I I would strongly encourage you to use that group to continue to vet these ideas to give you feedback to push back and then to communicate back to the individual boards what comes out of that.

Because I think there's a there's always a fear that there's this sort of black box of oh, it got pitched into the city and it's just sort of happening over there.

And when they figure out what they want, they're just gonna tell us what they did instead of the process.

I think the intention is opposite, and I and I assure you their support for the opposite that the city does not want to do that.

Um we will lean into you guys as a group at some point.

Um, just know that we will we also have avenues to keep in touch with you throughout.

So that working group you're referring to was two members of of this board, so yourself, Mark and Randy, two members of the URD board, um, John Howe and Amy, who are really actively involved in all of this, two members of the DBA board, and then city staff.

And so all of these individuals we currently are in consistent conversations with, um, and and of course, informing, and then going out to these audience insight.

That group is a target group.

Um, and so you will be informed through the development of this vision plan, and then after the vision plan is developed, we do intend on making sure that we bring it back to the working group and and you're named as a specific group, the working group, all of the boards, as well as the transportation board and city commission to make sure that once we have this together that we're coming back to all these groups and that they're the truly the final say of what this looks like.

Yeah, I'm just encouraging you to do that sooner, not to wait until it's done and then present it to them, but to involve them in the development of it.

I'm still a little unclear.

Is this uh you mentioned some names for the they is this a city board with you on it to parking commission board, or who's leading the charge?

This is our the URD.

This is a URD contract.

Yeah, so it's under the urban renewal district.

Um we've been working I've been working with the urban renewal district on developing the scope, um, the concept of the plan.

Um, and when I'm when I say we, it's really just this internal group that's advising um the the vision plan, but the content of the plan is truly going to be put together based on the input of all of the working group, the board members, the target people that we establish.

It's funded by the URD.

Correct.

Ellie, question on the um surveys that we go not to the third party when those are developed, will that be sent out by like the city through engage boseman, or is that gonna be coming from like McLaren and Indigo West?

Yeah, so we have developed all kinds of groups that we'll be reaching out to consistently, um including the working group, including the downtown boards.

Um, but we've also established lots of other different groups, including our DBA lists, our property owner lists, um, our larger um user groups, and um as well as ticket people who have received citations, um, people who have parking passes.

So we do have lots of groups that will be reaching out to make sure that we get very informed input on all of this.

So you guys will get this in many different ways.

So um through a survey, many of you will be contacted directly for one-on-one um input, and um, and then we'll compile all the information.

Question I have is the parking garage now being monitored for parking count?

Like cars.

I'm sorry, say that again.

The parking garage, there was no data for the parking garage, how many cars in out?

Is that data now being counted?

It in fact is.

I can't.

Yeah, if you if you want to show it.

So right now, um, the data we've as you all know, we've only been collecting it for a few months.

Um, this dashboard started the development in like July.

I think they made it actually functioning by in October.

So we don't have super consistent data quite yet.

Um, and like I said, we're meeting this afternoon to kind of talk about how we can utilize this for to add to the information that we're all gathering for this vision plan.

Um right now it's only being batched Monday through Friday.

So that is a bit of a problem in the weight of creating consistent data and pulling from that data.

It can help us extensively.

We just need to kind of get our heads around how to utilize this data, and how can we get to batching it seven days a week as well.

And then there's a citation dashboard as well.

And these are pretty new.

The the city is excited to get this going.

So this just looking at like parking occupancy.

This is just a snapshot of one o'clock in the afternoon Monday through Friday.

Right.

Yep.

So it does give us no do they compile enough information to at least be able to do day of the week, seasonality.

We're we're trying to get there.

Yeah.

I mean, like I said, it's just in the initial stages.

Um, you know, the dashboard is built.

Um, we obviously need more information.

I mean, we've been saying this for a really long time.

Um, but but you know, I'm I'm at least, you know, we're we're getting there.

Um, and it's I'm just I'm happy to see that that we are starting to, you know, get these things billed and that there is some resources allocated towards our needs.

Yeah so thank you all.

I mean I guess for your patience with this I like I said I I I feel like we're in a good spot.

I feel like we're making um progress and um I do believe that that working with indigo west is is going to be a good output outcome and heard on on keeping in touch with the working group Mark and you I promise you you'll have your day.

It may not be tomorrow but we you're not going anywhere we know that process any questions on on this or thoughts all right um one more quick update uh we were in a place to um potentially put out an RFP for um a public public um private partnership for public sub our parking supply um we have been talking through this um but we did um consciously delay that that project or that putting that out publicly um due to the UDC uh adoption uh brought it back around at this most recent um board meeting and in the meantime the idea of the federal building has come back around uh there this did come from um I guess the idea of the sale of the property and this happened in last June to May June um raised some raised some hairs uh then uh that there has also been a very big turnover a g of GSA staff the sale of the property was delayed there was some kind of in between time period um now with new leadership there the idea of um that being reused and not going out for sale has come back around um there's been some some downtown property owners who have been um talking extensively with um Senator Danes and the idea of potentially using utilizing that site for a parking garage um there's been some requests from some of the property owners in downtown um and and folks who have stayed engaged in this process to um hold off on making the RFP public until we find out if the federal site is in fact going to be a possibility um it would we are being told that we will at least know if they are going to sell the property or the possibility of them designating it and what do they call it like a an appropriation um government appropriation the possibility of that they will discuss in June May we're supposed to know by June so um I think the URD board is in favor um of not putting out the um RFP until we until we know more and um in the meantime we will continue to talk through the RFP so um we've not actually gotten it to city legal to review from um their aspect so in the process we're not going to completely halt that concept um because it was established as is truly one of the um items the working group really needed to to get you know we needed to get on top of um and so we're not gonna halt it but we are going to um at least wait to make it public until July so any other questions concerns great um we will at the February board meeting we'll look at the first draft of the fiscal year 27 budget um which will be looking at the assessment rate that we'll be setting um but I'll let you guys review the finance report on your own there's nothing too much there but meeting adjournment thank you everybody