Good afternoon.

I think we've hit afternoon.

It's noon now.

Welcome.

Um okay, thank you for joining us.

Before we start the meeting, I'm gonna follow my new script.

So um I'd like to remind folks of a couple of things to make it easier for you to follow along and make public comment.

You can watch us in real time in several different ways.

Attend in person here in the city commission room, stream us live on your computer by going to meetings video page at Bozeman.

You can watch the meeting on Cable TV channel one ninety.

You can also join us via video conference.

You'll find the link to join us by clicking on the calendar event in the meeting of Bozeman's main webpage to find the city commission agenda, click the link to register and follow the prompts and enter the meeting.

Lastly, you can call in to listen.

You can find the phone number on the video conference and access code and agenda.

Please note that this is for listening only, and you will be unable to give verbal public comment using this method of participation.

If you are joining us through video or having connectivity issues, try exiting out of the meeting and coming back in.

If you continue to have issues, please remember you can also listen via the phone information streaming live on the website or cable on channel one ninety.

Moving on, do we have any changes to the agenda?

No.

Uh greetings, everyone.

Uh Mark Campanelli.

I live in Bogart Park neighborhood.

Um I wanted to discuss the uh Bozeman Creek Vision Plan, which is the engagements just getting underway.

My phone is already bothering me, sorry.

Um so a main component of the Bozeman Creek Vision Plan is an infrastructure component.

Um there is public benefit, about 35 to 80 million in project costs is estimated for hundreds and millions in flood protection infrastructure.

Uh so that's your like benefit to cost ratio, uh, which is a range calculated as a 50-year net present value, I think at like 4.

something percent uh compared to the do nothing alternative.

Uh there's blight, the creek should see the light and stay clean, so us common folk can enjoy it.

And there's also but four.

Oh heavens, where will the money come from?

So considering these three criteria, where could the money come from for this infrastructure?

TIFF!

Right, those three are the what you need for a TIFF.

Okay, cool.

So alternate approach.

So you want 250K to your go to your fancy new building near the creek, then we match 250k from the increment to bond a creek improvement in the district, which would also help your fancy new building not flood.

Right?

Win-win for the public and for the person.

So now I realize this approach may not boost a developer's profit margin or generate lavish real estate agent fees like the TIFF supported Bozeman Yards luxury development does, but to that I say.

So please consider other uses of TIFF everyday people and our like community as a whole really does need it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other public comments?

Um public comment online?

We have no online participants yet.

Great.

Um we discuss that or do we move on to the agenda?

Great.

Okay, moving on to the agenda items.

So the first action item we have is the Northeast Urban Renewal District.

And do we turn it over to staff for you?

Your turn.

Uh thank you, Chair, members of the board.

Just for the record, I'm David Fine.

I'm an economic development manager and the staff liaison for the urban renewal program.

Um just since some of us are new to city boards, I just wanted to suggest a format for our review and discussion of the work plans and budgets today.

Uh first staff will provide an overview of the budgets.

We'll just kind of go through each budget line by line.

Uh the board can do questions to staff, then the board can take public comment.

Uh to keep things organized and helpful for our uh for Jesse.

Um it'd be great to have a main motion.

And it's a motion to approve.

So even if you even if you plan to vote against the motion, it's good to have that motion on the floor.

That a motion to approve.

Um and then any edits you want to make to the work plans and budgets, you know, additions, subtractions, those are sub-motions.

Each one will get discussed and voted on, and then at the end you return to the main motion on the on the work plan and budget.

Does that make sense?

All right.

So we'll just jump uh we'll jump straight in to the Northeast Urban Renewal Board.

Um we'll come back to that.

Um so the Northeast Urban Renewal Board was created in 2005, its official base year is 2006.

Um one of the points I would like to make about just this process um for this board is this board is coming in, you know.

Over um almost 20 years in into the process of having these districts, right?

So like past commissions, past advisory boards have set a number of projects in motion.

Um of these projects have actually been voted on by the city commission in the past.

So anything that you're seeing as a development agreement is a contract we have with a developer to pay them in the future.

So uh a way I would think about how you approach this is those obligations are not optional for us at this point, right?

So when you're thinking about the budget, you are you are appropriating funds to make it obligated to to meet an existing obligation.

Many other projects in the budget are things that are optional.

Now we may have may have gone um, we may have spent money, for example, on a quiet zone project where we've spent over six figures in engineering costs and six years of my time on and off working with the railroad on that, right?

But we haven't done the project yet, and we could, it is an option for the board.

I'm not suggesting it, just as a hypothetical, you could pull the plug on that at this point.

So there's a number of projects like that in each in each district.

That's I think the places where we the city commission would benefit the most from the advice of a board like this.

You're obviously welcome to ask questions about any part of the budget, get in there under the hood.

You can even talk about existing development agreements, but like that that might be a way for refining and framing your questions and discussion for the day.

Does that make sense?

Okay.

Um so for the for the we um two year four years ago, the city embarked on doing two years ago, the city embarked on doing uh biennial budgeting.

So from the state law perspective, this is a little bit of a square peg and a round hole, but we're gonna make it work.

So we need to adopt an annual work plan and budget.

So this is two years of annual work plan and budget.

We're adopting all at once.

It's as likely as not that next spring we will learn new things and ask the city commission to make some amendments and tweaks.

But for today, we're doing our best job to best to look two years out on a number of things that are uncertain.

Um we are projecting that we will end in um the Northeastern Runville district at the fiscal year with 2.4 million dollars in cash on hand.

So that gives us a healthy beginning balance going into next year.

We're proposing to spend um uh $314,000 in FY27 and $2.5 million in FY28.

So essentially we are continuing to accumulate cash as we spend money, smaller amounts of money uh designing projects, and FY28 is a big year of doing projects in the in the way this works out.

Um just looking through expenditures, salaries, and benefits.

Um that that's related to the actual cost of having staff.

So for the urban renewal programs, the five districts that are managed in the economic development department, there's one and a half FTE designed assigned to all of that currently, right now.

This proposed budget includes a new FTE.

Um for the first time, that would be great because I think there's a lot of things that the public neighbors would like us to work on and that we are just not able to get to at that staffing level.

So that's that's the cost of a um a coordinator, um, an urban renewal coordinator, two urban renewal coordinators and the urban rural manager.

Um, and the and the costs are spread across the different districts based upon their actual annual revenue from last year.

So it's it's proportional.

Um my position is paid proportionally by the downtown, the other positions are only paid uh paid proportionally by the five districts we manage.

So there's a sixth district partially funding me, and that allows me to help on projects downtown like potentially a new parking garage downtown or some of the infrastructure projects like the lighting projects where we provide technical assistance to the downtown.

Um so that's kind of a broad overview of um budget.

So you can see personal costs, quite zone engineering, some money for public bidding that we have to do as as some of these projects come in.

Um bond costs, so we have uh 213,000 in outstanding debt service uh related to uh $92,000 in debt service and 120,000 in a debt reserve uh for this.

So that's an ongoing obligation of the district.

Um personal costs, public bidding, uh bond costs, and then uh right-of-way improvements on church between Cottonwood and Aspen.

So this is kind of the first discretionary project that you get to think about here, and this will be followed by a number of discretionary projects uh for the board.

This is one we have received some public comment on.

So one of our goals, especially with not having district-specific advisory boards was that we did targeted outreach to um neighborhood associations, so midtown neighborhood, northeast neighborhood in this case.

Um we received a list of projects and we started working on them.

So this this is one of them, and it represents our best effort to meet what the neighborhood was trying to ask of us since we couldn't actually deliver on what they wanted within the framework.

So you saw some public comment earlier today about kind of trail and park here on East Juniper Street.

This is East Juniper Street right-of-way, and this is uh North Church Street right of way.

It functions as an alley.

Um I will point out that this entire area is within the current stream course setback.

Um so there's not a lot you can do.

There's almost nothing you can do from a hardscaping perspective in there.

Um so just and then um, you know, there's been a recent infrastructure plan that proposes using this as an alley and and somewhat improving it, it's gravel section as a as a form of access to these three lots, particularly this lot.

Um so at this point, based on existing city policies without particular direction from the city commission to vacate this right-of-way and use it for some other purpose.

Engineering is telling us no, we can't turn the right-of-way into a park.

Um we tried to do that on North Ida for another project earlier, and we got pretty clear directions from the city commission, they didn't want to do that without going through a more formal park designation right-of-way abandonment process.

And so that's that's where we're at based upon the direction we think we've received.

You know, is this something we could spend TIFF money on?

Absolutely, if we could get access to the property for that purpose.

So we like we can always come back to this, but for the moment, we're we're being told no, and so we're not including that particular project in the budget.

Um what we are looking at, and I think this could dovetail nicely with Save Bozeman Creek, is it this is fair, this is fairly open-ended funding from a design perspective.

We aren't sure exactly what the project is.

So part of what we're asking the consultant to do is imagine what happens essentially between here and here on the trail corridor.

Um there's some you know opportunities to improve that from a trail and park perspective.

It's also missing some some adequate infrastructure.

We can do more to you know, highlight the creek, provide access to the creek.

We could even consider approaching private property owners to see if we can get additional easement to provide additional park in this area.

So I think there's there's a lot of things we could do here, but this is kind of a proposed alternative that is about creek access and improving creek access, but it's not exactly what the neighborhood asked us for.

And like we we acknowledge that.

Um but infrastructure deficiency is part of what we're trying to do with the board.

So this section of street doesn't, you know, it doesn't have a full street section, it doesn't have sidewalks, curb, gutter, any of these sorts of things.

Um, and there are some improvements we could do.

So we if if you approved this scope of work, we'd we would actively engage the board with design consultants on options uh before we move forward to actually do anything.

Um and when you look at that $600,000 in FY28, since we don't know exactly what the project is, that's pretty much a placeholder at this point.

Um I will point out for anyone who isn't familiar with city processes, is it's really difficult for me to spend money without it going to city commission.

I mean, I I I can buy pencils or you know, a sound panel for my office without going to city commission, but like we uh any project like this where you're hiring an engineering consultant or you're or you're paying um paying a contractor to go do work goes to city commission.

So what we would be coming back to you, the board and then ultimately the city commission on this project.

Um we can come back to to discuss that as we move through.

Um removing a traffic calming device on on Wallace.

Uh it's it's interesting.

I've been here too long.

Um I I was here when they designed and the TIFF paid for the improvements to Wallace Avenue, curb gutter, total reconstruction, water and sewer lines underneath there.

We paid the local share, uh, so residents of the district could benefit from that instead of paying the SI of paying the SAD share there.

Um and from the from the original meeting, neighborhood residents were saying, please do traffic calming on North Wallace.

And now there's been so much redevelopment that we have what I'd like to call natural traffic calming, which is parked cars on North Wallace.

And we heard pretty clearly from the neighborhood, please take out that island.

It's in the way.

Um so we we talked to public works, and public work is actually just gonna pull it out this summer at no cost to the board, but we're being responsible.

It's already gone.

Great.

They already did it.

We could take it out of the budget, but we did listen to the neighborhood about that.

Um we are looking to purchase the Wallace Avenue easement.

So the existing as we work started working on the quiet zone project, we discovered that there was no easement whatsoever for the Wallace Avenue crossing of the tracks.

So while the while the railroad is in a good mood and is willing to sell us an easement, we're gonna buy one for this as well as what we'd need for the uh quiet zone improvements.

So that's that is what that is.

Interestingly, MDT didn't have one for the state highway either, which they discovered in the during the state highway reconstruction process.

So we did things differently back in the day in the city of Bozeman in the state of Montana.

Um of the other things we heard from the neighborhood is that they would like to have a um tree program.

So they just wanted us to look for places to put more trees.

Um we are looking for um consuming consulting services to advise us on specifications, but also this this product actually requires quite a bit of like hard survey work because there's all over the Northeast neighborhoods there are buried gas lines, overhead power lines, like a number of other things.

So it's not it's it's a little more involved than just planting trees where you can.

So we're we'll do kind of a district-wide survey and look for opportunities to plant trees and and potentially near some existing businesses where the boulevards are just getting destroyed by all the foot track of it, potentially like do some tree grades at Harscape and ways to make it have more trees and and make it work better for everyone.

Um moving into FY28, you've got a lot of the same things, but now you have quiet zone construction.

Um that's our best estimate at this point.

We're still working with BNSF on final bids, so we're we're trying to have enough dry powder to actually get the project done.

I hope it's less, but broad stuff is expensive.

Um kind of my understatement of the year.

Um this would be where we would actually spend money on the right-of-way improvements to church, the whatever we come up with.

It could be much smaller than that, depending upon what we actually come up with there.

Um actually planting trees.

Again, this is a placeholder number.

We're not sure exactly how many trees and how many places, but but I will I will point out that when you do things like tree grates, the cost goes up significantly.

Like those tree gates are three to four thousand dollars each.

Um so wherever you see tree rates, they're expensive.

Um and they often involve additional concrete work and and flat work around there.

Um then Bozeman Yards, uh bonding costs.

This is just work we might have, you know, money we might have to pay to underwriters or others, uh, bond council, others when we when we go to issue those bonds.

Um that may not happen until FY29.

So we're just planning for that to happen.

And then we're expecting that uh in FY28, we'll get our first reimbursement for Wallace Works.

So Wallace Works is uh is a development agreement the city commission ended it entered into.

It's a $2 million total obligation, but it's structured as a pay-go agreement.

So it's effectively revenue neutral.

They create new project-generated tax increments.

We agree to give them in this case 100% of that back until they make the $2 million amount that met they're owed.

So we're we're not accounting for the cost of capital, and there's also we've eliminated bonding costs and risk to the city uh by doing this paygo method.

So it's it's pretty much the least costly, most risk-averse way we can do a development agreement.

And so you're seeing this is our estimated first payment um toward towards that two million dollars there, and then other contracted services.

This is this is if you were we've kind of like mashing financial documents a little bit together uh here as our finance department pointed out.

This would be uh more like the balance sheet.

So these are development agreements we've agreed to that aren't necessarily being paid out at all in the biennium.

So we agreed to pay wildlands uh $580,000 related to public infrastructure, but in exchange, they needed to provide affordable housing in the future clover leaf project they plan to do.

Um since that project isn't moving forward, we don't owe them any money yet, but that is still potentially a future obligation of the district.

Um we also have uh the full development agreement for Wallace Works.

We just talked about that.

Um we have Bozeman Yards.

Um we have Bozeman Yards, we're not expecting to make any payments in um in within the biennium, but in fiscal year 29, we are projecting a $580,000 kind of initial payment related to that.

Um that's a project where we're expecting new revenue from the project is gonna ultimately end up covering the debt service on on the bond issuance um there.

And then put this in here, it's kind of as a placeholder.

We are still re this board directed us to start working on this.

Um we'd have authority to reimburse light conversion USA for a development agreement if we made them a grant, but we haven't gotten there yet.

So we're just a placeholder for later uh effectively.

Um then we had a number just from uh the past or rural advisory board.

Um we had this is a project we were in encouraged to do that we just haven't gotten to right now with with this budget and with viable locations.

So I think with that I I'd take any questions from the board about the biennial budget for the Northeastern Renewal District.

Thank you.

Uh a lot of information went into this.

My question is just general, and you um big picture for all of these things.

Can you just talk about the budget development process, how projects come to you, how they're prioritized, if things are recommended not to be added to the budget, what what happens to them, just about the process in general, so we get an overview of what's happening.

Yeah, absolutely.

So um I I can't remember the year we did um board reorganization, but prior to board reorganization, we had individual advisory boards for the Northeast and Midtown urban renewal districts.

And so those boards, you know, we we would make recommendations just like we're doing a staff to them, they would often make recommendations for things that we should do either during that budget or in the future.

Um and if you're looking at this unscheduled projects list, a lot of those things, there used to be a lot more on it.

We've slowly checked them all off.

Um those were recommendations that came from the board.

Um at a high level with tax increment financing, we've got um a couple, we've got a few goals that we're trying to address, right?

So you create an urban renewal district in response to statutory conditions of blight.

In Montana, that's usually infrastructure deficiency.

So anywhere where you're not meeting existing standards for water, sewer, curb, gut, gutter, sidewalk, um, those are those are things that the Northeast Rural Renewal District was created to correct.

And part of the theory of that is that when you have these infrastructure deficiencies, they are part of the cause of a lack of investment and potentially stagnation and decline of property values.

Um there's been a lot of interest in of investment in the Northeast District over time.

Until recently, there wasn't a lot of actual projects being done.

Um and most of them have received TIFF assistance.

So it used to be that we would try to identify projects and just check them off separately as public infrastructure projects, and they'd be city-led projects with city direction, right?

So it would be like this sewer line over there.

The we reconstructed Tamarack, we reconstructed Peach in this direction, reconstruction North Wallace.

Um we're now at a point in uh in these districts where we are there's enough to do, there's limited enough resources and enough to do that we're trying to collaborate a little bit more with the private sector in terms of prioritizing.

If you have 10 projects you can do, prioritize the one that's going to um facilitate adjacent private investment instead of potentially doing the one that needs to get done but doesn't facilitate meaningful private investment because for in many ways these districts are a delayed gratification strategy for the taxing entities, right?

So if we don't choose projects to encourage development that wouldn't happen but for tax increment financing, then we're redirecting tax revenue and not providing a return to our investors in a lot of ways.

And so um we make a point of talking to property owners and um and potentially uh builders of projects about what they're planning to do and what the infrastructure deficiencies are, and then we'll we'll often um put those in development agreements and they'll end up in here.

Sometimes we will prioritize and do city-led projects based on those conversations, or sometimes our best um efforts as staff to figure out what the projects could be.

But that's that's really what goes into it from our perspective and the sources.

And then we've also been trying to really engage neighborhoods in terms of what they want.

So some of those projects showed up here.

Does that help?

Um so David, correct me if I'm wrong, but this budget, um, if I'm looking at this first spreadsheet, um reflects basically money that we already have or that's been approved or been bonded.

But if we were to say approve another project, a new project that's not in here coming down the pipe, um the revenues from that project would expand this budget, essentially, correct?

Revenues coming in and money going out would be in addition to this.

Is that right?

So that yeah, two ways the revenue of a tax increment district grows.

One is increasing property values, both both created by and new taxable value, either created by new investment or sometimes new, you know, if there is a new investment and improves the neighborhood, the things around it also become more valuable.

So that's that's part of what happens here.

Um TIF revenues can go down, right?

So when people um tear down buildings, that can cause things to go down temporarily or longer term, depending upon how landly stay down, like the Kmart building in Midtown.

That's an example.

Um revenues can also decrease based upon based on things outside our control, like changes to state tax policy.

That helps.

Um, but like let's say a new project came in and they needed five million in or requesting five million in TIFF in TIFF funds.

Um how would how would that be reflected in this?

Essentially it would be that we we if we didn't have the cash, we obviously couldn't do it.

But based on future revenues coming in from that tax increase, the increased value of that property, that would essentially expand all these numbers by that amount or whatever whatever we'd estimate those future revenues from the tax base coming in would be.

Is that really an example of an example of the the but is the Bozeman Yards project, where um we're expecting them to significantly increase the tax base of the district, um which increases our ability to pay debt service on bonds.

So I like I I think from a term in terms of like getting the best return out of TIFF for the taxpaying entities, this is like this is probably the the most beneficial and most aggressive approach.

Not the Bozeman Yards project, but you know, you get a sizable uh you get a development that wouldn't happen but for TIF, right?

You fix up the infrastructure that was found to be blighted in the original um creation of the district, right?

And you do that with private money.

And then once the new value is created, you reimburse the developer.

So in terms of but four and and getting a big boost to the tax base, that's a pretty efficient way to do it.

That makes sense.

Okay.

And then um We we do write those development agreements, though.

So like if we don't have the revenue, we don't have to pay the whole amount, right?

Like sometimes we we end up issuing a smaller amount of debt because it wasn't as taxable as we all thought it was.

So like the developer still is taking risk with these development agreements.

We we try to put the risk on them where we can.

Okay, and then one last uh on a separate um topic.

Um and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the only things we've gone over thus far that are where we would actually be approving future making uh a decision that could reflect the future versus paying our past obligations that the commission or development agreement have already uh obligated themselves to pay or the city to pay.

The only ones are are the quiet zone um church and cottonwood, uh the Park Creek and uh there's one more.

I guess the the light um light district or light conversion, excuse me, is just a placeholder.

Yep.

So those are really the only ones that were kind of can influence in any really other than saying, hey, we're gonna pay our bills.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

I mean, you you can you can certainly provide advisory comment to the City Commission on any part of this budget, but if you're thinking about like where you can you are most likely to be able to nudge things, like I think the the project level is probably the most beneficial spot to think.

David, I got a question and a comment.

Um on the question, is there are we constrained at all about percentage of the TIFF that you can use for staffing like you are with some of the other federal programs like CDBG or something?

No, but uh among the big seven, we're one of the most um lightly staffed TIFF district in the state at this point.

Okay.

Cool.

Our staff costs a little more because it's Bozeman, but um you have to pay people who live here, but but it on an FTE basis, we're we're pretty light.

Cool.

And then um the comment on the church in uh um Cottonwood.

There's a whole bunch of structures in the right-of-way.

Is there any way, since we're contemplating this that we could send code enforcement out there to start letting people know that they're in the right-of-way?

You're you're talking about where?

Um right-of-way and in the Aspen right-of-way.

Yes.

And I know I know we just did that on the alley.

Yeah.

Uh north of Tamarak because of the improvements that need to happen.

So I yes.

I'm just uh it's always good to have that, you know, so when people do are surprised, you can say, hey, we let you know a year ago or whatever.

Um especially going into the summer, some of that stuff is probably easier to move than right now.

That's all I had.

Thank you.

I have a question about if we're looking at the Wallace project versus the yards project, the Wallace project, it calls out that it's a pay-go.

Is the yards project also pago, or was that structured differently?

It's it it that's structured as we would issue bonds.

Um just just to kind of a quick and dirty way to think about this.

The Wallace Works projects is a rental project.

So PAGO works well for them because they're looking at their annual net operating income.

That's like a for the particular metric they're most likely looking at um financing.

With Bozeman Yards, it's uh it's primarily a condo project, right?

And so they're not looking at net operating income.

They're looking at you know, paying off their investors and passing the ownership to to new owners, yes.

Um so that's that's why the difference is structure.

Like we I prefer pay go when we can get it, but we can't always get it.

And and just for this board's knowledge, I mean we spent over a year going back and forth with Baker Tilly negotiating that agreement.

I think they initially asked for six million and we got them down to like only the public infrastructure.

So that's they're building public streets, water, sewer, sidewalk, uh street trees, those kinds of things around the property.

We're not really reimbursing them for anything in the that the public can't end up using.

Um demolition, I think.

We're we're we're reimbursing them for demolition because we're not paying for some other costs related to the infrastructure, but it was kind of a a wash um dollar for dollar.

Um could you focus the map on the intersection between the pole yard and the northeast urban renewal?

Like on Wallace Street.

Do you have the TIFF boundary?

Wait, sorry, pole yard and Wallace meets the pole yard.

Yep.

Is that the intersection right there?

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

Um regarding like the easement work and everything regarding Wallace cross there, is that shared between the two districts?

Yes.

Okay.

Excellent.

And the quiet zone.

Yeah.

So so really like, yeah, that the way the way this is working out is like you're allowed to to bring infrastructure from outside the district and into inside a district.

So Northeast has this crossing and pull yard has this crossing.

Okay.

And those are two of the three.

The third one was done.

The third one we we were able to hustle and add that mid-project to the Griffin uh reconstruction.

So that the we there's no quiet zone at Griffin, but the safety improvements are there for when all three are done and we can go through the Federal Railroad Administration quiet zone establishment process.

All right.

Thank you, David.

Okay.

Any more questions for staff?

I have one if I could.

Regarding the two-year budget process, um, obviously these costs are backloaded to fiscal twenty-eight.

If something happens that we couldn't make, is there another chance to review this budget at a later point in time when it gets closer?

How does that two-year budget process work with something like this?

You know, I I think the short answer is that depends upon the city commission's appetite for budget amendments.

Um but if we we feel like we need to pursue a budget amendment, we'll definitely recommend they take one up.

And David, can I just ask a question about um there was a public comment asking about the maintenance um and upgrades for the climbing boulder?

Is that is it too early for you guys to be talking about the infrastructure agreement with Bozeman Yards?

Is did that definitely make it in there or so we the original proposal for Bozeman yards involved um utilizing the North Ida right-of-way for an expanded park.

Um we heard from the neighborhood they did not want that.

Um and I think as a result, the park no longer became an investment related to the project.

Okay.

So they're they're doing the street, and I don't think they're other than curb and gutter around the park, I don't think they're touching the park.

This board can touch the park.

We like this board could choose to do a city project at the park.

Um and then I just have one more question about the public comment concerning.

Um I I almost wonder if wires are getting crossed talking about where the green space improvement along the creek.

Um I think the public comment was talking about the small section that runs north-south.

Yeah, between Juniper and Tamarack, not necessarily abandoning Juniper.

Is that uh well I I mean I think we looked at both end, but in this case Transportation Engineering is telling us that it's needed to serve uh an improved alley function for transportation purposes.

So it's it I mean.

Maybe we maybe we could throw a bench somewhere, but like it's it's not gonna be a fully developed park facility at this point.

Okay, the north-south between Juniper and Tamrak, not actual Juniper.

Okay.

Thanks.

Um, if there's no more questions for staff, this is the time for public comment.

Does anyone have public comment?

Yeah, I uh I'm Jason Delmu.

Um I'm on the community development board, but I'm just speaking as a Northeast neighborhood uh resident who's very involved with um the kind of the core group there that um does all of our sort of programming.

Um I'm thinking that a request uh I'm thinking to request a motion to table the nerd budget until your next meeting.

Uh but maybe Mr.

Fine is saying that these budgets don't actually set any projects in stone because the city commission ultimately needs to approve any projects anyway.

So perhaps Mr.

Fine can answer that question.

Um Nina does have a great relationship with city staff and specifically the uh economic development staff.

Um, but the main NINA participants need to continue and complete the dialogue with the city about uh this North Church Avenue project, both what is listed and what is not.

Um after the railroad quiet crossing, this is the biggest non-TIF project listed.

Uh so the listed project is right-of-way improvements listed for North Church between Codwood and Aspen.

So this is this parklet along the creek there.

But seeing the $580,000 amount seems like it's more of a developed park or park with than probably what I think the Nina residents would think is appropriate or desired for this stretch of the creek.

And then the unlisted project, it was uh requested very minor project in the North Church Avenue right away, north of Tamarack, east of the creek, heading north towards Juniper.

So we need to understand better what the city is thinking about this request.

Um it seems like a misunderstanding.

I think what we'd be envisioning is more like a clearing in the woods along the creek, not really a park.

Maybe it would have some primitive log benches.

Maybe the west bank of the creek uh as part of the C.

Bozeman Creek project or initiative would be modified some to reduce the bank slope to let the creek bulge during high water as well as to create access to the water.

Um most importantly, we need to understand what the city is thinking in terms of access to the adjacent parcel to the west.

And currently there's no access.

I mean, that right-of-way just exists on paper.

Um the light conversion project at the northeast corner of Rouse and Tamarack is going to build a west to east alley that does exist on paper.

Um to the east boundary of their parcel, it'll be asphalt integrated with their parking lot.

So this is moving east from Rouse towards that North Church right-of-way, which is along the creek.

Um and then east of there to the west edge of the North Church right-of-way, my understanding is it'll be a dirt slash gravel alley.

I'm not sure if this is the same as like a GBLT style finds trail, but regardless, they'd be pretty similar.

Anyway, regardless, we are uh in like this core group in Nina is involved and generally informed um about what's going on, but we just need a dialogue to understand what the city is thinking and why and to see how that affects the options so that Nina can give input as among the viable options or possible solutions if the city thinks that certain desired outcomes are not viable.

So thank you.

Thank you.

I know you want to get me to shut up on a loud New York Italian.

Uh I tell that to everybody.

So um thanks again.

Uh Mark Campanelli, a Bogar Park neighbor.

Jason's comments are great.

Um I've again some of my comments from earlier for were from considering this very project.

And um shout out to Nina and all those folks for being involved.

Uh I David Fine and me do not always see eye to eye on Tiff.

He is very though uh he he's met with me and and thank you, David, for talking to the neighborhood association.

Super super appreciated.

Um also thanks for just watching all for the city's back.

I know the the contracts have gotten better with Tiff over the years and appreciate that work.

So um uh I've seen lots, so I've I'm involved in the Bozeman Creek thing.

I've seen lots of feedback from earlier engagements on the creek that people would love to have Bozeman Creek be part of the main street to the mountains trailhead, right?

And this is a small little sliver we're talking about here of that great vision, and it's something my grandkids would probably enjoy at the rate we move.

But you know, we gotta think big, right?

Um what is it we don't inherit the future?

Ah shoot, we you would know this quote.

It's something about we did we we don't borrow the future from our kids.

I don't know, yeah, I gotta work on that.

Sorry, I can't I can't uh live very well on the mathematician.

Okay, so um well I'll try to get through this.

We're gonna be here forever.

Um of all the TIFF districts, this one seems more on track with neighborhood and public goods, uh, except of course for the aforementioned Bozeman Yards.

Um if you go to their website, uh Bozeman Yards is a new boutique condo community offering one to four bedroom residences in the heart of Bozeman's boutique.

I thought it would say luxury, but I got it wrong.

It's at boutique.

Um did the neighbors want that?

Does it fit in the neighborhood?

Uh just questions.

Um, anyways, back to my notes.

Um then letting the private sector help prioritize projects.

I still think it's just maybe you know, neighborhood city, private sector.

Anyways, that's my comment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any public comment online?

I see no requests online.

Great.

Does someone want to make a motion?

Motion acceptance.

Northeastern board working plan budgets and all of it.

Oh, sorry.

Thank you.

Thanks, Nolan.

I will make the motion to approve as presented the Northeast Urban Renewal Board budgets and work plans through fiscal 28.

Do we need a second on that?

Or is that kind of like the second one?

You need a second.

Second.

Great.

We can move forward with the discussion.

Susan, you want to speak to your motion.

I just want to thank you for wrestling all the parts.

You guys have always done stellar work and you could placeholders in the budget for future cast, whether we know we're gonna spend it or not.

It's just there to remind us.

So thank you.

Okay.

Um second that uh thank you guys, staff, everybody put this together.

Um part of the Northeast Urban Renewal District for a long time.

Uh remember when I kind of exited uh years ago, we were broke.

Um there wasn't a lot to do.

We built a ton of these streets, wallace, everything, and now we're starting to see the success.

So kind of goes back to what Julian was talking about earlier.

We we build these things, uh, the investments coming now.

Um revenues are coming in.

It's great.

Budget looks good, thank you.

Um David, do we need to read under the motion that bullet point to have it more acknowledged or is it acknowledged formally because it's written?

I I think I think if you'd like to ask for a friendly amendment to the motion, you could you could ask for that.

Um that's certainly up to you.

Okay.

I would like to amend the motion then, if I could.

Just because I feel like um this is uh kind of important.

We're we're really kind of retroactively recommending a budget that's already been approved by other commissions and boards and development agreements.

Um and we were part of that.

So um this rec my motion is this recommendation acknowledges that when the board recommends budgeting for development agreements already already approved by the city commission, approval of an appropriation reflects a need to pay existing obligations, not necessarily approval or disapproval of the projects by this board.

Second great.

Um I guess I would just comment based on the public comment we've received, and we haven't.

I know this is just an approval of the budget, and we can talk further about projects and everything in future meetings, but I'm curious if we would want to look at this placeholder of the row improvements and maybe broaden the placeholder to include the conversation with Nina and try and figure out exactly how we can achieve maybe all of the pieces they're asking for, because it sounds like we have a fair amount allocated so that we can do less in this listed in the um between Cottonwood and Aspen and maybe consider if there are opportunities to sort of expand the scope of that.

So I wonder if it's just amending more of the language around this placeholder or if it's fine as is, but just thinking about that as a board to achieve the neighborhood priorities.

I I think it I think it'd be easy for us to amend this to like just basically um change the language to like of kind of evaluating design options for the North Church corridor related to C Bozeman Creek and pedestrian bike access if if that if that's what the board's getting at.

Just just for like Jesse's sake, um it would be really helpful if the board discussed the sub-motion on adding the second bullet there.

Sorry, voted on it and then moved on just just to just to make her life easier.

Yes, in that case, let's back up and vote on the sub-motion.

Um to vote on the sub-motion, do we need to do a roll call to vote?

Is that like you and I discussed okay?

Jesse, can you do roll call to vote on the sub-motion?

Okay.

Um, sorry.

Yeah.

I'm just running down the line.

Uh Marty Backson?

Yes.

Nolan Campbell.

Hi.

Uh Julian DeMores?

Morris, yes.

Uh Susan Fraser.

Hi, Mike Waterman.

Yes.

And Chair Ben.

Uh sorry.

I uh motion carries.

Okay.

And then you could then you could make a motion to basically like expand the scope to kind of include the quarter or something if that's what you're wanting to do.

So I make a motion to expand the scope of the placeholder for row improvements to be more broad for to address neighborhood needs.

Second.

Any discussion?

Any discussion?

Yeah, can you further explain your motion?

Sure.

Um based on public comment and what it sounds like the neighborhood is requesting.

It sounds like the amount of money that is allocated could be allocated could be used to serve a larger purpose as opposed to just this small corridor.

And so I would suggest that we line item this so that us as a board could discuss further how the funds could be used to address multiple needs of the neighborhood's requesting.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um vote on the sub-motion.

Marty Matson.

Yes.

Nolan Campbell?

Julian Morris.

Yes.

Susan Frazier?

Aye.

Mike Waterman?

Yes.

Now the nine does.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Okay.

And then do we go back to the top for the main motion?

Or are there other sub motions?

If there's any other motions related to the entire work committed budget, you do that through submotions, and then you come back to the main motion when you're done with sub-motions.

Does anyone else have any sub-motions they'd like to put forward?

Can I just ask a clarifying question?

Were you guys just amending the right-of-way improvements on church between cotton wood and aspen, or were you looking ahead to the work plan for the next fiscal year?

Um the right-of-way improvements on church between.

It's the same thing.

Okay.

It's a it's the same thing as how the money is used in each year.

One is construction.

One's design, one's construction.

Is design and the treasure.

So like it I expect the construction number will change significantly once we actually know what we're doing.

Perfect.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay.

In that case, let's move back to the main motion.

Do we just vote on it or do we have to re-identify it?

No, I think you can vote on it.

Okay, great.

Marty Matson?

Yes.

Nella Campbell?

Hi.

Julia Morris.

Susan Fraser.

Aye.

Mike Waterman.

Yes.

Now the man does it?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Great.

Moving on to the next part of the agenda, which is the pole yard.

You have the floor, David.

Uh yes, chair, chair on board.

This is for the uh pole yard urban renewal district.

Just um for people following along, the polyard urban renewal district is outlined in blue.

Um here and shares a boundary with uh the Northeastern Renewal District.

Um this is our newest district.

Um and increment is growing, but we haven't seen um a significant private project yet, um, which I think r relates as much to interest rates and private market conditions as any desire to do to do projects here.

Um but because we we have had uh some growing increment, we do have um a good amount of um accumulated cash on hand.

Right now the plan is to appropriate all of that money uh over the biennium in order to complete the quiet zone project.

Do we think it will cost as this much?

I sure hope not.

Um but I don't quite know yet, so we're we're we're effectively putting gas in the tank, budget authority to complete the project.

Again, it's really hard to spend this kind of money without tickets onto the city commission as a contract, but like that this creates a pathway for getting the project done without coming back for a budget amendment.

Um so with that.

Um I'd take any questions you have about this limited budget.

All right, so there's no questions, is there public comment?

Hello again, uh Mark Campanelli Bogart Park neighbor.

Um the north end of this district, uh something called the L Street Annex, which is a super fun site that amazingly the city annexed in and zoned our, I think it's gonna be RB now.

The affordable housing carrot was dangled over this.

Um I talked to the neighbors that are still in the county on the left on the east side, they were here here at the meeting.

Uh even Northwestern didn't they convince Northwestern Energy not to dig utilities through that property, which if you think about Northwestern, that's a pretty pretty they must think it's pretty contaminated if they were convinced not to dig their trench there.

Um so there's you can talk to Becky Franks.

Uh she was in the Gallatin City Health Department at the time.

It was really pushed off the super fund site uh in a big big Trump era one effort to get things delisted.

Um and the biggest questions they had were digging utilities through that site, opening up pathways for the plume to spread to people's wells into the Gallatin River that runs right uh east of that property.

I just want you guys to be aware that if I had to guess, someone's gonna come looking for TIFF money to build really really expensive utilities and probably dangle the affordable housing carrot in front of you guys again.

Um so that's my comment on that.

Um affordable.

I'm gonna put in quotes there because there could be quite a big price tag whether it's public health or just the money to try to avoid the public health problems.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comment or online?

I see no requests online.

Thank you.

All right.

Do can we make a motion?

Please anyone?

I'll make a motion.

If I can see the language back.

There we go.

I move to recommend that the city commission approve the FY 2027 work plan and budget for FY2028 work plan and budget as submitted.

Second is there any discussion or any edits anyone would like to make can I ask a question?

Sure.

Is I I was trying to remember the area of the L Street annexation.

Is that actually inside the TIFF district?

No.

Okay.

So when when you're creating a tax increment district um cities can only do an urban renewal district within their boundaries and so since it was in the county at the time we established the district we'd have to go through a formal action to include that area in in the future district.

Thank you very much.

At the moment I it's not something I'm thinking about or working on who knows what tomorrow we'll bring but at the moment it's not on my radar okay if no one has any submotions um can we do a roll call to approve the budget please Marty Matson?

Yes.

Nolan Campbell Hi.

Julian Morris Yes.

Susan Frazier aye Mike Waterman Yes.

Mattie Singh I motion carries great okay moving on to the next district which is North Park Chair members of the board uh the North Park Open Renewal District is one of our newer districts it's um actually seeing quite a bit of redevelopment we haven't had a TIFF request yet and that's um actually a result of the fact that the developer didn't realize they needed to publicly bid their infrastructure for this first round and I said well you didn't so too bad.

And um so phase two they will be coming in with a large infrastructure request but um that definitely changed their project economics in ways they did not expect.

Right now though we we don't currently have um any projects proposed so really anything we'd be doing would be responding to a developer request um in this district.

Really the purpose of this district is that we have um very little industrial land relatively in the city of Bozeman industrially zoned and um and most of what we do have really isn't competitive with unincorporated Gallatin County.

So to the extent that we want to be a city where there are jobs near people where people live and near where they do commerce um you know this is part of the of as a district how how we do that.

So really TIF is is driving down the the cost of effective cost of land and enabling uh that kind of investment to happen within within Bozeman where it it really would be more unlikely to otherwise um so again this is a place where the developer would front all the infrastructure costs and be paid back as they um as new taxable value happens.

One thing I'll point out about this district is only 42 acres of it is owned fee simple the rest of it the developer has a 99 year lease um with the state of Montana as school trust lands so this is this is another kind of like beneficial condition in that um a lot of school trust lands in Montana are managed for agriculture agriculture doesn't pay a lot of money to the school trust um commercial development pays significantly more and so there's a place where we we can get increase the tax base get more job growth in the city as well as potentially do something good for for school trust lands.

It wasn't why we created the district but it is a a a good thing for state policy nonetheless um so that's that's what's happening with the polyard um right now sorry about the poll yard North Park can you pull up the map with North Park just for reference please so for reference North Park is this area in green between the interstate the railroad tracks and the right of way and the developers already installed um a new rail sighting over here and that's where Simpton's lumber uh will be moving that's what you see out there right now.

And the developers already installed a new rail siding over here, and that's where Simpkin's lumber uh will be moving.

That's what you see out there right now.

So, David, all those streets that are built out there now, the developer paid for those.

Yes.

Yeah.

He he said it was the single biggest mistake he'd made in his entire development career.

So they're nice streets.

They're they're really nice streets, yeah.

But but there, you know, there's a lot of a lot more streets and time-wise on this district, it's unlikely we could have helped with the entire infrastructure lift anyway.

So there's there's plenty more to do out there.

Can I just ask like a really maybe obtuse question?

But um if the developer has already put in the infrastructure, I recognize that he may regret it now, but doesn't that slightly put a wrench in the works of the if but for arguments?

Not in this particular case, because what they'd be seeking reimbursement for would be future infrastructure.

So like and and again, if but for, they've put it, they've put in the infrastructure.

As far as I know, most of that property is still being marketed.

Right?

So it it has to be marketed at a cost where someone will actually build a building.

Other other than Simkins, which committed a long time ago and actually owns the fee simple land.

Haven't seen a lot happening out there.

Okay.

Uh is there any public comment regarding in regards to the North Park?

And online?

I see no requests.

Great.

Would someone please make a motion?

I move to recommend that the city commission approve the fiscal year 2027 work plan and budget and the fiscal year 2028 work plan and budget as submitted.

I'll second.

Does anybody have any sub-motions or edits or discussion on this?

Um this being industrial land, is there any plans for parkland uh contained within this district or I I think we typically only acquire parkland um with residential subdivisions?

Thank you.

Okay, nothing further.

Okay, will you please roll call to vote?

Uh Marty Matson?

Yes.

Nolan Campbell.

Hi.

Julian Morris?

Yes.

Susan Fraser.

Hi.

Mike Waterman.

Yes.

Natalie Van Diesen.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Great.

Moving on to the South Bozeman Technology District.

Chair and members of the board.

Um, this is Chair and members of the board.

This is the budget for the South Bozeman Technology District.

The South Bosland Technology District is uh bounded by West College on the north and West Garfield on the south.

Um it's outlined there in yellow here on the map.

Um three to four years ago, uh Innovation Campus Partners, which was the competitively selected development group that was picked by uh the MSU Innovation Campus, which is a non-profit owned by the MSU Alumni Foundation to advance the university mission.

Um put in technology the infrastructure for this park, technology boulevard, an invention drive, water sewer, fiber, uh, and uh landscaping.

Um at their cost in hopes of being reimbursed in the future when there was adequate taxable value to do that.

Um the the city commission entered into a development agreement at that time, and then the developer started building out um the two large buildings you see here.

This one is called Engine Works.

That's a multi-tenant office and flex space building.

Um they started this project, there was very little office or flex space available in the city of Bozeman.

And then over here is Aurora Technologies, which is a was it was a Bozeman-based company that got acquired by Aurora and Aurora decided to grow their research and development effort here in Bozeman instead of taking the technology and moving it to California or Texas, where they have a much larger footprint.

So the these while while all of the property in here is on a land lease, a long-term land lease, these buildings still all pay beneficial use tax.

And that's where the tax revenue comes from for here.

But we we didn't make any commitments related to the tenants other than Aurora.

And really our agreement was with was with the developer.

This is a project the city's been working on since 2012 is when we when we created the innovation campus, and before that, um there were three executive directors before the campus actually started getting going.

And it turned out it was really hard to um turn an environmentally contaminated dairy barm and a field of dreams into a shovel-ready tech park, but that's where we finally got once the infrastructure is in.

And it was just amazing from a momentum perspective how much more interest there is in the park once the infrastructure is there.

And it and essentially they have shovel ready pad sites.

So you know, for example, right now they're in the process of um you know getting to that kind of 50% tenant load on a uh bioscience building that has wet lab space for companies that are innovating in that space as like the next building on the on the campus.

So just that's just a little bit of background on what the campus is, where it came from, how long we've been working on it, and then just also to the extent that these are our least for-profit buildings, we don't really get to pick the tenants at the end of the day.

Um so in this district, the the real thing that you're seeing here is that um we're starting to see some revenue from those initial buildings.

Uh right now we need to get two tax payments worth of revenue from those two buildings before we'll even entertain thinking about issuing debt.

So just try to figure out what our our debt coverage will be and and right-size the bond issuance.

We did modify the the development agreement, say um we can it we can issue less than we initially promised the developer if we only have enough revenue to cover less.

And so that's that's part of what we're seeing here.

But right now, we're we're assuming there will be uh revenue to cover the entire amount of so there's basically authorization to bond the full amount and write a check for the full amount in here.

We'll we'll see whether we're actually able to get that revenue from bond issuance and whether we can get to the full amount there.

But that's that's really what that represents, and that's really all we're planning to spend money on during the biennium.

David, we got a public comment on this project.

Can you I was kind of lost as to what the concern was.

Sure.

There's um there are companies that have leased space in the engine works building that um may contract with the Department of Defense or do research related to the Department of Defense.

Um I think a very real part of the higher education landscape right now is that a huge amount of the money flowing to primary and kind of secondary research comes from the Department of Fence.

Um that's um kind of kind of a subject related to national priorities in the way higher education functions right now.

Um but I think I think that's reality.

So it's not a big surprise that companies that are licensing or operationalizing, you know, uh LIDAR remote sensing, you know, drone technologies that are developed at Lontana State University would be taking DOD money.

Um and so that I think that's really the subject of the of plain.

I think that's also why I've said we're reimbursing infrastructure, roads and streets.

Um we don't have any control over what goes in the buildings, and um and that's that's really we're we're making good in an agreement that was made before that, and I think different people would disagree about whether it's a good thing or not to have those tenants in the building, but that's not really a subject for the board uh on this particular budget item.

So David, um you said we're making good on obligations.

So within the development agreement back in 2012 or since the 100%.

I think it was 2022.

Oh, okay.

In 2022, they they requested TIFF funds uh for something that was already put in.

All the streets.

And and that was approved on some level.

Correct.

And they and then they used private funds to build the streets.

Okay.

And now that they built the streets, but also built taxable buildings to create a source of revenue, then there's revenue to pay debt service on on future debt.

So within that agreement that that was approved, you saying we're bonding monies that we may or may not get back.

Isn't that a little bit risky on our part?

I mean, couldn't we couldn't we phase the payment to where when the money comes in we pay them?

Um we could have done that if the developer at the time had agreed to that structure, but they didn't.

Oh, okay.

So this this whole the bonding was already.

Yeah, we we agreed to issue bonds once they met certain obligations.

So they they the part of the way we became made it less risky is we have a pretty a very robust debt coverage ratio, and even in the modified agreement, we're requiring 170% debt coverage.

Um just because there's there's fewer buildings here than there are in a more diversified district like Midtown with 300 property owners or something like that.

I get it.

Thank you.

And you can see there's already revenue.

So like this is the uh projected revenue for for the district.

Went from like 40,000 to almost 500,000 once those buildings came online.

Is there a reason there's no budget toward salaries?

Are we not putting any resources toward this movie?

That's a great question.

Um we did request the proportional share for this district, but the proportional share was based on last year's revenues, which was only 40,000.

Um we used a we used a consistent methodology, and uh and finance said we we don't bother with this below five percent.

It was gonna be like two grand.

So that's that's why.

Understood.

Um but next biennium, this district should contribute significantly towards staffing.

Yep.

Any other questions?

Okay, is there any public comment with this district?

Hello again, uh Mark Campanelli, Bogroup Park president.

Um my last job was for a photonics quantum computing company.

Um I left by choice.

I was not impressed.

Um they were going to chase after the military industrial complex dollars because their technology just probably wouldn't be bought privately.

Um anyways, uh I have I know a lot of veterans are in my men's group.

I want my guys, you know, or our guys out there with the best equipment.

So take this with that grain of salt, please.

Um but like having the Air Force Research Lab drop 30 or 40 million dollars, I think between the Air Force, Air Force Research Lab into Q Core, which is a quantum Q computing photonics gig going on in the engine works.

Like is that really like traded sector employment?

Like I just it's that's not like homegrown people filling these slots in in the stuff that we funded with our tax dollars.

Um so I just really take pause.

Um I'm an MSU graduate.

You know, LIDAR can be used to scan agricultural fields, we're in an agricultural school.

Unfortunately, it has dual uses, right, to like probably guide autonomous missile and all those good things.

Um and it does depend where you aim that Tom McNissile.

I do appreciate that.

Um so I just wanted to comment on that.

I'm a little bit concerned here about helicopter money coming in from outside and the wins of that helicopter money as opposed to taking it a little slower and building stuff up uh from the ground up.

Uh I worked at Resin on here.

That's a photonics company built from the ground up here, slowly going into bigger places as they got more sales, got more money.

They're a great company.

So there are other ways of doing this.

Um they didn't really get any TIFF help either.

Um then you addressed the loan to value issue here.

That did trigger a flag to go off with me when that contract was renegotiated.

You know, obviously the city's credit is super important.

I do appreciate some of the explanation.

It looks like there was some margin to work with, but again, that's always something want to keep that good credit for the city and bonding.

So anyways, those are my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public comment or online?

No requests online.

Great.

Can we move to motion, please?

Anyone?

I move to recommend that the city commission approve the FY 2027 work plan and budget and FY 2028 work plan and budget as submitted.

With the bullet point, this recommendation acknowledges that when the board recommends budgeting for development agreements already approved by the city commission, approval of an appropriation reflects the need to pay existing obligations, not necessarily approval or disapproval of projects themselves by this board.

Second great.

Okay, roll call, Jesse, please.

Marty Manson?

Yes.

Melan Campbell.

Julian Morris?

Yes.

Susan Brager.

Aye.

Mike Waterman?

Yes.

Natalie Man Jusin?

Aye.

Motion carries.

Great.

Moving on to the midtown urban rural district.

David.

So Chair and members of the board, just to as an orientation, the midtown urban renewal district runs adjacent to the North Seventh Avenue corridor.

Includes land down here.

It expands out to uh North 11th Avenue and North Third Avenue.

Uh extends a little bit out along this interstate corridor here, and then and the next back down uh to share a border with uh the polyard or renewable district, which midtown came first, so we we try to make the we try to make the districts touch when they when they do just for continuity of infrastructure.

Um so looking at this work plan and budget, the the original urban renewal plan was passed in 2006, it was updated in 2015, and it was further refined uh by uh the midtown action plan in 2017, which was adopted by the city commission that had particular goals.

The first one being build housing.

I think we've seen a lot of that.

Uh and the other goals were in many ways related to mixed-use development and multimodal transportation.

So those are really kind of the big the big goals of the district.

Um so in Midtown is probably our is our second most uh productive district from a revenue perspective in the city after after downtown.

Um it's it's grown uh significantly as revenue over the years, and we're um really making a sizable return in terms of getting private investment.

Um in 2020, we issued 6.5 million in revenue bond debt related to the streetscape improvements between Durston and Mendenhall Street on North Seventh, as well as the Aspen Festival Street and uh and a new sewer line uh in North Fifth Avenue, extending all the way to Oak Street.

Um so that's that's an annual debt obligation on 25-year bonds.

So the term of that bond is the end of the district.

So this district ends in 2045, whether we like it or not.

Um that's that's the term of bonds.

Um in addition to debt service, these are projects that that were in the design uh design process that we're we're finding in fiscal year 2027.

So um we're working on constructing the Woody or parking lot.

Uh this is part of a kind of our commitment uh to the school district.

So three of our districts have public school facilities in them.

And uh as I as I say more often than I probably should well, I just say it all the time.

Like TIF is a delayed gratification strategy for the taxing entities.

Um you know the city, the county, and the schools primarily.

And so we're we look for opportunities where we can make capital improvements to school facilities as a way to kind of mitigate that some of the pain of that um that long, that long game that the taxing entities are playing with tax improvement financing.

So in this case, Whittier's uh sub-surface needed to be completely reconstructed and repaved, and so we're bringing it up to city standards, new asphalt lighting, landscaping, uh making it look good, and hopefully providing a base that can last for the long term for the school system.

Um Fifth Avenue pedestrian scale um lighting construction.

So this is this is Fifth Avenue.

Um this is lighting along the BMX park and the new multi-use path that extends to Oak Street, just try to create safety.

It's it's actually very exciting.

Like of all the project we've done, seeing the amount of use that 10-foot wide path gets is great, and we're just trying to make it more safe for people who using it in the in the darker months of the year.

Um we're also um released an RFQ for um a public-private partnership for a parking garage.

We did receive one response to that RFQ for uh piece of property owned by boundary development that's basically Ricky's furniture through the thrift shop area.

Um you know, they're working on refining that plan and thinking about the nature of the partnership.

Uh, but it's likely we we may start spending some money on the city's proportion of a of a site plan within the fiscal year.

But I think it's moving a little slower than we suggested, and I have an amendment related to this this item that I'm proposing when we when we get to the end of this.

Um there's um North Fifth Avenue improvement, so we did reach out to this neighborhood.

Um honestly, it was really hard to get formal participation from the neighborhood association.

We tried vitally, and uh turns out people have lives in addition to just organizing their neighborhoods, so that that happened.

But um one of the things we'd heard fairly consistently during um during public discussion of a midtown adjacent project was a need to think about pedestrian safety and potentially traffic calming along North Fifth Avenue between you know Durston and Tamarack in that corridor.

We even got some public comment on our lighting district related to that recently.

So we're uh again we're we're looking to have um an engineering firm propose some things, you know, bull bouts, uh speed tables, race crosswalks, better pedestrian lighting, and um and adding again, this is just design money, adding sidewalks where there's missing sections of sidewalks in the North Fifth Corridor, just to create some infrastructure that works for visitors to the district as well as the the existing residents, and that's that's what that is.

We're also proposing a city-led uh sewer design of the city-led sewer project on Mendenhall Street.

So back in 2017, there was a list of infrastructure in the adopted action plan where we looked at areas where we expected there to be redevelopment and what the infrastructure constraints were.

Again, kind of getting to the heart of that blight in there.

In this case, there's 100-plus-year-old six-inch clay sewer line in there that doesn't meet current current standards.

We updated that section in uh in Mendon Hall Street from fifth all the way to Grand in conjunction with the downtown a couple years ago, and this would be a city-led project to do to do this section of sewer there.

Um this is also a great place where we get to the TIFF gets to work with other city programs and departments.

So on the construction side, we've gotten a commitment from the director of utilities to split split the construction 50-50 TIFF funds and sewer reconstruction funds for that section.

Um and then uh Fifth and Mendonhall Lighting, this is a project where we're collaborating with the downtown to basically connect downtown and midtown on Main Street, Fifth, and um and Main.

So if you're just thinking about where this is, um the midtown downtown dividing line is right here on North Fifth Avenue.

So downtown is going to extend street lights on this side from North Third all the way to fifth.

We're gonna extend them to 7th, and then we'll we'll be putting um lights down here and making the connection to North Seventh along Mendon Hall.

Is that on both sides of the street or just one?

Only on the south side of Mendenhall, but on both sides of North Fifth and the South Side of Main Street at this point.

Just having to do some discrete chunks to do this in Cash.

Um I would love it if the downtown appropriated their money to do this piece in front of the school.

But we're not there yet.

So that's a great future discussion.

And then we could potentially extend this all the way to the edge of our district as part of that effort in the future.

But that's that's not part of this discussion right now.

We have contracted professional services.

This is money that we can again, all of our uh task order contracts go to city commission when when we do them, but we find opportunities or things neighbors bring our way or commission directed items, staff directed items.

Um this is this is money for that.

Um we have money for outside legal counsel related to development agreements or future bonding that would likely happen some point related to a parking garage.

Um these are these are standard things that have been in our budgets in the past, and if we if we don't use them, we don't spend them available for POP projects.

Um limited funds for maintenance and light prevention.

Um we have this for marketing and recruitment.

Really, this is things like updating the website, which hasn't seen any love in quite a while.

Uh probably since 2018.

No one was there for Susan were there for that.

Um and then payroll, training for staff, um, and then in 2028, um, we'd actually be building the sewer project.

That's what we're splitting with with public works, building some of the North Fifth Avenue improvements that we come up with, um these same items you saw from FY27, kind of as base budget.

And then here's this one that I that I want to call attention to in here, other.

That was in the last um, I'll point this out.

Sorry, other in FY27.

This this is was originally as a kind of a placeholder for board-directed projects, um, but also um just essentially appropriating existing cash on hand.

Um we I do have a suggestion related to this um because there is likely to be a request that would benefit from this tool.

Um what I'd like to propose is that we um that we amend this proposed work plan and budget to create a two and a half million dollar housing acquisition loan uh loan fund in uh fiscal year 2027, and the way we do that is we'd eliminate the 1.8 million in other.

We would reduce the parking garage design and due diligence by 610,000, right?

And again, because I don't think we're gonna get to full design construction documents in FY27 on that project anyway.

We'll be lucky to get a site plan by the end of 2027 at the rate we're going.

Um but but what this is envisioned as is as a loan fund for purchasing land.

So if if um if uh like a nonprofit developer came to us and was able to purchase land at a good price, we could conceivably loan them land, loan the money to acquire the land quickly without having to fundraise and letting the land get away from them.

Um it's you know it would be secured by the land value, so we'd make sure we got an appraisal, make sure the loan to value on the land protects the city.

Um it's not necessarily terrible if you ended up owning land in an urban renewal district, um, especially one that's up and coming like this one.

So it I think it's very low risk to the city, and it really helps advance our affordable housing goals.

Um so I I'd like to really encourage, you know, again, any loan documents would need to be seen by this board and the city commission.

You know, any projects needed to be seen by this board and the city commission, but it gives us some powder to pursue that, and um I feel very confident that we could utilize this for an opportunity in the in the future if we made it part of our work plan and budget.

It's two and a half million enough to I mean that's probably just one land acquisition.

So one and and I think it's a it's a fairly short-term line, it's like one to two-year loan for it to come back.

Just basically like get the land from the private party to the party that can do housing affordability, and then and then hopefully as they build their capital stack, they could take out this funding.

And and as likely as not, you know, anyone who was doing that project if the project was taxable, which would we would we would be targeting taxable projects um would uh um be seeking some TIP assistance for infrastructure at that time.

But I I think I think it could be a powerful tool, and I I would really like to urge this board to think about um piloting a loan program like this, because the great thing about low interest loan programs is you do get the money back theoretically.

Uh but in this case, you know, if you get land at the end of it in an urban renewal district where you're trying to encourage development, that's not necessarily a bad thing either.

So that's that piece of that.

Um I'll go back to other technical assistance grant program that we've had for a long time, which allows us to there's small grants of $7,500 that allow what with a one-to-one match to allow people to explore possibilities on a site within the district.

Um it's a program that's been around for a while.

We've had small projects use it.

I think it got used for like the the monarch building that Julian developed a decade plus ago at this point, perhaps.

Um and a number of other projects.

I think we've done 10, 11, 12 of them since I started the district, but that that is haven't done any recently, but that that program exists.

Um I think that is everything here.

Uh David, I think you skipped uh the midtown Aspen Development Agreement, three million.

Did I go past that?

That is a big deal.

Um bottom of page six.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, this is the this is the really big expenditure.

So this is a development agreement the city commission approved a couple years ago.

It creates uh 96 units of long-term affordable housing, so 50-year affordable housing in the district.

So uh 50 to 60 percent one 50 to 60 percent AMI low-income housing tax credit building, and then an 80% AMI um uh building next door.

That's kind of the mirror, so it's right there next to where Midtown Tavern used to be.

Um we uh we owe them that money, and I think we're expecting to pay that out um November, December of this year.

Is HRDC going to help put people in those buildings?

Yeah, they're the property manager.

Yep, thank you.

So the developers using that's what I remember.

And they're also the nonprofit partner on the tax credit side.

Sorry, that project.

That was gonna be my question.

Is these affordable units are of LITEC, correct?

Half of them are light check and half of them are market.

Um, they're in income non-Litech income restricted.

So basically, like a lot of the subsidy is going to the non-LITEC building in order to get long-term affordability.

Yeah.

Um again, that I am just learning, so bear with me, this might be an up to his question.

But LITEC does not pay taxes.

Correct.

I I think this this was a place where at the time we were looking for community resources to do affordable housing, and this is a this is a lost lead project.

I I'm not said we did it.

I don't think we can afford to do very many more of them.

Thank you.

Okay, do we have any public comment?

Hey everyone, uh chair, members of the board, staff, and commission liaison.

Uh nice to be with you all here today.

My name is Nathan Stein.

I'm the executive director of Headwaters Community Housing Trust.

We're a nonprofit community land trust here in Bozeman, and uh uh we're focused on creating uh homeownership opportunities for middle income and moderate income households here in Bozeman.

Um folks might be familiar with our foundational project, the Bridgerview neighborhood next to Story Mill Park on the northeast side of town.

Um I'm offering an amendment in support, or sorry, I'm offering a comment in support of the proposed amendment to create um housing land acquisition loan fund.

Um our organization is looking really closely at the midtown area.

Um we think um there are great opportunities to create new um homeownership opportunities for moderate and middle income households in this district.

Um and access to this kind of support from the city could very well be the difference between projects happening or not happening.

So um appreciate staff putting forward the amendment and urge y'all to support it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

All right, last time.

Thank you all for listening to my comments.

Um he's a great guy.

I love discussing non-market housing with him.

It's super fun.

Um that was the previous speaker I'm referring to.

Anyways, um there are there's a document called review and design uh sorry, design and connectivity plan for North Seventh Corridor at WW.midtown Bozeman.org.

The that plan is not on the city's plan site.

I've told several people.

I don't think that's by accident.

I think you guys should review that plan and make sure these TIFF projects are meeting the original vision that the neighbors in that neighborhood helped adopt, helped form and adopt.

Um I'm convinced uh that the you know the city decided to call an audible on North Seventh, right?

We had an affordability crisis, there's this new place being redeveloped.

Boom, we're gonna put all the lie tech projects there, right?

Which again, we've already discussed, don't create taxes, right?

When it's a TIFF.

So anyways, I I do think a mixed income fully taxable development could, you know, should be required if we're gonna use TIFF going forward.

And and I think the neighbors there are open to that.

Just please involve them.

Um and I am kind of curious what proportion of the tax increments coming from all the dispensaries on North Seventh.

So I'd love to see that number itemized.

Anyways, um trying to try to line it up.

I know I've had a lot of criticism for one of you guys.

I have to run to class.

You guys have the opportunity and the hands on a lot of money.

And I just I really encourage you to take that to heart as like that's important.

Like it really is quite a bit of money.

I know you guys don't make the final decision.

Please go talk to the neighbors.

Please do some research.

Uh you know, we are busy and we can't always have like I I know I kind of stress about this stuff, but please uh please do work on our behalf and thank you.

Thank you for this work.

Um and I did find that quote, and then I gotta run.

We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.

I couldn't remember that one before.

So it's a famous, I think it's the name we're calling.

Anyways, thank you all so much.

I will try not to bug you so much in the future, except for maybe some written comments.

Have a good one.

Bye.

Hey Mark, can I just make a quick comment responding?

That the reason the design and connectivity pro plan isn't on the city's plan website is the city commission um sunset it formally.

Um the reason it's still on our website is because I haven't been very diligent in taking things.

I don't think Commissioner Magic even knew about that, to be honest.

So thanks.

Maybe you can unset the sense of that, Ellison.

Thanks again.

Okay.

Any other public comment or online?

Uh yes, we have Emily Telago.

Hi everyone.

Um thanks for allowing me to join you remotely.

Um wish I could be there, but I cannot.

Uh Emily Talago, Lozing resident, um, and former member of the Midtown Arunal Board.

Um, so glad to see some familiar faces up there and really appreciate um that you guys are diving into this stuff.

Um I'll just quickly uh the the fact that the plan was sunset is actually I'm kind of like when did that happen?

So we get some clarity about when that was on the agenda or how that was formalized.

That would be great.

Because again, I don't know the conversations I've had with commissioners, they didn't acknowledge that.

So something's missing.

Um regarding the amendment for the revolving loan fund.

Um I'm having a hard time understanding how that is rooted in the Montana urban renewal law and eliminating conditions of blight.

Uh I think having really clear findings about that would be important if you guys are gonna do that amendment.

Uh recognize that the state legislature has enabled things like vertical construction stuff, just because it's enabled.

Um access to TIF is not an entitlement.

Um these are all discretionary, and so doesn't necessarily mean we just because we can doesn't always mean we should.

Um so I'm hoping that you guys got the comment from the steering committee.

Uh I think that was sent towards the end of February and containing quite a few things.

But one thing I really want to draw attention to is the issue of the zoning.

Um along the corridor.

Right now, the way in which B2M is written, it is kind of the wild west.

And I, you know, we talked about this back in the day about how to really, you know, codify that unique identity for North 7th.

And I think having, you know, we made some recommendations as part of the UDC update about like what the appropriate designations would be.

Um so I'm hoping you had a chance to to look at that.

But you know, the other alternative is to make something that is a midtown specific corridor um zoning designation, so that we are very, very clear about what it is, the vision there, um, what we are expecting, the cohesion, how you know um both vehicular and you know, um, pedestrian and cyclist traffic is actually gonna work.

Uh so I you know, I didn't see that anywhere in the work plan, but I do think that you know part you know, part of it is attacking private investment, but the other part is okay, the specifics of what we want that investment to look like and how we want it to function and what purpose we want it to serve in the corridor.

So um I really appreciate the ability to comment remotely and uh hope you guys are well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Uh there are no additional requests.

Okay.

Does someone want to make a motion?

Oh, I I will.

I move to recommend that the city commission approve the fiscal year 2027 work plan and budget and fiscal year 2028 work plan and budget as submitted.

This recommendation acknowledges that when the board recommends budgeting for development agreements already approved by the city commission, approval of an appropriation reflects a need to pay existing obligations, not necessarily approval or disapproval of the projects by this board.

Second.

Okay.

Um amendments or comments, discussion, edits?

Um I would like to propose suggest a sub-motion.

Um I move to amend the proposed work plan and budget to create a two point five million dollar housing acquisition loan fund in fiscal year twenty twenty-seven by eliminating one million eight hundred and eighty-nine thousand eight hundred uh proposed for other under-disc operations, page seven, and reducing funding for park and garage design and due diligence by six hundred and ten thousand two hundred in fiscal year twenty twenty-seven.

Do we have a second?

Yeah.

I'll second that.

Um this is kind of like a once uh in a in a this is a major opportunity.

Um I think um you know, this is um I'm really pleased to kind of have the opportunity to to propose this motion um or submotion.

Um these opportunities don't come along uh very often and um I think this is an incredible opportunity.

Um look forward to further discussion.

I also want to knowledge there's a lot of details to work out.

So but um by providing the opportunity we're creating the opportunity to open up a lane here to make these details um and work on them in the future.

So can I ask a question of staff?

Um curious, uh and this is kind of a a bigger question, I guess, uh with regards to really all the districts, but maybe speci more specifically this one, I could see it happening where there's a parcel of land that's not in the district uh or just adjacent to the district, or you know, overlapping or whatnot, but it's not within that district.

Is there a process uh and can there be a process for adding to an existing um district?

Like a like uh going through a rezoning of uh of a piece of property.

Uh so so the the answer is yes.

Um we've expanded the midtown district before.

Um there's pros and cons to doing something like that.

You know, you have to balance the opportunity with the impact on the taxing entities.

Um we try to focus these districts where they need to happen and where there's the most, you know, delayed gratification benefit for for the tax entities.

So like I I don't I don't have an immediate thought now about where we would do an expansion.

Um but it it is theoretically possible.

But it it it's it's a pretty big lift.

It's the same the only way to expand a district under state law is the same process you used to create the district in the first place.

Okay.

So it's you know, it's a six to twelve month process.

Okay.

So it's if a developer had adjacent property to the TIFF, and maybe part some a parcel within, maybe there's two, all part of one project, it would be they they should know that it's uh a long process in order to do it at the state level as well.

Or is it it it's not done at the state level, but it's it's a an action that's undertaken by the city commission by ordinance after consultation with the other taxing jurisdictions, and there's there's state law regarding like that consultation and how and how it needs to occur.

Um so it it's a big deal.

I don't I don't think you should do that lightly.

I think you should focus on the urban renewal areas you have and really think hard about what you're getting for an expansion.

Not saying you should never do an expansion.

I'm just saying like it it's an it's important to be thoughtful about what what we place in TIFFs and what we don't.

Thanks.

I'll just make a comment.

Um I'm gonna support the the uh sub-motion.

Um but there is a lot of details that I'm wondering about.

So I'm hoping that we get that information as this rolls forward.

And then um just two other really quick comments.

The I think it was 2018 or 2019, but Chris Saunders took that motion through the to sunset that plan.

Um, I think I think he appeared in front of the board at least twice.

I don't know when the actual action took place, but he he came to the midtown board, I think on two different occasions asking about sunsetting and I can't remember whether we made it a motion to that effect, but I know he tried really hard to get the boards the board's way in and there were opportunities for public comment along that.

And there's there's a significant staff report and file for that and all the reasons why.

And um if I'm remembering correctly, uh most of the reason it was sunset was because a lot of the stuff had already been accomplished.

We'd we'd accomplished most of it.

The other thing was like there are many things in that plan that were aspirational that required the consent of the Montana Department of Transportation, which um at least when we did the streetscape thing was where great ideas went to die.

Yeah.

Um I think the other thing I just say about it is like the way the original Midtown plan was written was that it was implementing the design and connectivity plan.

The 2015 plan superseded that original urban renewal plan, and so it it um and that went through a public review process.

I remember designed charettes and vacant buildings on North Seventh.

And um part of what came out of that was a recommendation to rezone the quarter because the zoning was actually a really big impediment to anyone doing anything.

I think there were like 30-foot setbacks, and all the parking lots were in front of the buildings and and all these sorts of things.

And so um I can't remember the specific conversation with planning at the time.

Um but we designed B2M as a generally it was a generally applicable zoning district, but it was with North Seventh in mind.

It was first applied to the North Seventh quarter.

It turned out people liked it so much, people started requesting B2M everywhere.

Um, but it it really was was designed for the community vision of what North 7th could be.

And so like it's to the public commenters' point, like I we we did do that with with B2M.

It was what we wanted in 2015.

It was and it went through the public process related to what we wanted in 2015.

Um zoning codes changed.

I think I think we're on our third code rewrite since 2015.

But um that's that's the history.

Thanks.

I uh question for staff also.

I I agree.

I think this idea sounds intriguing and definitely um merits more research done.

I'm confused and I need a little bit of help understanding the budget implications of making this change now.

Um could this be um fit under other as as it is?

If the if the project falls through or would and we move the 2.5 million to this loan acquisition fund, or the is the board or commission's hands tied.

Just talking about flexibility with these line items, um, allowing for future research to be done, but not tying anybody's hands until we know more at that point.

Um I really appreciate the question.

Um I I affair I I first appreciate the the trust in staff that's embedded in it.

Um right now there's I think there's 1.8 million dollars in other.

Um so we're providing quite a bit of specificity with with this item.

Uh and that's it, that's a past practice.

Like we've we have traditionally appropriated the money to be opportunistic knowing the city commission has to be involved with spending big chunks of money like that.

Um I think in this case, I feel confident enough that it will be used that I'm not worried about tying it up this way.

Um but again I I I think we need to bake the details of any agreements, the programs, the partners, the parties.

I I think in this case, the the reason I proposed it this way is I I felt like it was better to talk about this particular use with the board for purposes of public disclosure, for getting the advice of the board.

And if you guys said, absolutely no, we don't want to use a lo do a loan fund that's anything like this, I I would like to know about it sooner rather than later.

But it it seemed like this was more direct about what our intentions might be, and and I thought it was better to do it that way.

So that's kind of my thinking about it at this point.

I'll always take more flexibility though, Mike.

What if it falls through?

Then what and it's all appropriate for $2.5 million worth of loan fund.

What does is now the right time for this move, I guess, is what I'm requesting.

Um, in I I think it's the right time for this move, based on what I know.

Um the other thing is typically the the city commission is approving top line budget authority, right?

So if you if you look at the budget that they actually approve, they're approving the like five million dollar number.

Um so again, I I don't know that this ties my hands.

I think if we intended to spend it on something else, we'd I'd probably write a memo to the city manager and that he'd share with the commission saying, hey, we want to we want to use this budget authority some other way.

But like that's and I'd share that with the board.

But I think for for for this purpose, like it's a big enough chunk of money.

I thought it'd be important to talk about what we might intend to do with it.

And that's kind of what we're thinking about right now.

Say we got seven budget items.

Um more discretionary.

We can't spend money on items that aren't in the budget, right?

But can we move later on move money back into different columns?

You can spend money on things that are not in the budget.

Yeah.

It's just I see this.

Let's focus more on the word work plan and not budget.

To the extent that it's a work plan, this is my marching orders.

This is like what the money is supposed to be spent on, this is what we're doing.

This is the public process associated with it.

If we deviate from that, we need to have a conversation, right?

We need to talk about it.

So I I think that's you know again, like the city commission is approving that top line number, but like we're having this whole conversation for a reason, right?

Like try to follow the work plan.

Yeah.

That's that's good governance.

Can I ask some process questions about setting up this fund and how you imagine it to be going forward?

Um I'm wondering, you know, can we put parameters on the fund?

It can only be used for for sale projects that will generate tax revenue, um things like that.

And it you know, I'm imagining if this is in the work plan, you guys approve it, commission approves it, staff will start researching things.

Yeah.

Or or yeah, I think both end.

We'll we would start trying to put some like high-level criteria together.

If we come back to the next meeting, talk about some of those things.

Yeah.

Um I think it's also possible we'd receive an application that would hit a lot of things that people would want to see.

And um and maybe our program development would be guided by that too.

Okay.

And so would it, if if this is said yes to now.

Will this board have another opportunity to look at the creation and structure of this fund before we start using it?

This board would have the opportunity to look at the creation structure of the fund and or a specific the the details of a specific request.

Awesome.

Okay.

Good.

I like that.

Thanks.

Just like any other TIFF assistance request that would come to this board.

Kind of lends itself to the wide fire hose at this point, and we can narrow down as it comes out and then pick and choose what we like.

Is it envisioned that this would be used in one lump sum, or that it would get divided out amongst multiple loans for multiple projects?

Um land on North Seventh Avenue is between 75 and 130 dollars a square foot recent transactions.

And I'm guessing it would only get one project done.

Yeah.

Or I guess it are people using this amount to add into money they already have, or is this like meant to be the entirety of the loan to purchase the probably depends on the project.

Okay.

Like I I mean I I think the the the intent though is that at least my intent in thinking about a program like this is that like it is a relatively low risk loan that is secured by adequate land value.

Yep.

So if they if the project doesn't happen, they can't get their stuff together, it doesn't follow through, you know, perhaps we know where our next parking lot is, or there's probably a higher and better use than that.

But yeah.

And so I mean also, you know, there is not the word revolving loan fund up here, but and I know some of our other, you know, money that has been designated for housing in this community has been the idea was that it would revolve, but actually we're seeing some of it isn't.

Um means we could do project after project after project if there's opportunity, right?

Correct.

I at this point I'm not proposing it for revolving.

I'm proposing it as a pilot project, but the funds would get paid back to the mid-town fund.

I see.

Okay.

And then they could be reallocated.

You could budget for this program again in the future.

I see.

Thank you.

How do you interpret your marching orders?

I think was the word you used differently under if the budget and work plan specifically said housing acquisition work or loan fund versus um being responsive to opportunities as as under the other.

I'm I'm if the board would like to make some suggestions.

I'm I'm I'm fine about respond being making it more open-ended, not less open-ended, if that's what the board is wants me to do.

Yeah, my concern is just around the flexibility.

Not that it's not an opportunity worth pursuing, it's just how um the difference between being responsive to opportunities plural versus real specific with with just one.

Fine with me.

But I'm also wondering, you know, if that's the case.

So I mean the 1.8 million could just stand on its own for this housing acquisition loan fund.

Is there is this bad form for me to ask this?

Is there a project or something that's coming in that necessitates or encourages that we shift the parking garage money?

I mean, yes.

I I I'm trying I'm trying to not screw up an opportunity by being specific about it.

And I know that's really tough in a public meeting context, but I'm hopeful I'll have nothing significantly more to share by the next meeting.

Thank you.

Would it be possible to just um reduce the parking garage design by 600,000 and increase the other by same amount and leave it open-ended for you?

Um just make other bigger.

It's fine with me.

If if you guys wanted to modify the sub-motion to that effect.

I I I I'm happy we had the conversation.

That totally solves the problem for me.

I just I just thought it was important to have this conversation in public.

Theoretically, if it gets moved, if it gets all bubbled under under other, sorry, then when we're designating other, it can be used for you know like uh the pay-go option or the bonded option or uh or a loan fund option, like it just is unbrelled as such.

Yeah?

Yes.

Basically says you don't have to do a budget amendment to spend this money.

Um, but there's still other public action it takes to spend that money.

Or the parking garage.

You could still be used for the parking garage.

Yeah, it'd be I imagine that's gonna be expensive.

Um if there's another discussion, does someone want to make a motion with the sub-motion?

Should we just we get the vote on it?

The vote on the submotion.

I uh I think you would make a motion to modify the sub-motion before voting on it.

Got it.

So I think I think you would be changing it to um increase other in the fiscal year 2027 work plan by reducing the parking garage design and due diligence and adding it to other.

So moved.

Good luck, Jesse.

I'll clean these minutes up later.

I think there was a second.

Do we have a second?

So I think I think you would be changing it to um increase other in the fiscal year 2027 work plan by reducing the parking garage design and due diligence and adding it to other Jesse I'll clean these minutes up later I think there was a second do we have a second did we have a do we need the original second or is this a totally separate I don't know can if someone seconds I think I'll second enough unless someone objects okay roll call to vote on the sub motion please okay Marty Matson Yes Nolan Campbell Yes Julie Morris Yes Susan Fraser Aye Mike Waterman Yes Natalie Van Dusan Aye Sub motion amendment carries great and a vote on the motion roll call please Marty Matson Yes Nolan Campbell Julie Morris Yes Susan Fraser aye Mike Waterman Yes Natalie Van Doosen Aye Motion carries Great I believe we've covered the agenda no we haven't you have you may adjourn oh you shook your head like I was drunk all right guys you did a great job that was over two hours well done uh meeting adjourned I mean that takes a lot of focus do we have FYI after this or do we have a one do we have an FYI after this or I don't I don't know there is a spot for FYI but if no one has one just let me know and I'll I I have one quick question for FYI um and it kind of goes back to Whittier um and can we do more for Whittier?

Like what what are what are we bound to with the parking lot we can do parking lots we could probably give them a water line or a sewer line what else can we do for Whittier?

So public facilities is broadly authorized by the TIFF statute so I think you know um it in in the past I've always had an open invitation to the school district asked for something and they did and we did we got stuck in Northwestern Energy Hell for about a year on this project but uh we're ready to go we got a great bid that was below engineers estimate by quite a bit and so yeah I'd love to suggest uh another project that we could do together uh the the only the only thing is it it it really it needs to be the kind of project that is that the school district's fine with us running because um it's much better if we do the project than if they do the project if it's if it's a TIFF project.

I just kind of want to throw that out there is like I'm glad to see us working on the parking lot and and budgeting that and I'd like to you know if we could do a jungle gym or a rock climb wall for whatever but like what else can we do?

Let's let's uh let's come up with some ideas from free concerts at the end yeah yeah I had another just general question from my own understanding um why is there no uh downtown TIFF budget included in this process so um that's a great question you should be hearing from Ellie Staley if you haven't already about the the downtown district but the way the legislature wrote the law for these advisory boards is that agencies have to have their own advisory boards the five that our office manages are not agencies they're managed by the a city department so that's why but yeah they should be um I I know they passed a resolution to add a county and a school representative um so if if you don't know what you're doing the third Tuesday of the month at noon you do now probably should remember meeting you just everybody all right awesome