I'll start it in the office.

Oh, yeah, I think the mic is on too.

Thank you, Jesse.

All right.

I am calling the economic vitality board meeting to order.

It is April 1st.

Do we have any disclosures tonight?

I'll make a couple disclosures.

One, I was involved in putting together and circulating a petition to the city commission.

Oh, is there a del there's a delay?

Should I just keep going?

Um I was involved in putting together a petition and um to the city commission asking for them to consider um changing the height allowance in the B3 zone from 90 feet back down to 60 feet.

Um one of the cited concerns was about um being able to leverage, unable to leverage the additional height if it's given by right for affordable housing, so that might be relevant to the discussion about affordable housing incentives tonight.

Um the other disclosure I guess I'll make is that I recently authored a guest column in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle that was about the neighborhood conservation overlay district, but did mention affordable housing and the multifamily vacancy rate.

So also might come up in tonight's discussion.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Any other disclosures tonight?

All right.

We don't have any minutes from last month, so we don't have to worry about that.

Or we may have minutes, but we don't have any to pass, right?

Correct.

We have minutes, but because um that they're just not prepared for your uh motion of vote tonight.

No problem.

We'll do that in May then.

Do we have any changes to the agenda?

Chair, I'm not aware of any changes to the agenda, but if you would allow me just a moment to clarify uh a statement in the um memorandum that I submitted to the EV board.

I just want to make sure that everyone is clear about the language that I used in sentence number one.

It was brought to my attention that the city that it could be construed that but by using the word finally in that first sentence, the city commission finally adopted that I was expressing some level of frustration as I was writing this, but that's in fact not the case.

The city commission has a preliminary adoption and a final adoption as part of the process.

And so what I was referring to very inarticulately in this first sentence was the city commission finally adopted in that it was the final adoption.

Just wanted to make that clarification.

Thank you.

Thank you for that clarification then.

All right, I'm going to um explain how people can give public comment.

So this is a time where people can comment on any non-agenda matter falling within the scope of the economic vitality board.

There'll also be a time in conjunction with each agenda item for public comment relating to that item, but you may only speak once per topic.

Please note the board cannot take action on any item that does not appear on the agenda.

All persons addressing the board shall speak in a civil and courteous manner, and members of the audience shall be respectful of others.

Please state your name.

Please state if you're a resident of the city.

And please state if you're a property owner.

If we're in a clear audible tone, and we do ask that you limit your comments to three minutes.

I think a request online.

All right, thank you, Jesse.

All right, we're gonna move into our discussion, and I'm gonna have Brett come and introduce um your our other presenter.

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, um, I'd like to welcome and introduce Brian Geyer, our community housing manager to the podium to present.

Pardon me, some material uh that we want to discuss with this board as it relates to updating the affordable housing ordinance.

So the affordable housing ordinance was adopted back in 2025, and uh we have seen some of the outcomes of the ordinance and uh we are also now in a position to see where it can be improved based on wo on how we've been using it.

There have been some changes at the legislative level that we also need to now change our local ordinance to reflect those changes, and we have some um uh we also need to think about um as those legislative changes impact our incentive program.

We need to start thinking about where can we find other incentives that might be suitable um uh for the affordable housing program through the ordinance.

So with that, I'd like to introduce Brian Geier, who's gonna talk a little bit about our proposed um some of our proposed changes, and our goal tonight is to um get these changes that we suggest out on the table for discussion for this body.

We also will be doing a work session with the community development board, um, who is the statutorily required body that must at some point in our process approve the ordinance before it goes to the city commission.

So our intent is to do um have this conversation with the EV board, do a work session with the community development board.

That's a non-action uh item as well.

Then we will uh bring an order, we will bring the ordinance back to this body for its review once it's been updated, and then we then go one more time back to the community development board.

Finally, then we go to the city commission.

So tonight is the first in a series of conversations about updates to the community housing ordinance.

And so uh with that, welcome, Brian.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Um kind of talk through the changes, the proposed changes to the affordable housing ordinance after uh you know a few after being implemented and kind of running through what this affordable housing ordinance does in real time, uh it has occurred to us that we need there are some tweets to it that's the Bozeman.

And so these uh these changes, I'll I'll follow the memorandum pretty closely, but these changes are basically to um update the affordable housing ordinance, cash and loo, uh improve clarity, flexibility, and alignment with current market conditions, state legislation and and state light tech guidelines, and and and mainly to advance uh continue to advance the city's housing program.

Um the first one that I kind of wanted to walk you guys through will be the addition of a for sale housing provision.

Uh currently the affordable housing ordinance has methodologies in place for cash in lieu for all uh units, and it doesn't really differentiate between uh for rent units and for sale units.

That has turned out to be out of alignment with what we want to accomplish with the affordable housing ordinance.

Um the current ordinance incentivizes long-term affordable rental housing.

Umership really does require a different uh stewardship paradigm.

And so uh in addition, the the approach and and methods that we use for calculating cash and loop for for sale homes need to be different than those that we use for uh rental housing.

Um for our plans moving forward, we have engaged with a consultant to kind of take a look at some of the best practices around the country, who is doing uh for sale cash and loop, and come up with a draft policy for us to kind of um think about and implement as we move forward with the affordable housing ordinance.

Um, Cash and Lou has a lot of advantages for us for the city in terms of obtaining and stewarding long-term affordable housing.

Um we don't want to be in a situation where we are um creating we are creating affordable for sale units that um basically require the city to uh steward these uh units for literal decades uh without that sort of you know, there's no property management element on the for sales side.

Once those units are for sale, uh the stewardship of those units becomes substantially more challenging.

Uh you know, so we want to figure out a way to really maximize uh those incentives and prevent ourselves from being stuck in in a place where we have to steward homes that are for sale, which means you have to do a resale formula, you have to do uh buyer uh approvals, you have to uh you have to um have an ongoing um ownership interest.

And so we're trying to take all of these things into account and create a policy that incentivizes right at that line where you know we want to create an opportunity for developers to pay a cash in lieu so that we can use those dollars to pump into projects that align better with the city's uh housing priorities, be it a Litech project, be it a low market below market rental project, or be it a uh middle missing middle homeownership project.

And so we don't currently uh address for sale housing in the affordable housing ordinance, and so this will be a good step forward with us in terms of bifurcating between for rent and for sale properties.

We'll have a discussion about all this.

I'll kind of go through all this and then we'll have a discussion about it afterwards.

And then the second update is uh on March 3rd, we did um update the Cash and Lou, the City Commission approved a cash and loo amount for uh for the payment of cash and lieu in lieu of actually constructing those affordable units.

This resolution was basically implemented a policy that had already been adopted.

And so now the uh now we have a formula that says the per dwelling amount must be based on the difference between the average new construction rental rate for apartments in the city and the established affordable rental rate and calculated that and multiply that out by 20 years.

And so that comes out to a pretty hefty amount that if they decide to pay cash and lo once again allows us to pump those dollars into projects that are aligned well with city housing priorities.

Here's uh uh the chart that we use.

And and you can see at 60% AMI, uh a one-bedroom unit, annual rent difference.

That can be as much as uh just south of 200,000 on a one-bedroom uh unit, and we can take that 200,000 and really highly leverage those dollars in something like a LITEC project with gap funding.

And so this walks a really important line.

You know, on the four rent units, we're not necessarily against them creating or building those actual units for rent.

And so this gives this this gives a lot of flexibility to developers, whether they want to do cash in lieu and just uh pay their way out of that obligation, or actually construct those units uh where we're well situated to to handle that.

Number three, this is something that you know uh our current pipeline on uh low-income housing tax credit uh projects is approximately 1,100 units in the pipeline here in the in the community.

And so we have discovered that city guidelines for affordability and federal guidelines for LITEC tax compliance may have some redundancies that complicate project projects and slow things down.

And so we want to create a track for Litech project that permits, for example, federal compliance documents to satisfy some of those local requirements instead of having uh multiple redundant documents.

And one example of where those things kind of overlap, you know, on the affordable housing ordinance, if somebody's taking advantage of a type A affordability uh affordable incentive, that requires five percent of the units to be affordable to people making sixty percent of our area median income for the type A incentives.

Light tech projects are 100% affordable.

And so this requirement on the city's behalf requiring those 5% on projects that are federally obligated to have 100% of affordability, that's that seems redundant.

And so it really can slow down the process.

And so, in order to streamline that, we want to create a LITEC track so that LITEC projects know specifically what federal documents are going to satisfy the requirements at the city level, and also eliminate some of those redundancies so these projects can move forward.

Um the other updates, uh I think I've talked about this before, but the type B incentives, which are heavily uh utilized, which are the parking incentives.

Um October, there will be no required parking minimums for affordable housing projects, um, assisted living uh assisted living facilities and homes under 1200 square feet.

Basically, this really does render our uh affordable housing ordinance parking incentives uh pretty ineffective.

And and we know that that has been a, like I said earlier, a well-utilized incentive.

And so given that they um they've been neutralized by state law, we're really trying to determine exactly what will be our highest leverage replacement.

I've had conversations with King County, Washington, Boulder, Colorado, and Missoula, Montana talking about what are the things that they use to incentivize and spur the creation of affordable housing units, and we will have we'll have some good options as we move forward, and I can talk through some of those options during our discussion.

And then the last piece, we want to streamline uh and and create a predictable ordinance update process.

Um this is the first step.

We'll introduce the uh proposed uh ordinance changes to you.

We don't want to be in a situation where the EV board uh is is watching a commission meeting and they're discussing the affordable housing ordinance and and you eyes aren't privy to that conversation.

And so this is just a informational sharing.

We don't want you guys to be in the dark.

We want you to be in the loop on what's happening with the affordable housing ordinance, and so that is what's happening today.

We'll take uh we'll take that draft ordinance.

Uh we'll go to, as Britt mentioned earlier, we'll do a work session with the community development board.

Uh we'll take that draft ordinance back here and then that we'll go uh back to the community development development board and then go on up to the city commission.

And so that'll sort of be the process for getting these um getting these updates over the finish line.

So those are that is in a nutshell what uh what we plan to do with the affordable housing ordinance.

Um but like I said, uh this is this can be more of a discussion, and so I'm I'm more than happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Can I add one thing, Brian?

Please.

I just wanted to add for the board's information that one of the projects that's driving our need to update the ordinance, particularly for the forced sale units is the Fowler Housing Project.

We continue to work through the consensus process with that on that project that Brian's managing.

And so in order when we get to the finish line there, we'll need some ordinance language that accommodates for sale units because that's what the intent of that project is.

And so that's driving our, you know, kind of moving this along as quickly as we can uh to get these pro these areas updated.

All right, so um just a point of reference.

So I think what you're asking us is to review the current AHO and really kind of focus on specific portions and give our feedback on that.

Is that kind of the idea that you're thinking?

Yeah, I can uh go back and and kind of have those all up if that's what uh you guys would like.

Um yeah, that's precisely what we're looking for.

Just discussion, anything that we need to kind of be aware of, any concerns.

Um but really this is just so that again this board is in the loop on what's happening at the commission level.

I don't want you uh to be watching a commission meeting and be like, how why why weren't we not informed about this and why are we not up to speed?

And I want to I want to keep this board uh in the loop on that.

Thank you.

We definitely appreciate that, especially with all the work that you've done, and we've actually seen a lot of this work.

So I'm glad that you um have us in the loop.

And we're not you're not planning on restarting the process, obviously.

Just want our questions and feedback.

Yeah, I think it might be easier if you oh you already have it up there.

Proposed updates.

Okay.

Sure.

So I'm gonna open it up and see if uh anyone on the board has any questions to start us off.

Yep, okay.

All right, so um, I'll start out with uh question about this um for sale housing provision work.

Um I was trying to fully sort out it's it sounds like either you're you're um entirely want to discount the possibility of builders building this affordable housing itself because it's such a burden, or you're still looking for ways that it might be possible for builders to build some affordable housing themselves and make that a bit less of a burden on the city than you're concerned it might be.

Yeah, there's a line, there's a line to walk there, you know.

Uh we don't want to discourage development.

And so we can't create uh cash and loo that is um you know so so high that you know people just completely don't take advantage of the affordable housing incentives.

We want them to take advantage of those affordable housing incentives and and utilize those for the creation of more units.

We know that at it at the base, we need more it is an inventory issue, and so we need more affordable units, and and the more things that we can do to sort of spur that is gonna be a net benefit for the community.

Um walking that line between creating a fee and lieu that is so high that people just back off and don't utilize those incentives at all, and we don't we don't spur the creation of any, but also it is it advantageous for the community to have those cash and loo fees paid versus building that actual unit which creates a multi-decade stewardship requirement on part of the city, whereas if they pay those cash and loo fees, we can use them to you know uh bridge the gap on a lot of LITEC projects, um put it into, for example, the Fowler project, which can allow us to kind of focus those dollars and leverage those dollars on projects that really acutely align with the city's housing priorities.

Um and then doing so, I was noticing with our uh rental cash and loo, um, it's just tied, as far as I can tell, it's just tied to the um size of the apartment.

And I wonder for the housing incentives, is there any way to somehow tie it to the um fanciness of the house in some way, shape or form?

Um or is this something that that's just so hard to pin down as a number, we really need to just probably tie it to size of the house?

Preliminary conversations with our consultant lead me to believe that there it there's a better way than just buy bedroom, you know, uh if you can look at unit price, if you can look at overall square footage, um those are going to be more representative of the actual impact of the of the uh condo complex or or example, for example.

And so, you know, if you if we just continued using uh the cash and loo that really works well on the rental side, we would be missing out on opportunities to really offset the impact of high-end uh condominiums, for example.

Uh we want the impact of high-end condominiums to be commensurate with the affordable the amount they pay in terms of cash and lieu.

That makes sense.

And I'm thinking the more that there's a somewhat bigger fee required, say for um a unit that's gonna be really high-end, a really high sales price, that's also gonna have some good market effects in terms of it essentially rewards people who are making more middle class housing uh because they won't have to pay quite as big of a cash and loo.

So you know, we don't we can tailor that.

We don't want this to be punitive.

We want it to again to be commensurate with the scale of the projects, and if uh you know, if somebody is building you know missing middle condominiums, we don't want their fee and lie to be so outrageous that they back out of the project or opt for high-end luxury uh units.

Great.

You guys are one step ahead of me.

Sure.

I have quite a few questions, but I'll start by like just focusing on the foresale since we're on the slide.

Um so just to clarify, are you envisioning that the only option will be to you get incentives if you pay cash and loo or are you gonna force the No, we don't want to we don't want to lose that flexibility.

If they want to build the actual units, uh we are prepared to do that.

It does come with a pretty long period of um stewardship that are that that'll be required.

It will require uh resale formulas, buyer qualifications, um, you know, unit inspections, all of those things for a period of 50 years.

That is uh kind of the standard for the city of Bozeman.

Um but I I certainly, you know, if somebody wants to do that, wants to move forward building those units, we're absolutely gonna take those units and we're gonna figure out a way to uh properly steward them for that 50-year period.

Okay, and to be determined about how you might do a deed restriction or something on those.

It would probably look something like that, like a D it'll be a deed restriction or there are um there are examples of communities across uh the US that have figured out how to put condos into land trusts, and so if that's an opportunity for us, I prefer the land trust.

I feel like it's harder to subvert than a deed restriction.

Um so if that's a possibility of of getting condo units into the land trust, that's what we would probably pursue.

But really it's gonna be, you know, what works best for uh the capacity of the city to actually you know steward these units for a period of 50 years.

Okay.

And are you envisioning targeting like 120% AMI or what do you think?

Yeah, okay.

Okay.

And then who who's the consultant you're working with now to We're working with EPS out of Denver?

Cool.

Um I might have a few more questions on this, but I'll pass it.

I do, I do.

Um and I also have a lot of questions, but um I'll stick with uh cash and loo.

So on the cash and loo payments, um typically what I have seen is that the money that we're collecting um has to be equitable to what you can build as far as house affordable housing, right?

Um so one equals one uh from one to the other um when it comes to affordable housing.

How in and I know that this formula was just a recommendation.

Is there a period of calibration in which we will get to find out, yeah, this is enough, or is it is it too rich or is it too soft to the point that the fee isn't really enough to get us anywhere?

Yeah, I think that that is um that is the question really.

It's it's are you able to walk that line where it's it doesn't feel punitive, it's not too much, but you also don't want to it has to be commensurate with the impact of the of a high end condo complex, for example.

So um there's a line to be walked there, and that's what we're we're working with EPS to figure out what is that line, and you certainly don't want to go overboard and um you know deter people from moving forward with projects, but you also want to have something that is going to allow you to um put put money into projects that we really feel like align with the city's housing priorities.

Okay.

And then um how do you have a plan on how the funds will be used?

Uh I heard Light Tech in here, but um are there any other That's you know, the the beauty of those cash and loo dollars is that once once that fee is paid that they are really flexible and so we can use them to do a multitude of things.

Um to Brit's example, we could use them to you know do something like down payment assistance on the Fowler projects, or uh do gap funding on the Litech projects, or if somebody has uh a unique idea to kind of create opportunities at that lower end of the spectrum, these dollars are flexible enough that we can we can put those dollars in places what where they like I said earlier, like where they really align with what we want to accomplish.

Okay, got it.

I think Brit has a add one thing just to that, that's a really good question.

Um, you know, we we discovered over the over the years that it's that the gaps that we have seen for projects over time is about a million and a half dollars roughly.

Um so that million and a half dollars of subsidy that we can or can't provide depending on the project, is the difference between the project working or not working.

Sometimes it can be you know tens of millions of dollars worth of worth of a project and can't go but for a you know a million and a half dollars of subsidy.

So the cash and loop program will allow us to um essentially fill the fill up our community housing fund with the so that when these opportunities come by, pass us by, we now have a way to fill those gaps with with those dollars.

So it provides us a way outside of the general fund, which is what the city commission allocates each year for um community housing.

It'll give us another way outside of that fund to um support the housing program.

Okay, perfect.

So I'm gonna go back to the um the cash in lo and the impact that it can have on the developer.

I'm assuming that part of your research also takes into effect we know enough about our developers to the point that we will not be punitive to the point that we will kind of get them all out of here instead of the the other way around.

That's that's really astute.

Um, you know, we don't want to be in the business of disincentivizing uh development.

That is that's not what this is intended to do.

Honestly, um we want developers to do what they're good at and pay for what they're not good at.

And stewarding units uh that are for sale for 50 years is not something that developers are particularly good at.

You know, who is a community land trust or a nonprofit developer?

They're good at stewarding those units into the future.

That's not something that developers are really uh that's not their core co competency.

Correct.

Now, let me ask you this.

Um based on our current housing policy, uh are we focused on quantity of affordable housing units, or are we focused on inclusion?

So say more about the inclusion portion.

So what I have seen in other cities, uh, you know, a specific part of their development, let's say they are luxury condos.

10% of their building has to be 60% median income.

So more of an inclusion rather than um then the quantity of units, and it's based on per development rather than you know, just an entire uh project of affordable units.

So what are we looking to do?

Is it more inclusionary so that every single um neighborhood has affordable units in the neighborhoods in which these developments are happening?

What what are what where is your where are you going with with this?

Is your primary function just uh increasing the stock uh I think it's uh yes and it's both.

Um you can't focus solely on uh including people in in you know mixed market or mixed income uh units.

We're certainly not against mixed income.

That I've seen it work really well in the past.

Uh I have a lot of projects that I worked on that are mixed income and have been really vibrant communities.

Yeah.

Um, but the inventory is also important because we have a lot of people who in our housing market are left behind, and we've created a blockage on the back end of rentals.

You have a lot of people who are now, you know, in the beyond the kind of the midpoints of their careers, they want to establish those roots in our community, but making that leap from renting to home ownership is just too big of a leap for a lot of people.

And so creating some opportunities for people to matriculate from rental units into home ownership units and having an infant inventory for them to make that leap is also really important.

So you've got to be able to walk and shoe gum at the same time.

Yeah, yeah.

So achieving the balance.

I just wanted to understand whether one was more important than the other.

Um and then I think that's it for now.

If I I have others, but I can't scroll down.

Okay.

You all asked such great questions.

I don't know if I have any other questions in regards.

Um we have any restrictions with how we use some of the money is the cash and lo uh program?

It's you know, it is really flexible funding, like I was saying earlier.

That's that is probably uh the most valuable.

These these dollars, uh cash and loo dollars can be really highly leveraged.

You can you can pair them with CDBD C D BG dollars, you can pair them with home funding, you can pair them with uh nonprofit funding.

Like there's a lot, there's a multitude of ways that you can use these and really um stretch those dollars, you know, to Britt's point, there's usually a gap on affordable projects, you know, and if we can get a project over the finish line by by bridging that gap, then our community benefits from us being able to inject those dollars into a project.

So that's great.

So you're already considering collaborating with other potential housing.

Collaboration uh when it comes to housing, if you're working in a silo, you're not really working on housing.

You you you've got to work collaboratively, and um I've been in the in the housing world long enough to know that collaboration is really the name of the game.

And so, you know, with the Fowler project, for example, we do envision that as a land trust project.

Um we'll put those as we'll put out an RFQ.

There are a few um land trusts here locally who are really capable at stewarding units into the future and making sure that those tax investments into those housing units are durable.

And so that not that first family that gets into that unit doesn't see a windfall of equity when they when they cash out.

You want it to be affordable for the first family and for the tenth family.

And so things like appreciation caps, things like um restrictions on using it as a rental unit, um, capital improvement policies, um, all of those things ensure that that affordability is durable and that first family isn't just winning the lottery.

It's gonna be affordable to people in this sort of income tranche.

And the thought is on like a, for example, a um an appreciation cap of about 3%, which is pretty standard for a land trust.

Um the thought behind that and the rationale behind that is okay, in 2026, a teacher is in this income tranche is probably gonna that income that their income is probably gonna go up right around 3% per year.

And so 10 years down the road, you're still going to be affordable to people that are part of our workforce and in that sort of income tranche.

And that's the real important part that we don't lose the affordability after the first homeowner.

Great, thank you.

Any other questions on this uh these potential items?

Yeah, one more on one more.

Okay, okay, sure.

Um considering the same incentives for foresale and for rental, or are you thinking different because the the incentives will be in line on the rental rental and for sale will be the same.

The formula will be different, and what that formula is based on, that's what we're really leaning on the consultants on, you know, whether it's based on uh sales price, square footage, um, we haven't determined that yet.

But the incentives outside of uh the type B parking incentives, uh, those are going to be similar.

Okay.

Um are you considering any like incentives or assistance for homeowners that might want to split a house into a duplex or triplex in order to get more units in exchange for maybe some one of them's something?

That hasn't uh that hasn't come to the surface yet, but that is a a good suggestion that that's something I'll bring up into discussions with our consultant.

Yeah.

And then I've seen in some communities they've also like for people who know that they're gonna retire or downsize in the next five to ten years, they can also kind of lock in their property tax and in exchange of agreeing to sell the home for as a deed restricted.

Is that something that's something that uh we've done that I have done in the past in my former role?

Um, going out and you know, kind of making the appeal to the community of uh land trust homes, saying, you know, you can put this home into a land trust, and while you're probably taking less in terms of uh what you're gonna make on the home, if that isn't your you know primary driver, if you know community benefit is important to you, why don't we put that home into a land trust and we can preserve its affordability down the line?

So that is something that we've been discussing.

Okay.

Do you think it might happen in this conversation, maybe in like a future?

I think that's probably a future iteration of it.

I think that this first iteration is just gonna focus on the incentives and the uh the fee and lieu formula.

Okay.

Thanks.

Uh when it comes to the cash and lieu, um, what are other statewide?

How are how is the the rest of our peers?

How are they doing it?

Yeah.

Uh particularly for the state, because you mentioned the parking ordinance that just came to came back and the change isn't really change that will benefit.

Yep.

Um will this be something like that?

How are others doing it?

Um and the state in essence as well.

It will probably come as no surprise that nobody has this problem licked.

Uh it's uh there is no like uh gold standard for how communities uh determine these cash and loo uh formulas.

I will say that our preliminary research has uh shown us a wide variety of of community approaches.

Some communities are focused very intensely on just inventory to your earlier point.

Um we just want more units.

We are we are suffering from a a dearth of units, and so they really want the developers to build actual units, the stewardship and the long-term uh kind of accountability pieces is secondary to that.

And so some communities set their um fee and lo pretty low so that uh developers are uh or pretty high so that developers are really incentivized to actually build the units.

But the inverse is also true.

Um there are communities in Montana that have pretty low uh fee and looks they want people to opt for paying uh the fee and loo rather than building the actual units.

There is no real standard approach to it.

Where are we in the cycle in this spectrum?

High or the low based on this particular formula.

Yeah, yeah, that's a great question.

I think we are uh we're trying to walk a pretty fine line.

We are we're we're trying to kind of go down the middle, but I would say if we're leaning any s any sort of way, incentivizing payment of the fee and loo uh is probably preferable to us than building the actual units.

We know that we can do better with those dollars than most developers.

Got it.

Thank you.

Yep.

What was that?

Oh no, that's okay.

I mean, that's why we're we're here to make one feedback.

They are totally expecting our questions.

So I think we asked all the questions in regards to uh cash and loo in this portion.

Sure.

So going on to the uh rental units.

Um I can I can add a little bit of context there.

You know, rental uh affordable housing built by market rate developers, it works well.

It works better than uh four sale units.

A the developer has an ongoing ownership and management interest, obviously.

They're renting, they're they're qualifying their tenants, so that that is a longer relationship than somebody who's building for sale housing.

Um deed restrictions and regulatory agreements around affordable rentals is pretty well established.

There is a lot of enforcement tools that we're aware of.

And and cash and loo uh for rentals can be harder to deploy because you need a large enough pool to capitalize a project, and that can take some time, uh meaning that families who are in need of units can can end up waiting while we wait for those uh for those uh cash and loo fees to get to that critical mass when so we can like actually move forward with the project.

And so on the rental side, I think you know, to answer your earlier question, we probably err more on the side of let's actually have them build the units because we can get those deployed quickly.

We know that there's an ongoing interest for the developer, and we have tools in place already that that do a good job, bless you, at um at managing those units for the long term.

Okay.

Any questions on So the formula is different on the uh for rent side than the for sale Pardon?

That's what I'm hearing.

The formula is different when it comes to the cashing line.

Yep, the formula will be different for uh the rentals than it is for the foresale units.

To incentivize their the rentals.

Okay.

Yep.

Do you have a question on that?

Yeah.

Um I guess without getting too much in the math, like can you help square you though?

You shared that some of the projects used in the cash and loo are the the northern project, which did committed to eight percent at 80 percent AMI.

Um and it got two stories, right?

Additional stories.

So I guess in it seems like a pretty easy math for them, because each story each story has maybe 15 units, I think, in their design they showed.

So plus they can have additional parking and commercial.

So it seems like if they get at least 15 extra units from that extra story or two, and they're only giving us eight units of affordable, help me score them the math.

That's and I Natsuki, that is actually that's precisely why we're looking at this.

You know, the the Northern and the Bozeman Yards project are for sale projects.

And we didn't it doesn't feel like those two extra stories that they were allowed to build was commensurate with the amount of fee and lieu that they had to pay.

And and for what it's worth, those uh we're talking about uh Bozeman Yards project and uh the Northern uh project where they paid uh they built a certain number of units, I believe on Bozeman Yards, they built one unit and then paid a pro a portion of 0.3 of a unit because they didn't want to build a whole second unit, so they just paid the 0.3.

Uh I think it was 0.47 on the northern.

Um and you look at those totals, and in exchange for what they got, which is two additional stories and potentially you know, five more units on a high-end development.

Um those fees did not feel commensurate with what they were allowed to do.

On the on the rental side, it's been mostly LITEC projects, and they've been taking advantage of parking uh incentives.

And you know, that those seem to be working well.

Those seem to be in line with what they get.

Um but that that is precisely the reason why we're looking at the fee and lieu on the for sale side.

Okay, but we're not they're gonna for rentals since we just approved this calculation.

That would like a future project in B2M that wanted to build to 90 feet, would still have access to those same incentives that they could do 8% at 80% AMI and get two extra.

That remains the same, right?

I don't I don't think I understand.

So like that and when you're not considering changing that um option of the incentives for new projects.

And we could have another project that similarly gets two extra stories for 8% at 80% AMI.

In the intro, until we get a new formula for for sale.

Um I'm saying like when you rental projects.

On rental projects, they would be allowed to get two additional stories.

Uh yeah, and that that formula there would be the formula that we use.

Okay, yeah, I guess I so you said like it it doesn't feel commensurate, but we're gonna continue with the those were for sale.

The Bozeman Yards was for sale.

The Bozeman Yards and the Northern of both rentals.

So Bozeman Yards has a for sale building that is for sale for well.

That's correct.

That's correct.

You're right.

I'm I I apologize.

You're right, I'm wrong on that.

Um that one again, this is the I think uh that highlights the issue is that it did not feel commensurate with uh the level of incentive that they were able to to receive.

And so in the interim until we get the uh refined formula, yes.

The short answer to your question is yes.

Oh, okay.

So you are thinking about refining the formula for the rental cash and low as well, or I thought I guess from the my understanding of it, you're only developing a a new formula for the for sale cash loom, but the rental cash loans sent.

The Bozeman Yards project being for sale, they would be subject to the for sale formula.

Right.

The Bozeman Yards project is they did uh a for sale project and have one rental unit, that wouldn't be allowed under the refined formula.

Okay, I'm not I'm not sure if I'm following.

So for the Bozeman Yards, for example, they are doing 120% AMI for sale, two condos, I think.

That was in exchange for TIFF, so that's not even related to the affordable housing ordinance.

I'm not yeah, I'm not familiar with that.

Um the TIFF side?

Yeah, that's right.

So let's not confuse the affordable housing ordinance, which is what we're talking about tonight.

Yeah, and our use of urban renewal for the purposes of providing dollars for public infrastructure to support development in those districts.

They're two totally separate issues.

So I'm not even sure I understood the question that's you, so maybe you can repeat it.

So yeah, I'm not talking about that project, the for sale project.

I'm talking just talking about the the for rent project of part of the Bozeman yards, which I believe is 26 rental units, and one of them is gonna be affordable at 60% AMI.

But that that building that's for rent, the other buildings for sale, but the for rent building got two additional stories for one affordable rental and paid .3 cash and blue for.

So do the incentives change and the amount of apartments change dependent on project?

Yes.

So depending on the project, we can have one rental could be affordable, could be three.

And so is that is that kind of the question that you were kind of getting at?

So I guess my question was when you look when you gave us the two projects that have paid cash and low for the rental, the northern and the Bozeman Yards.

Um the Northern in particular, it seems like they added two additional stories.

Each story has 15 units, and we're only getting 8% affordable units.

So like to me, the incentives seem off, I guess, not so much the cash and low payment, but the incentives of getting two additional stories for how much affordable units we're getting.

But that's not on the table of changing is my question.

Mind if I take that?

No, please.

That's correct.

What you just said is accurate.

That's not on the table for changing.

Those projects have already been awarded, and and what we're talking about now is future.

Future projects.

Is it in the future?

For the changes that we're talking about that we're proposing.

Right.

We're months out, many months out from the ordinance being updated.

So nothing changes until the commission updates the ordinance with a with a provisional, final, and then of course 30-day effective date.

So nothing will change in terms of how we are managing the program until the ordinance is in effect.

Does that answer your question?

Yeah, I guess my quest my question is more like um it sounded like there was some agreement that the amount of incentives that particular project got for the amount of affordability we got seemed a little bit out of balance.

So my I guess my question is is there any um apt either with the commission or with this consultant to change those incentives?

Because I think that's a key part that seems off.

We're looking at the incentives uh as a part of this process.

And if if changes are made to the incentives, that they won't be in effect until the ordinance is is in effect.

Which would be however long it takes to get there.

Um so yes, and I believe we talked about that in the I thought I talked about that in the memo briefly, but how we were trying to, since parking is going away as an incentive, we're looking at other incentives.

We started asking questions about landscaping.

Could that be an incentive?

Maybe not.

It might not be a it might not, there might not be enough juice uh that make it worth the squeeze.

There may be some other parts of our code that might be uh appropriate for that.

So we're gonna be going through that process with the legal department when we um in the next phase.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I guess my la my question relates to that.

Uh how do we know if we are under collecting?

Under under collecting or overcollecting.

Is there a period of calibration?

So typically, you know, policies and ordinance gets updated once a year, or you know, the market just changes so often.

It is really hard to just kind of keep it balanced.

So, what is your plan for achieving uh some of the the um the the balance that we're seeking because as you can tell in this example, it feels a little like we are under collecting in this case.

So uh what what is your plan there?

The the plan is that this can't be a static formula.

We'll have to we'll have to regularly look at it, uh revisit it, see that it's helping us accomplish our affordable housing goals, and if it's not, we're gonna have to come back and tweak it.

Uh the market is too dynamic uh here um to to have a static formula.

Uh we know that the the market is uh particularly over the last eight to twelve months.

It's just it's too um it moves too much to say this moment in time in 2026, this formula is gonna work in perpetuity.

That that would be naive to think that.

And we've already made one change like you're describing, right?

The AMI.

We change the AMI in the ordinance because the real numbers under the AMI percentages are changing all the time, as you as you know.

Um and so in order to keep up with that, when you're in a an uh uh system that takes all this process in order to get to a change.

So much stuff has occurred during that time period that we're in the process.

You know, you wonder if the change we're about to make.

We're already not too late.

Um but that's that's the nature of this of this policy setting, right?

Conditions on the ch market conditions on the ground change every day.

Yeah, literally every day.

We it takes us you know six months to change an ordinance to reflect that.

And then you wonder when you get there if it's not changed again.

That's just there I don't I'm not aware of a way to better time that.

Yeah.

If you have any advice, I'd love to hear it.

Thank you.

Yep.

Okay.

Any other questions or should we move on?

Yes.

Oh, you're good.

Okay.

Do we do we have any questions about aligning and creating a uh Litech track?

Um I can I can speak a little bit more about that.

Uh for example.

Um the city requires a um a covenant from uh a city covenant on affordable housing projects that it um when people go over income, for example, uh, that the city of Bozeman ends the lease when a person goes a certain percentage above the the income caps on on these units.

We don't want to be in the business of forcing people out of stable units, but and on the LITEC side, they have what's called the next available unit rules, so that if a person's income goes above, it just means that the next person coming in has to be a certain percentage below that income so that it kind of levels out a broadly across all of the units in a project, it levels them out, and so that a person who's you know done better for themselves, you know, got that promotion, worked hard, uh we're not penalizing them for improving their life circumstances, and we don't want to be in that position of saying uh you you've done well for yourself and you now you have to leave this uh apartment.

And so we feel like the LITEC guidelines are in place to kind of address that, and the city guidelines are uh not in alignment with uh with that LITEC guideline.

And so that's sort of the the one of the reasons why we're looking at creating a lie tech specific track.

Do you have a question?

So it sounds like LITEC is generally um in many ways sort of a level stricter than many of the city requirements that we have around different affordable marks.

Is that about right?

I would I don't know that I would say um more strict or less strict.

I would say LITEC has been around for a long time and they are they're they're well defined and um well understood and developers know how to align their project with those guidelines.

And we have received um word from the Montana Board of Housing that they don't really love the notion of municipalities stacking additional requirements on top of the LITEC requirements.

And so it makes sense for us to create a LITEC-specific track because uh right now Litech is by far the most elegant way we have at the city level to create below market rentals.

Yeah, and it seems like a very elegant way to sort of take advantage of some of their best practice.

Exactly processes that they've refined.

Those processes are are um they're they've been in place for a long time and and they they work well and we know they work because you can see the success of Litech projects across the Western United States.

Are there any areas where there are discrepancies between what Bozeman requires and what Litech requires that are gonna be a bit more complicated or where there might be some trade-offs involved in the I wouldn't say trade-offs, um I would say that uh briefly, no.

Uh not I wouldn't, that's not how I would define it.

I would say that the some of the requirements at the city level are great for projects that don't have those uh li tech requirements.

It is great for keeping you know below market uh uh units that come in that aren't Litech.

It it it is very gr good at keeping those projects affordable, ensuring their affordability into the future.

It just is redundant to have city guidelines for non-Litech projects lap overlapping with Litech projects that are already in line with federal guidelines.

Make sense.

Just because I'm curious, um, do we know how many Litech projects we have in the pipeline?

There's 1,100 units in the pipeline.

Um 4% Litech tax credit projects because of the increase uh in the AMI over the last few years here in Bozeman, um, those have started to make sense and and pencil for LITEC developers.

And so the bulk of 4% Litech projects in the state of Montana are actually happening in Bozeman.

Do we have a percentage?

I don't have that percentage, but I can get it for you.

Later.

I'm just I was just curious.

They there they are really um they just make sense right now for developers and in terms of uh a community with a lack of below market rentals, we want to welcome those units because that it that helps us with the inventory side of the issue.

Thank you.

Um I have two.

My LightTech knowledge is a little bit those limits to it, so um correct me if I'm in off base here.

Um do Litech projects have to be 1% affordable or do they just tend to be?

Because I think those is those some possibility that could be like 60-40 where it's 40 percent.

Yeah, so not all of them are 100 percent.

Most of the 4% tax credit projects that we've had come in are 100%, but that is not required.

They are that they have uh mixed income uh uh options as well.

Okay.

So do you see any complications if there are some projects that don't quite meet that 50% threshold or something that some of the incentives are tied to?

No, I I I feel like those those Litech guidelines help navigate that.

And I also feel like that's where the city ordinance is is uh helpful in in ensuring that you know if 50 percent of the units in the Litech project are gonna be affordable, well that those guidelines are in place to ensure that those remain affordable uh for the lifeline of or the lifetime of the Litech project.

But yet to answer your question briefly, they are allowed, there are is an option where they can do mixed income.

And they do income averaging as well.

So allowing up to 80 percent AMI, but averaging that out with folks at the 30 percent AMI level.

Okay.

Um so you when you make this light tech track, you'll probably put in some language about it's typical for the different options of and then the other question is my understanding is that federal requirements for Litech is only for 20 years, while the Montana has 50 years, is that correct?

Um so anecdotally, do you know if most projects, like is there pretty good enforcement from the state of Montana to keep the 50 years of affordability for Litech projects?

I would have to, you know, I I don't want to answer that question uh and shoot from the hip.

I'll have to I can get that answer to you offline.

I I can um yeah, I don't want to answer that question just shooting from the hip.

Okay, sure.

Yeah, that would be my only concern is that if we do at Bozeman expect things to be 50 years, that if if it's typically for the state as well.

Okay.

Yep.

And and we want, you know, uh the period of affordability to be uh, you know, as long as possible because the more durable we can make those affordability requirements, the better.

Um it benefits our community.

So I think we're giving them so uh type B incentives as I stated in October type B incentives are are gonna be kind of run uh neutralized uh because of the state law.

Um as I mentioned earlier, Litech projects uh in particular have taken advantage of the parking incentives.

Uh that is not gonna be a lever that we have anymore.

And so we are in conversations about alternatives and what would be a highest leverage replacement for those um highly utilized parking incentives.

So do you have an idea of what cash value these parking incentives are worth?

Um I think you could get a ballpark estimate of it from land prices.

You know, if you know how much a square foot of land is worth and how many spaces you're saving some.

That's that's the math.

I wouldn't have that number right off the top of my head.

I apologize for that, but you know, they are probably the most heavily utilized incentives, so they clearly have a lot of value for developers.

Yeah, land isn't cheap people right now.

It is the tail that wags the dog.

Yep.

Kelsey, my last I had heard is about 20,000 per surface lot and about 30, it can be as high as 40,000 per space on a constructed garage space.

So it's it's quite a variation depending on how you build a space.

But in any event, it costs money, it doesn't make money.

Um so yeah, off of that, do you have any ideas for what um incentives might be able to get into that magnitude?

So uh some of the options that I've seen in other communities um expedited review because with the developer time is money.

And so if we could expedite the review on low income or affordable places, um that would be a pretty valuable lever to pull.

Um I've seen other communities use a sort of cap and trade model where um market rate units um pay to uh subsidize some of the lower uh lower income units.

That is the King County uh uh option.

I'm still sorting out precisely what that would look like at our level.

Uh there are also um, you know, I mentioned that we did talk with about kind of reducing some of those landscaping requirements.

Um I will I can tell you we we kicked the tires on those options, and really none of them were going uh to A, they weren't going to create the sort of level of monetary uh incentive uh that would really um uh overusing the term here, but incentivize a uh developer to take advantage of it.

And B, it would it would be too much of a trade-off in terms of our sustainability uh and uh our goals in terms of you know maintaining a green community.

So those trade-offs, none of those uh at the landscaping level were enough for us to kind of pursue them any further.

There just wasn't to to borrow uh Britt's term.

There that juice wasn't worth the squeeze.

So those are just a few of the examples of things that we're looking at.

Um, but we're really hoping that uh we can find something that will you know equal the value of of those parking spaces.

So that was a pretty highly uh uh high leverage uh incentive, and so finding a replacement that equals that value, it's gonna it's gonna take some digging.

Yeah, it strikes me that if um we can't find something with a decent amount of juice to replace the um instead that bracket, we might need to make that a little cheaper as far as how much housing someone is required to do to get into that if we can't offer them as big of a prize for making it into that bracket.

Yep.

That is uh absolutely valid uh uh approach to this, and that's something that we've discussed as well.

Did you have a question, please?

This is just because I don't know enough about our zoning.

Um in the report that um we were provided earlier.

Uh you talked about new zoning that had been rolled out.

Um do you know much about it?

Um so the report said, you know, we expect our um so to reach some balance between uh apparently a lot of permits are getting expired, and our developers are just not going through the motions and the math isn't really penciling out.

Um but they were hoping to achieve some balance in the six to twelve months because of the new zoning that got was adopted for the CEO Boseman.

So I wanted to find out what is that zoning that was adopted.

And this is based on the report that was provided uh in our in our material.

And um I have seen other cities do is um, you know, lot size requirements, reducing some of those, mixed use, you know, some some of those incentives and the the streamlined review that you were talking about typically makes it a lot easier because there's a lot of red tape.

Yep uh in many cases when it comes to approval.

So um just wanted to hear from everyone in reference to the zoning and what you want me to try to get.

Um so are you referring to the the multifamily outlook that I sent?

Okay.

I don't know where that statement is in here, but um but zoning um is I don't think zoning works like that.

I think they're talking I think that they're referring to is the UDC unified development code and the updates that were provided and recently adopted by the by the city commission.

Um because zoning is not a zone zoning is not tackled to c like there's just you don't just change zoning.

I think you you you have an application for zoning change, like there's a process, a long one, um that's required for for making uh uh finding and the commission has to make findings.

It's uh it's a um quasi judicial type of arrangement.

So I just I don't think that reference to zoning, if it's if that's what they said is is accurate.

I think what they meant was the unified development code, which is our development code, like the the bulk of it.

Okay.

That's my suspicion.

Are there any limits on density currently?

Zoning limits the density.

Yeah.

Are there any plans on changing the zoning?

Well, so when you say the zoning, there are different zones all over the city.

And so which zoning are you referring to?

Are you referring to to allow for more density or higher um um density in specific?

So like I'm gonna give you an example for like Boulder.

They have uh density requirement where nothing can be built any longer aside from what currently exists, and there is really no zoning, rezoning um being done in specific parts.

So um our I don't know enough about what currently exists here to kind of understand what our current um thresholds are.

And and this was just my my own inability to just kind of understand what currently is happening.

It's a great foundational question.

And I'm and I certainly I wish I could be more explanatory to you tonight.

Umified development code uh and the densities that are associated with our land use planning map dictate the zoning levels.

Perhaps perhaps our commissioner leads all like to chime in on that.

Sure, I can I you know um so we you know the city commission just went through a big long process to kind of update its its the zones and the code um uh guiding how we develop and and all of that um defines kind of what sort of density we have in the bill, you know, what sort of how many units, how many houses you can build per acre and so forth.

And there are both minimums and maximums in that code.

And um I just I can't speak for the commission, but I don't sense that there's any appetite to kind of go back in and look at that anytime soon.

We want to let the let this the that kind of new code get work its way through and see how it see how developers work with it, see how the city works with it, see what it you know how it kind of works um and and come kind of literally comes out of the ground.

I think the next big discussion we're going to have again, the understanding that I can't speak for the full commission, but I think you know, my my understanding talking with fellow commissioners is the next big discussion we're gonna have is we need to update our growth policy, our growth plan.

Um that's a kind of a community development plan.

Um we have you know that that is due in in believe it or not, five years.

And so we'll start that discussion, and then that's a multi-year discussion also to have kind of what the what what does our community look like?

Um, you know, how do we want to grow?

And so that discussion would probably start in two years while we give the current code a chance to kind of settle, mature and see how it goes.

Is that into your question?

Yeah, you totally des I just thank you.

Thank you for the explanation.

Sure.

All right, let's go ahead and move on.

Okay, wait, one second, we had one question.

Question.

Um I guess just general question.

Do what is the city thinking about doing about parking generally, given that this doesn't only apply to affordable housing.

It also any new apartment comp complex that has units less than 121 square feet also wouldn't have to provide parking.

So how does the city I don't know if you this is the best question for you or anyone else?

Um what what do you think the city will approach parking in general?

That one is out of my purview.

Um Deputy Mayor for sure if you care to chime in.

Yeah.

I have absolutely.

I think that's gonna be one of those things where it's it's kind of driven by the state in some ways, and we're we're gonna have to react to that.

Um, there's just limits on what we can do.

You know, the state has made very clear there's limits on what we can do.

Yeah.

And so um I I don't, but I also I haven't heard like, okay, we're gonna um dive deep into parking over the next six months.

I just haven't heard that kind of um desire either from fellow commissioners or even from you know, for kind of from staff.

So you know, our code does have our we we wrote that new UDC with understanding that these changes were coming down the hike, and so I think that's again, it's kind of part of that.

We're gonna see how it how it works and what our limits are, what our where our limits are and what our opportunities are.

And and you know, that will probably be part of our discussion sometime in maybe in July when we look at what's going on, you know, or or maybe in August when we look at what's what you know how that you the UDC that we passed last year is is kind of working as we roll it out.

I will add uh in terms of the affordable housing ordinance, uming that you know the legislature can uh shift, we are going to keep those uh type B incentives in the ordinance in case at the state level uh that directive changes.

So they'll they'll just they'll still be in the affordable housing ordinance, just probably not utilized.

Um, but we are not going to pull them out of the affordable housing ordinance, knowing that uh legislative whims can uh change and they might become uh valuable once again.

We're not sure on that.

So we are going to keep that in place.

All right, thank you.

All right.

Moving on to the predictable ordinance update process.

Britt really drove this, but uh we can uh answer any questions you have on that too.

I'll just uh if you don't mind, Brian, I'll just add one comment, which is it goes to your to your earlier question, Daisy, about how do we know when this is to be updated?

And so I'm I I made reference earlier to um HUD's changing its to the to the numbers underlying the AMIs changing.

So we we had to make a change then.

Um so we're just trying to come up with is there is it when HUD makes its yearly HUD data update?

Is it uh some other trigger point that we should you know be aware of so that we are more regularly coming, you know, with these updates?

And and that's what this is intended to to determine is like what what is that update process?

What should we be what should we be looking at to update it?

Um the AMI numbers is one thing that comes to mind.

Um but market conditions change quickly, and um you know, our ability to respond to those market conditions uh is not as quick as they change.

And so this is the goal of this is to is to better is to try to get a little bit quicker at that if possible.

Okay.

Any questions or comments or feedback on number five.

Okay, let's move on.

Was that it?

That's it.

That's it.

All right.

Yeah.

Um, there's anything like I I would like to leave you with.

It's you know, this formula design, it really matters.

Um the rental cash and loo fee needs to be set high enough that building is the economically rational choice.

Whereas on the ownership side, um, cash and loo fee needs to be set at a level that genuinely funds a replacement unit through a better delivery mechanism.

And that's kind of what we're trying to find with our work with the consultant.

That's kind of the thoughts I'll leave you with.

So thank you guys for uh for taking our for giving me time to uh explain these updates and put if you have any other questions or anything, I'm always available.

So thank you so much for coming in.

We really appreciate it.

Absolutely.

Look forward to seeing more of it when you get that backpassed with the community board, and then when do you think that we'll see you again?

Boy, uh that is uh TBD.

Well, we'll see you when we see all right it'll it'll likely be this summer.

Um and and it's on this is this is who we have to appear before.

So we will be back before you with a much more uh whole ordinance with the with the ex actual proposed changes based on all these conversations, and then you guys will get another chance to have input, provide feedback.

So we're just getting started, and you guys are our first stop.

Well, we'll have a lot to work on this summer then.

We'll look forward to that.

Thank you so much.

Uh even though this isn't a motion item, I am going to ask for public comment.

And as a reminder, I do ask that you state your name.

Please state if you're a resident of the city and also state if you're a property owner.

And please limit your comment to three minutes and state your name.

Do we have any public comments?

Uh no one online is requesting to comment.

All right, thank you.

Do we have any uh FYI, any more FYI?

Anything that we need to be aware of that's coming up that would be good for us to know.

Uh nothing from me directly.

Well, I guess I'll I shouldn't say nothing.

I'll I'll let the board know that um I spoke with Takami in preparation for this meeting a couple weeks ago, and while there was nothing um on the belonging embowseman that she was ready to bring this month, and she did say that there will be some belonging and Bozeman uh topics coming before you in the next month or two.

Wow.

Yeah, that's exciting.

So that's my only FYI.

She just started.

So in the next month or two, we'll delve into that.

So we will be really busy.

All right, then I guess we do you have anything first?

I just just nothing totally relevant to the economic vitality board, but um just two items on a city commission agenda in April that are coming up.

So April 14th, we're going to have a work session on transportation and public safety, you know, pedestrian and and traffic safety.

Um it's it was kind of spurred by the the tragedy uh and the tragic death and the accident out on um on Oak Street, but we'll be looking citywide uh at ways we can uh you know what we how we want to approach pedestrian safety.

Um and then uh the last the April 28th, we'll we'll we'll be looking in a little with a little more depth at our uh commission priorities in terms of how we how we put them into play, what what trains are gonna leave the station first.

And so there, you know, um the of this affordable housing ordinance is uh one of those commission priorities.

Um I'm really glad to see it's it's here and and essentially that train has already left the station, which is great.

So we'll we'll get a better sense of kind of what that work plan looks like.

And I just want to say I'm really glad to have staff give this board this early look at the affordable housing ordinance.

I'm glad to have you guys informed and asking questions on it.

So thank you.

Chair, I apologize.

I forgot one FYI I thought you would be interested in.

So on April the 21st, the city commission is going to be receiving a special presentation on an economic impact analysis of the Yellowstone Fiber Network.

The reason I think this board would be interested is because um well, because the city of Bowden started that project almost 15 years ago.

Um it's no longer involved, but um, but it was it was instrumental in getting it going.

I think that's important to tell the community.

Um but secondly, I think you will be pleasantly surprised by the uh the um the report findings, which is in a pretty enormous impact to our community, both in terms of jobs and just spend on the construction of the network and the value that it's bringing as an open access fiber optic network to our community.

So uh tune in if you'd like to hear what that looks like.

Um I won't I'm not gonna spoil the surprise by sending the report out too early, but as soon as the commission gets the report, I'll send it out to this board as well.

Great.

So you'll email us with more information about that and how we can participate.

Great.

Yes, I will.

All right, thank you so much.

Well, since we have nothing else, I'm gonna go ahead and call this meeting to adjournment then.

Meeting is adjourned.

We'll see you next month.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Thanks, everyone.