Are these going to be a little late?

Um I couldn't remember if any said she couldn't have learned that Marley will be able to ready, you can.

Um disclosures to share this.

And the um executive director's report.

Uh, neither are action items, but things that have come up in the past, they are um potentially budgeted for.

Uh neither are action items, but things that have come up in the past, they are um potentially budgeted for, so no action is necessary, but there are a couple things we need to discuss.

And Jake will give you some background as well.

Yep.

Um all right.

Um approval of the minutes.

Uh do we have a motion by any chance to approve the previous minutes?

And I just want to remember uh or remind you all that we did approve um the full yearly batch of minutes.

So if you'd like to go back and look at our videos, they are now available with uh the timestamps.

So I'll second.

Okay.

And we can just do a quick roll call, Nicholas.

Sky Cook.

Tony.

Hi.

Hi.

Jake.

John.

Abstain since I wasn't here.

Got it.

And Amy or minutes approved.

All right.

All right, we can just move right into our action item.

Let's do it.

Ellie, can we um open it up for public comment?

Oh, yeah.

Hello, Matt.

How are you?

Thank you.

All right, and we will just take a pause to um open it up for public comment.

So anyone in the room or online, please use your raise the hand feature or come up to the podium and you have three minutes.

Any public comment?

Emily online?

Nope.

All right, no public comment.

All right, you guys ready to move into finance report and our financial budget.

I'll tell you this, everybody.

Um I think we can probably move through our uh discussion items today pretty quickly.

So I think we could probably wrap up by by one o'clock, um, unless you would like to go deeper in the finance report andor budget, keeping in mind that this is this will be the third draft that we do see, and I am looking for um a hopeful approval budget or vote and approval.

So I'll just make my way really quick through the finance report.

Um, nothing hugely notable other than um our final numbers have come in.

So as you all know, we don't usually know these until well within our fiscal year.

Uh this year, even a little bit later.

And um, so this 13177 is a an actual number.

Um, some of our expenses over this past um month.

Uh we did do uh replacement of bollard lights at Siraptimus Park.

So there's some damage to several of those um lights, and it just got to the point where it was like, let's replace them.

So if you haven't been in Seraptimus Park recently, we have some new nice lights, ballard lights, and they are um solar panels.

We have done some work in the park, uh, but we will be doing that pretty extensively over the next month or two.

So that green space um expense is for updates in the park.

We do currently have a pretty large sinkhole in Seraphimus Park.

Uh there was also an individual who drove through the park uh a couple weeks ago and caused pretty significant damage to um some of the concrete tables, um fencing, things like that.

So um with the help of Emily, we we are getting on top of that.

But it's gonna be um not just a simple replace.

There's there's pretty pretty extensive damage.

And what I understand, Emily, there were no actual arrests made.

So there were there were arrests.

So we'll follow up.

I think we had heard we'll hear back in June or something like that.

So we will seek to um get that restitution for that damage.

We have not figured out the sinkhole quite yet, but city engineering's looking at it.

Keep you all potatoed.

Basin Creek.

Trying to see.

It could be Bozeman Creek, um, but something tells me that it's more um the Eagles building.

Oh, thanks.

So if you're interested, go check it out.

It's quite deep.

It's at the corner.

It's at Suro Optimus.

Oh, it's your optimist part.

Soroton's park, yeah.

Um, not eho park, yeah.

So not the new one, the Rouse and Maine.

So it's kind of along along the the Eagles building wall.

Um it started off as what we thought maybe just a kind of like an irrigation leak, um, because we did have a little bit of a an irrigation issue last year about this time.

And it's not.

So it's a rather large sinkhole.

So that is out of our purview, it's out of green spaces purview, so um engineering is doing some recon for us.

We'll keep you updated.

And it's right through this park potentially for the year.

So and then lastly, the sunshine lighting expense there is for well, second to class, is for the changing of several of our light bulbs and a computer table at lights along the element.

So what we did learn is that most of our pedestrian lights that are according to our streetscape standard, almost all the ones downtown are our lights.

We go in, we we replace the bulb, their LEDs.

Sunshine lighting does a great job.

Several properties, the light poles that were installed are through a computer table or like a um what do you want to call it?

Like it's not the actual light bulb that you change, it's the operating table or something like that.

So there are a few light bulbs out there that are a little bit different.

Robert from Sunshine Um Lighting did need to do a little bit of research on you know what that meant to get those light bulbs changed or to get the lighting changed.

Um and now we know how to do it.

So we can attack it a little bit easier moving forward.

Um and then I did have some flyers for EHO Park.

Ellie, just uh uh knit from me.

Um is it possible to take that 549 and actually put it up towards infrastructure so that we can see what the total infrastructure was versus where it's in total housing.

Does it make sense?

So I'm sorry, back up what we're using.

If you look at the total for infrastructure in FY budget 26, it's 1.6 million.

Yeah, there's not a total, and I'm assuming it's just because we kept the sum down.

Yeah.

To say, hey, total infrastructure was my guess is 499, and then housing was 50,000.

Does that make sense?

Yes.

Okay.

I will update.

I'll I'll update that when we review it next month.

Make sure that's visible.

Sorry about that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

All right.

I'm gonna move into the if that all looks good, no other questions.

I'm gonna work into the budget and work plan.

Yeah.

All right, keeping in mind everybody that um there are very few changes here.

Uh we have this will be our third time reviewing this.

I did take some notes after our last review and did up some of the um items on here.

So let's look at this first.

First off, um, Jonathan, our uh city controller, he is as particular and as OCD as I am.

So we've been working hard together over the last six months to make sure these numbers match.

We finally have our um uh in our local share amount, our entitlement share, as well as our interest income.

So um these numbers are not only correct, but they match with the cities.

So we're pretty excited about that.

Um if you move below, um, you know, management fees have grown at about a five to six percent um increase between management fee and city administrative costs, and these are our pretty set numbers.

Park improvements, um, we are looking to hopefully make some additional improvements to Soratkin's park in fiscal year 28, and that amount there is the 50,000 is to um continue general improvements.

So that's where the increase is.

Um, lots of discussion around um infrastructure and utility grants, um, infrastructure utility improvements in general, um, and we have um compiled some of those totals and increase that amount to 1.5 in fiscal year 26 and 2 million in fiscal year 28, excuse me, 27 and 28.

And this is really due to some of the discussions and responses from you all about um really wanting to support these public infrastructure projects, of which there could be many moving forward in the next two years.

Any questions there?

All right.

Um, most of the numbers that you see under infrastructure improvements um that are not the the large 1.5, um 1.6 or $5 million are projects that we are anticipating on being the owner and overseeing.

Um so those include things like um wayfinding and parking signage, uh Bozeman Creek improvements, alternate transportation projects, street improvements, um, intersection cable repairs, and our enhancement grant program.

So some of those there at the top are ongoing projects and programs that we are anticipating over the next year or two.

Any questions?

Yes, please.

Please, John.

Okay.

Uh a couple of things.

One, thank you.

This is I appreciate you working to get this down.

Um maybe just a point for the board board members.

Typically, when we do budgeting, at least at the university, if two years we're not carrying anything, we would just remove a line item, right?

So if we're looking at infrastructure improvements, if we're not going to fund tree replacement projects either this year, you know, or fiscal year 28 or 29, we would just remove that from the budget, right?

We would not have blanks carrying into the budget because what's what's the point per se?

So I was just posing that to board members if we want to even clean this up better, right?

Because when I look at it, we're either saying, yeah, we want to fund street state assistance grant program, but we don't know what it's gonna be, or we say no, it's not a priority for this for us the next two years, we're taking it out of the budget completely.

Does that does my question make sense?

And you know, if if this does help a little bit before we even potentially have that discussion, maybe even going into like next year or the year following, that I will send you all a cleaned up version of this with even the ones that we're not using into fiscal year 27 and 28 removed.

I really kept that really for my own looks because when I look at it, I'm looking at fiscal year 26, year to date projections 27, 28, right?

I I've hidden that free wall specifically because we've looked at this, you know, year after year.

But I think moving forward, this is our budget, this is our approved budget.

We remove those that we're not going to use and then and then move forward.

Because this is straight up two years budget, correct?

So if you all feel okay with that, I'll I'll send you that after the fact.

So are you saying, so I understand?

So let's take Pedlet infrastructure.

You're saying on the on the more global document, you have costs or or probably cost because they're current for PEDLAD infrastructure, and then if we look narrow it down to you know 2728, those have fallen off, but that line item is still there.

I guess to John's point for transparency, see is it true to draw the can draw the conclusion that anything that's a blank line item has actually fallen off and is in fact sort of wrapped up and done?

Exactly.

The only numbers that I will keep on here that haven't that we can't just take out because they're not projects that we intend to support or programs that we intend to support would be encumbered expenses, right?

So um, or allocated expenses depending on you know year after year.

So if you if you look at it for instance, like streetscape assistance grant program, life safety grant program, fiber grants, those are all up in the infrastructure grant.

We can easily take those out, you know, those you know, condensed move on.

Um but something like the fire station one, right?

That will once we can move to 28.

Well yeah, it will be there because it because it's until October 2027, right?

Which is fiscal year 28.

So that will move over as an encumbered fund.

That the same thing will happen if we have grant submissions that we've approved, those will also be encumbered.

Those will be up in the infrastructure grant line item.

So that would be the only case that we move it over, is if they are encumbered, even if we're not you know, continuing the project, we still would keep encumbered expenses encumbered or allocated.

Which is standard practice, right?

Standard standard, all standard, yeah.

To me, it just signals we're done with this program, or at least for the next two years, it's not it's not as a priority for the board, therefore let's remove it from the budget.

I would love that if you're all Barn.

Yeah, I think that's on.

Are we not continuing the Pedlet stuff?

I think we're not gonna almost done.

Sorry, what was that?

Any budget for the Pedlet infrastructure?

Or is that the bucket?

I'll tell you what, I I I haven't.

I to me um we can we can talk about doing that.

I I um there certainly would be funds in this budget if we decided to support continued Pedlay infrastructure because we have available infrastructure funds.

Um I've pulled it out of Pedlet specifically because we don't have plans on expanding the project right now.

Now, are we do we have plans to continue supporting the permitting process and that sort of thing?

Yes, not the infrastructure.

Who pays?

So moving forward, so it's it's an interesting point.

So you have improvements, you have planning, but there's not like an operations piece because intentionally we start these processes and then we give them to the city, right?

So the Pedlet, the one that's been built, the one that's stored, that's hopefully reinstalled.

Are we out of that entirely?

And it's the we're not.

Nope, nope.

Um, we do assume the the permitting um for that Pedlet.

And I I will tell you all um when we ended the project last year.

I did come back and get some nods from you all.

Um, but I did get some feedback from Lisa and some of the other folks and did come back and say, would you be willing to support the permitting and the um parking costs for next year?

And I did get a yes.

So we have moved forward, assuming those expenses.

We don't have any infrastructure expenses.

We now own the PEDLED itself.

To that point, shouldn't there be a line item for those hours and permitting and whatever else there is in our budget?

I have included those expenses in the implementation planning.

And I really just specifically because they're pretty minimal.

Okay, yeah, that's fine.

You know, and it's not like a full project, but however you guys want to do it.

But that I did roll that into general implementation.

Yeah.

And I think it was just more kind of to John's note, moving away from it being like this project, you know, per se, and just kind of annual minimal expenses.

All right.

Any other questions I apologize for being late, you guys.

But um, did you guys discuss whether we're doing a second Padlet?

No, we're talking about the logic of the budget.

Okay.

I mean, I I can definitely add some expenses really.

I've left this open so that if we want to support infrastructure and it becomes available, we can do that.

But it's not necessarily tied to the Pedla infrastructure.

Right?

Just making it just a little bit more flexible in the way of infrastructure improvements.

As of right now, I don't have any property owner or business wanting to jump onto the Pedlet program.

Bitterroots certainly wants to continue it.

And and frankly, I think part of it is just the permitting and infrastructure expense from their side, right?

Um Bitterroot jumped in, they wanted to do it, they have the permit, um, they they you know built the fencing for their building, but it's it's an investment from their end.

So Ellie, just a quick question about alternative transportation projects.

What changed in in that to go from 50 to 10?

You know, really, it was just a thought that um that if we had any larger projects that we could support them through other funding, and the only projects that I currently have um moving forward is the Mendenhall and Babcock um improvements.

And so I think it was just an idea that if I opened up funding under general implementation, that it would just free us up, that it wouldn't be specifically tied to alternate transportation.

So I mean, you guys can we can break this up however you want to, but I did move things around a little bit just based on do I think that more projects are gonna happen within this next fiscal year?

Well, I don't really have anything on the table right now.

So can I have more available funds that are gem general implementation that don't have anything tied to it?

So I guess in theory, that was that was why.

Okay.

If something came up between now and the end of June, we can modify.

Absolutely.

Okay, yeah.

Well, and truly, if you look at this, there's a lot of available funds here for doing things that that we want to do that are tied to planning and our infrastructure, just gives us more flexibility, which is kind of what we talked about moving towards, but still identifying the projects that will oversee.

Um, and if you'll if you'll know, we're continuing to grow the the parking supply and data.

So yeah, I had a question on that too.

I think in our work plan it says that uh fire station October 27.

Correct.

Yeah.

If if we're not spending any based off what I see now, we're we're planning to spend two million dollars on parking the next fiscal year.

Is that correct?

Two million.

Where did you get that number?

Well, just five million minus three million.

Actually, no, this is no, this is not um actually how you're reading, it's five million plus three million.

So plus one point six.

So this is a question I want to do.

Plus potentially one point six, yes.

Technically for fiscal year 20 yeah, is that eight, Emily, at the time?

28.

Sorry, yeah.

We could be looking at 9.6 million.

Correct.

Okay.

Correct.

But I don't think that we've landed on that, like necessarily all going into the bucket of correct.

But I'm I'm just wondering where when I look at that, we're spending two million between fiscal year 27.

So I'm just I'm trying to understand as a board if we're what our priority is if we have theoretically 9.6 million on parking or other improvements.

Um because again, that's gonna signal to the community to to investors where do we want where where is our priority, right?

Where do we want to spend money as a board?

Yep.

And I think that's an important conversation to have because like we've held back on this proposal to the community because of the situation we're dealing with with the state.

But if we have this big bucket sitting out there that needs to get spent in a period of time, I just feel like you know, we're at we're lurching a little bit here.

And I I know we all committed to that, but I also think it's challenging.

We're gonna meet the road here pretty quick, right?

I mean, it's March, April 26, and the sun sets 31.

32.

32.

So we're running, I mean let's let's circle back on that because I think we have I mean you're right, John, about the budget piece and what that says to the community and our and our priorities.

And I think that is that is what we've agreed to in the past, that that's what our messaging I'll say was, not because I think it's changing, but because I think we're we're so close to the end that we need to keep our messaging current, because as we get to the end, we need to make sure these funds are used as best as we can.

So, you know, it appears like there may be a real opportunity in the near future to use some of those.

I don't know, we're trying to get more clarity on that.

But I think you're right in that we need to be cognizant of what this budget says to the community, and does that match what we actually want, what we actually believe.

And I think in the past it has, but certainly it's worth revisiting.

Well, and I think without saying to the to the private community, like we are ready to partner.

They're just like, oh, cool, they're gonna do a project on their own.

That's what it signals to the community right now, not we are looking for a partner to do this project with.

And I think that's where we are just sitting on this money doing nothing.

The other question I I keep having is for a long time we talked about the ability to bond, and I I can't I don't know.

Are we done with that?

Yeah.

I mean, our the lifespan of the URD in regards to bonding, and it it just is not a hugely wise decision at this point.

It there could be potential, I'm just not sure it's the best choice.

I think what we've seen is potentially moving towards allocating funds, and then if it's not spent within um, you know, the sunset time period that we move into a revolving loan fund scenario.

So I don't think we're hugely concerned about the timing from a project supporting perspective.

I do think where we're concerned about timing is when do we not get any more?

When did when when does when does it end, right?

So does that kind does that kind of make sense?

So I do think we are, you know, have some urgency, right, to figure out what how do we do this?

What's gonna happen when that date ends, right?

Are we do we just go into a revolving loan fund?

And I can tell you, I think the city is hugely supportive of what we're doing, how we're doing it.

I can't imagine it's sunsets and the city goes, nope, it's ours, peace out.

Um, I I mean like I could be wrong, things change.

Um, but but I do think where we need to figure out is how you know what projects are these going to support.

But at the because at the end of the day in 2030, we're gonna be need to be real specific.

We can be open and broad now, but I think if we're moving towards making sure that we have a revolving loan fund, you know, with city support, you know, with potentially state support, that we're gonna need to be very specific with with our project list and what we hope to accomplish.

Right now, I just think we have a whole lot more flexibility and it's more allocating funds with keeping our priorities in mind.

When I think we all recognize that the more infrastructure we can put in place right now, the more projects that can get done, the more that's going to come into this plot, the bigger the revolving loan fund, which supports ongoing infrastructure going forward.

So that's again, we have said this over and over again.

We're Switzerland on projects.

We are we don't look at what's going above, whether it's like a you know whatever high-end development or a children's hospital, we try and like put blinders on about that.

What we're doing is improving the city infrastructure.

Public infrastructure.

Infrastructure, that's what we're looking at.

And so that's what we're doing, and the more projects that can get done to improve that, that's our priority.

Well, and you have a great point there too, Marley.

Is I think we have kind of changed, and this is gonna be part of the discussion today is we have changed our approach because we're to the point where we want to get as much of that public infrastructure that are tied to development projects done now.

There was a period of time where we didn't have to worry about time, right?

It's like, okay, we can attack this project or we can tie on to this development.

Now getting some of those infrastructure projects done within developments that are also getting done.

I do think that we're more in a time crunch to make sure those things happen.

So we have a very clear path on what things we know we need to get done, one before we sunset, two when we move into a revolving loan fund position.

Ellie, two questions.

Um if we were to project out the interlocal and all the income through 2032, what does that look like?

Do we have a sense of like what the total amount is that we have coming in?

You know, I can.

And actually that I think that would Jonathan may just love to go back to to that.

Um, you know, we've done some projecting um over the years.

The uh you know, um, interlocal share and and and that thing, that is the hardest um scenario to to really um estimate, and so that's where that's where it's gonna be tough.

I mean, we're looking quite a bit higher than what I even you know um anticipated for this last year.

So that's where that's really where we where we don't fully know.

But yeah, I think it would be a good drill to go back and look at it.

I can give you some past projections.

Um, and we're already there, frankly, on what we've seen for past projections, even up to like 2029, 2020, 2030.

So yeah, I think that would be a good draw.

Okay, yeah.

And then my second question is do we have kind of a scope of within the the uh the general framework of infrastructure projects that we've supported in the past?

What is unmet?

Like of like what what what is the outstanding, thank you, kind of list of improvements that might come down the pike.

Well, I'll tell you what, that is this plan right here, public ground plan.

Um we need this information, and we need it in a big way, right?

We need to know where the needs from public infrastructure, what where the projected development projects where these may happen, where we can support through grants, and then what you know what do we need to anticipate in addition to that.

And I think that that will be a huge part of our next several years' budgets so that we can look at that debt downtown, we can allocate those funds from a true need basis, and then know how many additional funds we have for things like parking.

Yeah.

So are we just gonna go ask for that?

No, we're yeah, we're gonna go out, we're gonna do a study.

We're gonna do it, we're gonna go out and we are gonna get professionals to truly um go and analyze above ground, underground what infrastructure needs to happen.

Great.

Yeah.

And you know, I'll tell you um, Douglas Fisher, he's not here, but um, we had a long conversation about this when we did the onboarding and you know, he was new to the board maybe two or three months ago.

He's really excited about this process, um, specifically because he knows that at some point this is some of these things are gonna be the city's problem.

I mean, not maybe not problem, but it's gonna be the cities, and we're gonna figure out how we're gonna have to figure out how to say, all right, city, this is what we can accomplish to here, and now this is yours, and now you own the light poles.

You know, that sort of scenario is gonna have to happen.

Um, and so that connection um and and Douglas kind of understanding that process, he's gonna be a great resource for us to get get through this.

So I will be leaning into him and and you, Jen.

So yeah.

But that's a great point.

I mean, that's really why we need to support this over this next year and and really get that data.

So yeah.

All right.

I am looking for an approval here, uh um potential motion and and second vote.

You guys tell me if there's any additional questions here.

Um make a motion to approve the 2720 budget as presented.

Okay.

All right.

We'll do a quick roll girl call other way.

Amy Horton.

Aye.

John Howe.

Marley McKenna.

Aye.

Jake Van Diesen.

Hi.

Tony Renzo.

All right.

Sky Cook.

All right.

And Nicholas Wicks.

Thanks, everybody.

Budget is approved.

All right.

Let's move on here.

Discussion items.

And I am going to let you take this over, Jake.

Um I'll tell you what.

I'd love to focus on these two items.

I will let you when we leave, um, if we don't get to them today, which I don't, you know, a lot of them is repeats from past meetings.

I will let you all go through and review uh the the rest of CED report as um as mentioned here.

Um I will tell you that uh the save the date for our breakfast.

We really would love for you guys to join us for the annual breakfast.

We usually have really great attendance from our board members, and I'd love to see you there.

Other than that, I think we can focus on the top two items.

Um the first is the conversation about the federal building.

So the idea that the federal building may change hands from the federal government to potentially local government.

Does that sort of open up an opportunity for us to help encourage or sort of facilitate a parking project of sorts happening on that site?

Um so Ellie and the DBP have sourced and received an RFP from Pioneer Technical.

That's to the tune of like 30 some odd thousand dollars to basically go through the process to add that site to the downtown formal downtown court because currently it's not in the downtown courts or technically not um via or they're not allowed to receive funds.

Um Tony and I, so Ellie presented to Tony, and I say, can we talk about this at the board?

Um we both had a little hesitation in just the opaqueness of what's going on with the site and the uncertainty of is it actually gonna transfer from this federal government to us?

Where is that process, what's the timing, what's the reality?

Is there how much desire is there to make a parking program?

Um really before we approve those funds, we would like just some more insight to what is going on with the process.

So um Ellie suggested, and I have since reached out to Chuck Wynne to just try to give us some insight to if he knows anything of what's going on.

Um I think my concern, and I think Tony will let you speak for yourself, was um just it's not a small amount of money to undertake an RFP without knowing the opportunity that actually presents itself.

Um I think I recognize that there's still a risk that's gonna be like we may do this process, and that project may never come to fruition.

And I think there's risk to anything than all these projects that we look at.

Um, but I would love just to weigh that risk a little bit more.

Um and so we've reached out to the city to see if they know, like just inform us on what they know.

And I hope that at next meeting that we'll get some more information that we can actually talk about the proposal and vote on it.

I'm gonna talk about it now.

It's you know, there's not much more than I just said.

Um but that was our that was our initial takeaway and what we asked for from the city that yet to hear back from.

Yeah, I would say we were a little hesitant to spend, I just pulled it up, it's 32,500 on a whim, if you will, because not knowing if it is a project or not a project, if it's you know, 80, 80 percent positive, 20% negative, or 50-50 or 2080, what is it?

Um it's so we felt like it was more of a board conversation say, hey, are we gonna spend 32 plus thousand dollars on this just in case it's an opportunity?

And I we understand it takes like six to nine months to go through the process to yeah, determine blight, but um again, how fast or not fast is this thing moving?

I mean, it could sit there for a couple years and we could be having this conversation two years from now.

So the question is is the state going to say that this the municipality, the city can take it over.

Yeah, the whole problem like all the viability or purchase it a whole cycle.

A whole cycle.

Because I think at one point there was we talked about how there was a decision that was gonna be made and Helena, and like I I don't even know exactly what that decision was or what what the dominoes that were falling politically to see if these are it was either gonna be sold to the public.

Public public or potentially sold to the city.

I thought that was happening, I think that is a decision was happening in May.

We're supposed to know by June that decision.

So the letter that we submitted and um Britt and David have been been supporting is that it does become available to us through I say us to civic entities before it is available to the public.

So that was I think you know, of interest of this board of you know, economic development and chuck to um yes, we would like first right of refusal, right?

So that was really what what that letter was was intended at.

Um I think there seems to be positive note that that that will happen that you know we will potentially get first right of refusal for this potential property.

Um from there, I don't know the end goal.

I do know that.

Well, I'm gonna put my David Fine hat on here, and you know, we've talked about this for a long time is identify a site, have a site, identify a site, you know, and then get to the project.

So I think this is you know, our next attempt at trying to identify a site.

And the reason why I reached out or I, you know, suggested Tony and Jake reach out to Chuck is because I think we've seen on our budget, we have intention, right?

We've shown intention, we have intention.

We've written the letter, you know, and saying we would like first right of refusal.

There's intention there, both from the city um from the URD.

I'm not totally sure where Chuck and Economic Development and City Commission lie on this being a partnership.

Like what is their role, what is our role?

I think there does need to be some more discussions and some more um, yes, you do this, we'll do this type of discussions.

And I think that was the intention of Jake's email is hey, if if we're gonna do this, you know, what are your all's intentions?

And we haven't heard back yet, but you know, let's give them a minute to maybe think about what what are their intentions.

I can tell you they have they have devoted Brit and David's time on this to this, talking to GSA, you know, working through this this potential situation.

Um in the back of my mind, I see this blight study as we're doing our part, right?

We're doing our part, they're working on their part.

The stars don't align, they don't, and we are taking that risk.

Um, but in the back of my mind, I've thought if this isn't a scenario that moves forward, at least we will know the process of expanding the URD district.

Uming the process of establishing blight to expand our district, this could be a reality in a different project or a different site that we identify identify for property for parking.

Maybe we also want to purchase um a property that's outside our district in the future to invest in our URD, and that's a suggestion for you know, our sunset is investing in a piece of property that extends a life.

So there's lots of different scenarios here where finding out extending URD and establishing blight could be even if it's not this site helpful for another's site.

So I don't know, there's risk.

It's a 50-50.

I mean, is what is there what is the risk of holding off for a couple of months until we have more clarity in June?

Is there any any risk in terms of pioneer technologies, you know, us getting pushed back and in terms of you know, I I will tell you, I believe that there were some timelines that they wanted to hit in the way of um getting this started so that we could be ready if it was sold to us, and you know, I'm gonna have to go back and look at that.

Um frankly, I I can't quite remember, but there were some specific timelines that could relate to this sale and our ability to move forward and trying to align them.

So I wouldn't say not urgent, but I would say if we're moving leaning towards this, I would say we'd we'd want to start moving towards it pretty quickly, or it could stall our ability to say yes to that sale.

I also feel like we're still missing this piece of like who is gonna fill in the gap.

Like who's the developer here?

Yeah.

Um I'm I'm gonna come back to this idea that like I really think at the same time we need to be putting this out to the public to see if there are any other sites that could be possibilities.

Like I don't know why we're not doing this parallel.

Because this is a huge if there's too many ifs in this scenario.

Great.

If it works, this is an opportunity that we can keep on our plate, but nothing's gonna move fast, and I don't know why we're not also I think I'm I'm kind of curious if this message out to Chuck.

So we send it to Chuck and and David and Britt were on the email.

In my mind a little bit, um Marley is their response to this is gonna kind of answer that.

Okay.

If if and I I'm kind of showing my hand here a little bit because I haven't showed this, but if they come back and say, Yeah, this is pretty likely, like, why don't you give us a shot?

That's one thing versus like we're all in on this, let's make this happen.

And I think the city's approach to this site can mirror our approach to this site.

If it's like we want to make sure that we keep this option there, then we should do the same and look for other options.

Okay.

If if there's a big momentum, and if they're putting a lot of eggs in this basket, I think I would at that time consider that we sort of mirror their momentum towards it.

Because I agree with you.

Either we either let's push at this or let's keep looking for another viable option.

Um and and Amy Sky, I'd love to hear from you guys.

I guess I I'm more bullish on this, I guess, in terms of signaling to the development community and particularly the city and the state that we're gonna support this again.

If we're gonna have argument sake, eight even eight million, excluding the 1.6 for for housing to put towards something.

I mean, I I don't know if if maybe Commissioner Magic can talk to this, right?

Is the commissioner look is the commission looking at that and saying, yes, we will we're looking for a signal from the board that we're gonna invest in this, right?

Um so that'd be one question.

Uh similar to maybe to Nick's is is this a um an if or right?

So if we decide to do this, then the city will pursue it, or if the city says, well, we're waiting on the board to make a decision on whether or not you're gonna move forward on blight, then I would say to me, let's I mean, we have money in the bank, maybe start the process, right?

The other question I'd have to pioneer technical, is there any way that they can fast track this, right?

Pending what happens in June to say if we need to get this done by a certain time frame to meet the first writer refusal, I don't want to have our board be the hang up to say, well, we had six months, but because you know the the the you are you our board couldn't make a decision, I know it's hard to say dirt, uh therefore we're not we're not interested, right?

I don't want our board to be the hang up in the process, I guess.

That said, I'm of the mindset that a transaction like this would take an awfully long time, it's not a 30, 60 day close.

Um we would have plenty of time during due diligence period to go ahead and do this.

So I'm of the mindset that we table the uh the proposal that's sitting in front of us right now and not just spend money to spend money.

What's waiting 30, 60 days to see what comes of from Chuck and also if there's decision being made by the end of May, like why not just hang tight for a little bit longer?

I certainly think we need some sort of answer from the city before we move forward on on their level of you know, push behind this project.

Because if they're like, well, yeah, it's one option, but I mean, John, I think to your point, like we have this money and we can put this money in a project no matter where it is.

And so I think we solve the problem.

Our goal is to solve the problem no matter what.

And I think Tony, to your point, if we're dealing with the state and the city, it's going to be infinitely harder.

It just is than if we're dealing with a public entity or a private entity, and that's okay if we're if we decide that's the path we want to go, great, happy to do it.

And also, if they're like dragging their feet in there, like, eh, we'll see.

We gotta leave our options open because we know we want to get the project done, right?

Is there another signal that we can send to the city to let them know that we are that you know if if these things happen or if they move in a certain direction that we are on board?

I think I think just the amount of discussion we have at every single meeting is enough.

Yeah, but true.

No, I know that and and the fact that we had a special parking committee lined up.

I mean, what more can we do?

I mean, it is top priority specific to this project, right?

Is there like a resolution or something that we can like?

I guess that's my point, Tony.

I agree.

I don't I don't want to just rush at first, but is it a continuing resolution or even like an informal vote to say we are willing to expand the dirt boundary to prove blight for this property if we can find a partnership with which to pursue purchase with the city and state?

We'll just put this out.

Sure.

Oh, sorry, James.

Sorry.

Part of this project, or you know, part of the blight establishing expansion is step one to see if we can do it, right?

So that's the only kind of like, you know, sidestep or you know, back step scenario is that I think that we can.

I I to your point, Tony and John, like I they're the same point, really going about a different.

You're right.

I think the city truly is looking to us to say, are you guys in?

Are you out?

If you're in, we're in.

And we have given them a nod to this point that that we're in.

Like we're we're willing to look into the expansion of you know, um, an establishing blight in that sort of scenario, if you all are willing to dedicate staff time and energy towards the interest in um, you know, purchasing or acquiring this this.

So I feel like right now we're moving in the same line, and that Chuck's response to you is gonna say, yes, you do this, and we're do this, and then it'll all just you know beautifully come together.

I do believe we're probably in the most risky scenario because we have to go and just dump the funds into it.

The only reason I would say that is maybe not good enough, saying to them, yes, we're willing to expand, and yes, if we do expand, we can use URD funds on the site.

The only concern I have about that is what if we can't expand.

We don't we don't know that yet, right?

So that's I'd say the biggest unknown.

And maybe to you know, to your point, Tony, maybe we ask Pioneer to go back and say, can we phase this?

You know, can we do a phase one establish, yes, in fact we can expand and we're gonna you know move towards the expansion, or no, we've gotten to this point.

Sorry, I'm hearing from them loud and clear, and this is the right team, I will tell you.

I mean, Brad and and um and his team, they they're the right people to do this study.

They've done it across the state, they've done it in very difficult areas.

Um, so I I think we're with the right team, but maybe that's the approach, is we phase it out so at least we're not just you know, throwing money at this to try to get to a point that maybe we can't even get to.

I just worry about giving a nod to a Chuck, you know, based on his response, yeah, we're gonna do this, and then all of a sudden we start entering into this you know project with Pioneer, and they're like, oh, sorry, we thought you could do this, but you can't.

And then we're down the road with GSA and David and Brett and Chuck working towards that with the assumption that we're with them, but we can't be with them.

And I don't think we know that yet.

I think that's a great idea.

And I would also say even if the even if that site doesn't work out, if they if we do establish blight and they become part of the dird, it's just another property that could be part of the district, which is not a bad situation, right?

I will just put this out there.

One, it is um it is it's it we will not get the taxable value from that property.

So there it's tax exempt.

So there's just one little note.

Is it's true, which which could happen as well.

Um the other concept is we may not be able to prove blight just within that parcel, it may be multiple parcels.

So there's gonna have to be some analysis, some initial analysis, just first thing to even you know establish the the um parameters or you know, our parcels we'd like to add, right?

So that's so that is one part of it, so which is why I think the phase one, phase two thing could work um to our benefit.

Um but just to know the other thing I will note is that we will have to modify our urban renewal law if we expand into this district.

It will probably help our blight argument to actually add this as an urban renewal project in our urban renewal plan.

So that's that will be kind of part of this regular process.

If we do that, and we're expanding into or adding parcels and we're expanding into this, you know, this new district, it's you know, um tax exempt, all the things.

We will want to potentially establish additional projects that would attack or address the blight that we've established, right?

So yes, we can expand.

We can potentially add these parcels.

I think we're in a good place to potentially do that.

We don't have a yes answer, but I think we're in a pretty good place.

But as part of this process we will need to add additional projects to address that blight within that area.

So just know that an expansion isn't just an expansion we do, you know, and and that would is you know due diligence with goodwill if we're going back to these parcels that we're adding we're gonna look at you know the feds maybe if they still own it or the other parcels and say yes you're not only gonna benefit from the URD and being part of the URD but these are some of the things we're gonna attack within that.

So just keep that in mind that you don't just expand you do expand with intention.

So what what I would suggest we do is I I read the proposal I I would be surprised if they could phase it out.

I think that is the proposal the proposal is trying to see if they can do it.

So we can ask them but I wouldn't be totally high on the idea of like a small sum of money being spent to give us a thumbs up or thumbs down but maybe I would suggest let's let and see what the city comes back with our request and let's plan on in May making a firm decision one way or another.

I think right now while we could do a proposal or a motion on some sort of like our intent I think the city knows our intent um but okay saying I think is different than saying they absolutely know what we want to do.

And I'm not trying to be nitpicky Jake I just I want to clearly signal to the commission we are a hundred percent behind this or whatnot because I want to and what's the downside of that just kind of I think I think what Jake is saying is the downside is spending the money but yeah no I think what he's saying is not necessarily spending the money but basically formally communicating to the commission we're doing this are you on board yeah no I'm that that I'm on board fundamental a memo to who would make it I think that was the soft version of your email would you agree Jake?

We can make it firmer yeah I mean we can write a letter to the commission I think I think a vote is firmer than my email I would prefer a vote just like we are clearly signaling that there is no discrepancy between us and the commission.

So I I'd move that we have nothing else we plan in May in addition to May get a mayor let's let's let's plan in May whatever we find out let's try to come up with a thumbs up so what do you want to vote now?

I don't want to wait we can't vote today because not an action item but I will yeah yeah is can you go back to the commission and say we heard loud and clear from the board members pending what Amy and Skye right I want to hear from them of we're 100% behind this.

Yes absolutely and Jen not to put you on the spot but do you think that this is a a good process here you've kind of just started to see what's going on but you've talked through the parking site scenario for a long time you know blight yeah yeah I haven't been party to recent discussions on this so glad to hear it still out there um but yeah I'm I'm on board all right so when we get a response from from Chuck I'll share it with you all so everybody can read it um and then we'll put together a bit more formalized action item for me that sound good to everyone's that too oh sorry I was gonna say we'll wait um get a response from Chuck were you chatting on the side there?

Tony has blame you Tony good intention he was going to make sure he's here for this next when's the May meeting I'm sorry the 19th and you know I believe that we may need to reschedule we'll we'll attack this we'll attack this and you guys know I'll send you stuff and cancel do you cancel the May meeting oh that was the BID canceled the main meeting it is the same week as our annual breakfast and a lot of times we do cancel this really because we want you guys to be at the breakfast um I'll reach out we'll we'll schedule around we'll figure it out all right all right does that sound like a a good plan so we'll wait to hear back from Chuck we'll kind of sit on you know what their intentions are and then if we feel like we need to be you know specific we'll address that make a vote and and go on.

All right thanks you guys this is really really helpful discussion really appreciate it.

All right back to you Jake.

So this is talks about 302 specifically, but separate from 302 G S Nine Hall.

The approach that we're taking with the infrastructure grant, the Greg and the legal group met with Ellie and I just to make sure that we understood what it is the structure is setting up and make sure that they supported us with the intent that they think we have.

And the biggest thing that Greg we talked about as a group was this idea that the infrastructure grant that we've written is different than the way Ellie and the DURD has approached infrastructure in the past.

And the biggest difference is instead of Ellie being affect the DBP being the owner of the project, the DBP is reimbursing another party for the infrastructure of whatever that infrastructure is.

And so those two different approaches present two different um levels of ownership, levels of liability, time, costs, and there's trade-offs to both of them.

And so what we talked about was that the idea of owning it yourself, there's a lot more oversight that Ellie is able to have because she is, you know, the contracts of the engineers are in the DBP's name.

Um the oversights in her name is in her name, and there's a lot of um ownership that we would retain if we've if we owned the project ourselves.

The other side of it is if we reimbursed it the way it's written the way we have discussed it to be written up until now, is it's a reimbursement, therefore we're giving it to, you know, we're we're reimbursing the funds from a most likely private development to do a scope of work that we approve, right?

And so where we left with Greg is he was going to re-review the grant that we've written to make sure that the city and the public interests are protected such that if we do go down the road of reimbursement, that um things like the reimbursement only happens at occupancy, all the permitting is in place, all the you know, all the typical things you'd kind of expect to see would be in place are actually on paper.

Um, and that Greg was wanting to make you make it very clear that if we went down the grant road, that we would be giving up some of the oversight over to we'd be letting someone else run the project versus us running the project ourselves.

And so that was the discussion, and where we left it was City Legal is gonna re-look at the grant as it's written for anybody again, not talking about this project specific.

Re-look at the grant, make sure that all of the um all of the clauses are there to protect the public interest, and then if that's the case, then revisit any existing applications, which 302 at Eastman Hall is an existing application.

Is the application that they filled out is that exactly the same, or have we amended that?

Do we need to go and re revisit that project?

That's middle.

Um, from what Ellie believes, she's like, it's virtually the same.

She'd be surprised if Greg makes any comments.

Greg was like, oh no, there's a lot of stuff I'm gonna have to add.

I don't know, he's looking at it.

Um I think from my spot, it is gonna be a project by project decision of what projects make sense for us to do our own, what projects make sense for us to use the infrastructure grant.

Um question.

Yep.

Because didn't we do something very similar to this with the apartment structure on West Main?

And so who managed that and how I can't remember.

You did yeah.

The the lighting project up.

Uh no, I'm talking water or the sewer line.

Water line.

Was that it was like three, it was like 350 some odd thousand dollars.

Oh no, that okay.

So good, thank you.

Great question, because this was really our full conversation with Greg.

So there's been a couple different scenarios that we've either teamed up or collaborated with either urban renewal districts or the city CIP fund and stepped in and um paid for infrastructure improvement.

So we did the sewer line replacement, we did that up on fifth and main, um, and it did cross over with midtown as well as CIP funds.

So City had decided to make some of these improvements years ago.

Um it came never came into fruition because it was a very large project, um, but they had allocated funds.

So it was about I want to say 600,000.

Um then we had both our project up on Fifth and Main, the developer with the Freestone, as well as in midtown, the developer on the other side, so the the hotel projects.

We saw this as an opportunity to team up and actually do the work with that, but this was a this was a a project that we were the owners of that we all just collaborated and paid with.

There weren't any crossovers of existing projects.

So the sewer work was actually done before either of those two sites at EFIN broken ground and started work.

So it was an ideal scenario, I'll tell you.

We I think uh um gave 400,000, Midtown did like 600,000 CIP was like 600,000.

So this was like a win-win for everybody.

But nobody was doing work over the top of each other.

Went in, did the work, you know, got the sewer work done before the developers came in and did the their work.

Gotcha.

So not an apples to oranges scenario.

Um, what is an apples to apples scenario is the the pedestrian lighting project we did up on at the Freestone project.

So what we did was we went in, we went out to bid, we did the um, you know, purchased the lights, did all the things.

What happened, and we learned a whole lot from this, and this is why I'm looking to all in a way saying, I think the grant project reimbursement program is the only way to go, um, at least in this example, is because doing two owners on the same site doing the work at the same time, it just doesn't go very well.

And so, perfect example.

We went in, it was our job, we purchased the lights, we did the things at the the pedestrian or the the light pole project, the lighting projects up at fifth and main.

We went in, we put the bases up for all the light poles, then the work the added facade work and finishing work for the Freestone Project happened.

They ran over all of the bases for our light poles, and we had to go in and replace all of them.

I just don't think it's an ideal scenario to have two different owners of two different projects crossing over on the same site.

And so that doesn't happen very often in midtown, right?

If they do a project, they're generally doing the project before the the developer comes in.

In this specific situation, um, as in um the 302 East Mendon Hall, if we assume this is our project, we'd be doing the work at the same time.

We would essentially, it would fall on us to finish that work before they got their occupancy, you know, their certificate of occupancy.

I just think all of those things don't seem like the right scenario to me at the right time.

So I think when we explain that to Greg, and would you agree, Jake, that that crossover is the issue.

It's not necessarily us doing the work or you know, private entity doing the work, it's when it's at the same time.

Um it just doesn't, it it does it's not a great.

Just wants to make sure that if we if it's a reimbursement that this the public interests are protected, and that there is the right mechanisms in place to protect our interests the same way as those mechanisms are replaced if we were managing ourselves.

Um he thinks there's a solution.

Oh, yeah, it's just a matter of putting the right clauses in and that's the way to get it.

Yeah, I think I I think it's I think it's relatively benign to be honest.

Right.

Any other thoughts or questions about this?

I mean, I'll tell you all I work with all of you, and my thought going into this grant program is I don't think that we as a group care the connection to a private entity or private developer.

The key is public infrastructure improvement.

We know there's needs, we know much of it is deferred, we know that we need to do this, and if we can do it in coordination with the project that's getting done, it is financially in our best interest as well as the public dollar's best interest.

All right, this seems like this is kind of a non-discussion, and and that's totally fine.

But we did want to bring it back and do our due diligence.

So, Tony's point, Matt, for you.

What our my expectation is that Greg does this work, dresses it up, and we'll be able to review any applications next board meeting.

So I know that doesn't probably what you wanted to hear, but we recognize your patients.

So Matt is our guinea pig here.

He is our first applicant under this established downtown URD infrastructure grant program.

So we want to do it right.

And so I think it's in your best interest for us to do it right and get it done.

We don't want to have to go back to the drawing board and say, hey, you're actually only able to get half of this reimbursement.

We want to do it right, right?

But we think we are doing it right, and um we'll come back and make this formal approval.

And I think for another piece for us, so blessing and a curse being first.

Um came out kind of sounding weird.

Um for us, I think what may come that we need to be prepared is if we do vote to approve this and go down this road, we're gonna have a lot, I think we're gonna have a lot of people come asking.

Right.

But it's great.

I know we need to find it's private.

It is it is, but I think we just need to be ready to like I see it very difficult of like when there's three people out there and we have to give so tell one person no and two yes, how we do that.

And we'll cross that bridge and get to it.

Cross that bridge and get to it.

Well, and I will tell you all if there's available funds in the URD, but we have not budgeted for it right.

So we have this 1.5, and then we have this 2.2 million over the next so 3.5 that we've allocated to these projects through the grant program um over the next two years.

If there are additional funds, I mean I think our budget will help us make those decisions, right?

Like this or that tit for tap.

But if we it's not this or this, it's yes and yes, we always have the discretion of the commission in going back and doing a budget amendment and saying, hey, we want to support this project, and they're like, yes, go for it.

And so it's not it's it's not all it's not just a no if it's not budgeted, I guess is what I'm saying.

And Commissioner Magic, I just I want to say, like, and and just repeat this.

Our goal is infrastructure and improvement for our community.

We are really trying to say very neutral politically about what kind of development is coming.

We really are like horse pointers.

Like we are trying to say totally neutral because that is what we care about because you know, change of use happens.

Operators go in and out.

What we care about is the longevity of our city.

And so hopefully that language helps you if we ever do have to come.

That like it is divorced from the use.

It is about the blight underneath our streets and the things that need to be improved in that way.

And and hopefully that really helps, you know, curb the the heat that is happening right now.

Thanks for that.

Jake, to give Matt maybe some confidence, is it fair to say that we will we will have a decision by May?

Yeah.

Yes.

I think so.

We we had hoped we'd have a decision for today and that we could actually make a decision.

We've expected to have it today.

Legal does a curveball.

Yeah.

And I don't think, just to let you all know that Greg knew that we had had this discussion, that this was our intention, and that we were kind of going down this road and we've been doing it for quite a while.

He's got a full plate.

So I think um really I think he's gonna go back with the help of of his staff, look at it and go, Oh, I I have looked at this before, and you know, it it relates correctly, and and and we're good to go with that.

We should do Ellen of it.

Now that I say that out loud about May, we should make sure Greg is on board having us feedback so we don't eat our words.

I did follow up.

I actually did send that to legal and just said, hey, by the way, I would like this two weeks before our next May meeting, but we may need to reschedule our main meeting.

So we'll we'll keep in touch and I do believe we'll be able to.

Especially if if we need uh the application to be revised at all, or someone needs a review changes, be nice to have all that done in time.

So I will tell you, I'm pretty confident um Matt Payne and his group has gotten us um very thorough information.

Great.

So we have two action items for May?

We're we're no we're no action today.

So I'm we're actually gonna yes, yes, yeah.

Yeah, so we so when I um do send out like rescheduling and such to all, uh we'll just want to make sure that we have a form.

Yeah.

Great.

Any other thoughts or comments on um either the DURD expansion or the grant program?

I don't think we necessarily heard from a couple of you, Nicholas Sky, Amy, maybe.

I'll add a note on the expansion exploration piece.

I think it is healthy, just like due diligence for the board if it's not that site and it's another site, um, and there's money in the budget to do something like that.

So I think it is important to consider and since it's such a small window to wait and get some more feedback.

So as soon as we do hear back from Chuck on that, we'll all share that with you all.

If we did get some sort of like really enthusiastic yes from Chuck tomorrow, um can we make can we vote?

Yes, we you know, we don't actually need to vote on this action item.

We have allocated funds.

This is really more of a um a nod and and yes.

I I I think that if I get you all the correct information and have you reply directly back to me, I can move forward accordingly.

Right.

So we can shorten that timeline based on essentially that response and just email you back.

Yes.

Okay, absolutely.

The infrastructure grant, um, it it is more um specific because we have built into the grant that any grant requests above 50,000 will be formally approved by the board.

No real connection to the budget other than you know, if we're if we need to expand or you know, uh reallocate funds or that sort of thing.

It's more just a yes, we reviewed it, these are the type of projects that we want to support.

So anything above 50,000 that's requested, you all will need to approve that.

Yeah, and and transparency for the public for when we are establishing these grants and giving them out.

I feel like that's important that's actually happening during the meeting and they're presenting.

All right.

Well, these are great discussion items.

I really appreciate you all.

Um, is everybody okay with us breaking and not going in through any of this?

Everybody will review in your own time.

All right.

Okay, Jake, you can awesome.

We'll adjourn.

All right.

Thank you.

Thanks everybody.

Goodbye.

All right, this is really a great discussion.

It's really