Commissioner Sweeney, can you hear me?

Yeah, we are in Norway two.

In Oslo, there's just these.

Oh, we can't hear you.

Hold on, let me see if I can turn something up around.

Can you hear me now?

Oh yes.

Yes, we got you.

Okay, we're in.

Oh my goodness.

Thank you.

Okay, good.

And you can see us, right?

Yeah.

Okay, awesome.

Alison, like I know this isn't your actual camera angle, but it is weird that you are basically effectively looking over my shoulder from behind me.

You know, it's like people standing behind you.

Totally.

That's a feature.

Yeah, but in the regional marker.

All of you.

Thank you for joining.

Mike Urban.

John, thank you.

Thank you for joining today's urban renewal development advisory meeting.

If you're joining us through video conference and you have any connectivity issues, try exiting out of meeting and coming back in.

If you would like to offer public comment, there are ways to do it.

Two ways.

You can make your public comment in person here in the commission room.

If you're joining through video, you can use the race your hand feature.

When it is your turn to comment, the staff will call you by name.

Any public comment received by noon today.

I didn't receive anything.

Okay.

We will hear in person public comment followed by the joint video conference.

Allow time for remote attendees to queue up for comments.

Thank you.

All right.

Anything on the agenda?

For which we want to change?

No, thank you.

Is it time to approve meeting minutes?

And just it was at the January and May meeting minutes we had not done yet.

These ones will be April and May.

Okay.

Terrific.

Anyone like to make the motion or make changes to the agenda or the meeting minutes?

Can we bring up the agenda on the screen for us?

That's possible.

Yes.

Unless you want me to add the motion.

I do not have anything.

I move to approve the April and May minutes of the TV.

I will move to approve the April and May minutes of the TIFF advisory board.

Second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none.

All in favor of approving, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

What is our next agenda item other than changing the agenda?

Public comment.

Anyone, anyone?

No, no?

We have some audience members.

No one needs to say.

Okay, thank you.

Anything online?

All right.

You're ready for the work session, Mr.

Fine.

Yes.

Oh, can I add?

Will there be a possibility for public comment during the different sections?

Yes.

Yes.

So which one I do?

Okay, you bet.

Thank you.

All right.

So Madam Chair, members of the board.

Um in your packet today, you'll find a first draft of the poll yard urban renewal district technical and finance application.

You'll recognize at least the style and to some extent substance from uh previous applications, but what I will mention again is that for any of these urban renewal districts, the um scoring and criteria are related to the actual urban renewal plan goals for the district.

So in the case of the polyard district as opposed to kind of a more um urban mixed-use district like Midtown or Northeast, urban Rural District, the polyard district is really focused primarily on infrastructure deficiencies.

So lack of adequate water, sewer, or um, you know, old aging substandard infrastructure, lack of streets, curb gutter, sidewalk, those kinds of things.

Um I will point out again that when you're looking at the criteria, um, each of these is related to a particular goal, like promoting economic development, connectivity and mobility, efficient delivery of infrastructure.

There is a place making and uh public health component.

Um, the polyard district does include uh an EPA regulated super fund site, and so we do want to make sure with any project that they are following the rules that that are required by EPA and DEQ.

Um, and that where there are some interesting uh critical wetlands or wildlife habitats that we're respectful to those areas.

Um again, with these a project that gets a perfect score, you know, for this board or for the city commission, you're not required to approve the project.

The scoring is a way to have a structured conversation about the project as it relates to the city commission's adopted goals in the plan.

Um, so it's it's a way to substantively like think about how you're operationalizing these broad criteria like promoting economic development and what you mean by that and how you how you want to do that.

Um, but at the end of the day, this is a policy choice for this board or for the city commission.

And so just want to put that framing in as we think about these different goals.

Um the first goal is promoting innovative economic development.

Um in this case, there's a uh jobs components and a tax generation component.

Um, and I guess I just go maybe goal by goal, kind of any questions the board has about that particular goal and how we've framed those particular objectives.

David, I got a quick question.

Um you said if they scored perfectly that you could actually still not approve the project.

I mean, wouldn't that I know like with planning we used to have like the A through J or K or whatever it was for like the criteria for a project or rezoning, I should say zoning.

Uh it aren't you opening like a liability there?

If you're somebody scores perfectly and you deny them, wouldn't that be like potentially uh asking for a lawsuit?

I mean, I'm I'm I'm not an attorney.

I think what I would say though at this point is that um tax government financing is like making a tax government financing award is not um it's not an entitlement like land use, right?

It doesn't, it's not related to your particular rights and opportunities you have through property ownership, it's an allocation of public funds that's made by elected officials, and so you know, at the end of the day, they get to they get to choose, you know, they have the power of the first to get to choose how they spend the public funds, and they're not required to make an appropriation of the public funds.

Um I mean I think it is important that we have good criteria that have the support of this board and the elected officials, so that we're providing clear guidance both to the public and to potential users of this program.

But it but at the end of the day, the commission gets to make a choice.

Oh, yes, and I think that kind of brought up a question we had in last at the end of last meeting, uh, or maybe just after the last meeting, we're like looking at these things and how would a data center score, or you know, something where like you know, if a data center came in and scored a perfect score, which it may not in this case, we still have discretion to, you know, based on public feedback and all kinds of stuff too.

I mean, I think I think it's interesting to like to pose a hypothetical like that.

I mean, if I think you're looking at this, many data centers don't do very well on job creation and trading, for example.

Um, originally when when data centers were first looking at the state, you know, when I first started this job 12, 13 years ago, there were a lot of potential tax upsides for data centers.

Um, since then, you know, we've significantly reduced the business equipment taxes in Montana.

Um, there are proposed new tax breaks related to specifically to data center equipment, um, and so the tax generation might not be as good as it used to be.

Um, same thing with something like enable enhanced connectivity and mobility.

Um they're frequently very expansive projects that don't have a lot of connectivity through them.

Um they might not even meet our you know block length standards uh within the city of Bozeman.

Um, and then uh efficient delivery of public infrastructure, it's interesting.

Um, you know, that you might hit the investment ratio, but um higher density and infill might not hit that.

So, like you know, I think um I think it's a good example of like how these criteria are structured to get, you know.

I'm not saying we want or don't want data centers per se, but I like it's important to structure these in such a way that you get the things you want and not the things you don't want.

I I also think it's highly unlikely that anyone's gonna pay Boseman prices for data center land, but that's my professional opinion.

Thank you, Dave.

Okay.

Um so with the the second bullet, that's number three and four, enable enhance connectivity and mobility.

So um looking for projects that um enhance multimodal transportation access as well as kind of the street network within the area, uh, and then mobility, um, expanding the non-motorized transportation system.

So, like one of the things that's that's interesting about this district is that you know it does you know it's adjacent to, and I think it even includes the like the Audubon wetlands area, it includes some of the wetlands areas and uh the current trail corridor that goes out towards story story mill park or a portion of that trail mill, trail quarter, and some some Bozeman Creek access.

And so, you know, there would potentially be opportunities with the redevelopment of projects for them to activate those corridors and um make them amenities in any future project.

And and you know, I think just because an area is an industrial area doesn't mean that it doesn't benefit from some place making and multimodal connectivity in those areas.

Um any questions about those criteria.

Okay.

Um invest in efficient delivery of of public infrastructure.

This is really about thinking about these places are infrastructure deficient, um, but it's also about you know making sure that we're getting some bang for our buck when we help pay for infrastructure that we're also getting uh private investment to go along with it.

And not just the criteria in here, but like also the you know, as you go through these, are the are the point values, are we putting adequate weight on any of these criteria?

Okay.

Placemaking, um, we do want to encourage some mixed use.

Now, this is subject to a couple of limitations, obviously, that we're an urban renewal plan is required to be consistent with the zoning, so um, and the community plan.

So um, you know, where it's zone M2, that's a level of restriction.

Where there are environmental restrictions that, for example, that prevent housing construction, as there are in some areas, they're not going to be eligible for these points, or they wouldn't be able to deliver the points anyway.

Um, but those are some things to think about as you look at some of these.

But I think, like I said earlier, um the way the projects engage, you know, existing neighborhood, existing development, um those are all gonna be important things to think about regardless of what kind of projects happen there, and then I think the protect for public health is pretty self-explanatory with this one, um, and respecting critical environments, I think, you know, where there are things like wetlands, like maybe we're not filling the entire thing potentially when you're when you're taking our verbal funds as one example, so any sorts of questions you have about the criterion here or suggestions you have to meet waiting any of these things differently, David.

I have maybe one question.

So the this criteria, um, when we're talking about zoning and stuff, those criteria kind of come down from the state.

This criteria is ours alone.

Yes, okay.

So we're not building off of anything.

Right.

So, like a project that comes in has to follow zoning, but we are engaging in the zoning process.

Okay.

Um, but how uh a particular thing zoned might have an impact on its ability to achieve the criterion.

Or conversely, the board might say, hey, they got no points for um respecting critical environments, but there were no critical environments in their site, so that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Just like in the midtown district, like we can't hold it against a strictly commercial project that it doesn't have housing in it, you know.

That's not the kind of project it is.

Great, thank you.

And just overall, did are we on the right track here?

Should I we interpret your silence as liking what we're doing?

Because I think the plan will be we will um give this another one sober and come back with this as an action item for for future vote.

Um I think my comments are the same as the last um district we looked at, which is uh item one.

Um, I think uh weighing, you know, good good jobs, uh good um, you know, keeping the wages higher, um job creative or job creation um could be way higher, but I think it's that's my only comment.

Okay, and and and that goes on all these basically all these uh checklists that we do.

So I do want to make sure just because it's sometimes tough with how hybrid meetings if if our commission liaison who's lurking over my shoulder has anything to add to this conversation.

Thank you.

Yeah, um I just had one question under the respect critical environment.

Since you know, I'm grateful you mentioned that PIF is not an entitlement, it is at the discretion.

Can we change that language under respect critical environment to move more from mitigate to avoidance?

Our development code says that we have uh a preference for avoidance first.

Would it be possible here in criteria 11?

The project takes measures to avoid harmful environmental factors rather than going straight to mitigate.

Do we have the ability to sort of leverage that public dollars for maybe a little more leaning on avoidance than mitigation?

I think that's a great policy discussion for the board to have.

If they're not trying to avoid it, having them explain why is at least beneficial.

It may not be a way to avoid it, and then it goes into mitigation.

But I think I don't see I don't see any issue in telling them, you know, hey, when you when possible, try to avoid it.

I mean, we do that with cutting down trees or anything else, you know.

Oftentimes you can't avoid it, but so like I mean, what what kinds of specificity would we want to be putting around um mitigating versus avoiding?

So you'd be trying to avoid it before potentially having to mitigate, is that kind of the process, or just adding that subtle step to the verbiage?

I mean, I'm okay with that.

I just uh I think you could you don't want to get too specific because there's so many different scenarios, right?

Like almost maybe, I don't know, mitigates even strong, like you'll flee.

You I obviously don't even want to have to get to that point.

Um but yeah, I I agree having something to preface that sentence would might be advantage, might be good.

I I think something like this project takes measures to avoid when possible and mitigate when yeah, when present I think that's our general take on wetlands and those types of things in the city is try to avoid it first, and then if you can't, are are we pr like are there particular places where we've taken avoidance first versus medication stances and policy documents that we want to be specific to call out?

Those things.

Like I mean, wetlands, obviously, but like, well, I think we have the sensitive lands study, which I think you know does a good job of saying where you should avoid.

So maybe point to that particular policy document.

I think there's other, you know, you know, other things like wildlife corridors and those types of things that maybe we don't quite know yet, but um this one's taking me a second to wrap my head around, obviously.

Um I think it almost needs to be segmented to the point where the project takes measures to mitigate harmful environment factors and avoids impacts on streams, wetlands, wildlife habitat when acceptable.

And the reason I bring this up is I'm gonna use an example outside the district, uh former Heaves grocery store on West Maine.

Um we all know there's lots of asbestos underneath the parking lot, all that type of stuff.

Um I would encourage someone to mitigate the asbestos as opposed to avoid it.

Um now when it comes to environmental factors like streams, wetlands, wildlife habitat.

Yes, I would prefer someone to avoid um impacts on those.

Um in lieu of mitigate.

I think that's a that's a really good point.

Yeah, I I'm a big proponent of uh obviously of mitigating harmful environmental factors, um cleanup.

Um I think we have a segment here where environmental factors of, you know, say contamination, which is prevailing across the entire city, when you really dig down into everything, and I've I've probably learned too much about that.

Um is different from say, you know, the frogs and the fish, trees and birds and that kind of stuff.

So, yeah, I think that's a really good point, especially when you're talking about things like flood flooding and those types of things.

I mean, some mitigation may have impact on streams, but it's the right thing to do because it like make things a lot better in the long run.

So I'm just I'm just throwing out a hypothetical, there are there are areas where you know there are um you know a treated soils area, for example, and in this site, you know, a project could propose to come in and cap it, which would be mitigation.

One form of mitigation was like a parking lot.

They could also propose trucking it to like a like all the soil to a um capped landfill type facility and like basically completely remove the environmental hazard.

I mean, what let's just like engage that kind of hypothetical a little bit, like where how would we want to think about something like that?

Are we wanting to give them more points?

We don't we or we're not necessarily wanting to avoid cleaning that up, but we provide more points for a better kind of mitigation, like how like I'd just like to hear how you're thinking about that.

Depends on where they're taking the soil.

If they're taking it to Missoula, we're cool with that.

I can I can answer that question in explicit detail, so obviously I'm no longer associated with the actual plant site of Idaho Pole, but we did sell that land.

Um, you know, it's four point X acres of contaminated soil in the uh treated soils area.

Um theoretically, somebody could um place those soils into a rail car lined, um, basically think of a garbage bag the size of a rail car, maybe triple layered, and there is a landfill facility, I believe, in Utah that could take it.

Um the astronomical figures of the numbers that I've seen on that are probably you know four to five times the actual cost in the land.

Um if somebody wanted to do that and send the contaminated soils to Utah, um and it's you know it's a it's a secure facility, it's a it's a landfill that's designed to do this and it takes us.

Um by all means, maybe you can have four points um hypothetically.

Yeah, I don't know.

But question Nolan, um, isn't kind of this, like since it is in the district that's kind of governed by I don't know, is it the EPA or or some part of it anyway?

So regardless of what we have here, they're gonna kind of dictate what somebody's gonna have to do anyway.

Like, am I wrong there?

Like, isn't it basically this this line item gonna be?

If I'm an applicant, it's probably they're gonna come up and say, EPA made me do all this, this, this, and this.

This is what I have to do, regardless of kind of what the board says, or whether we look think it's enough or not, isn't the EPA gonna kind of dictate all that in for much of this?

Yeah, and I and I I mean I'm uh I brought that up because just because like it is kind of the elephant in the room here, but it's also the one that where there's actually the most specific process related to it because it it does have a responsible party and you know management both by both EPA and DEQ in this particular situation, but um but it was more just kind of a thought experiment, like as we try to put this this together.

I wanted to understand how you all were thinking about it.

It's really right.

Anything else?

So we're gonna go ahead, sorry.

Sorry, um, I just want to maybe point out, like, I guess the way that I read this document, David, was like protect the public health, that is where we would put things like the superfund site or the potential soil contamination, or you know, um, and then the respect critical environment is separate from that.

And I I think you know, you were probably recognizing the specific challenges of this district, right?

There is the Idaho Pole superfund site, but then there is also the wetlands.

And so, and so you know, we could require um or we could keep the language that says mitigate in number 10, and then in number 11 we could strengthen it to say avoid, and then Marty's suggestion of you know having a narrative in the application that says why they maybe had to move to mitigate rather than avoid them.

I think that makes sense to me.

When you first pointed it out, I wrote that specifically next to 10 and 11.

Um so uh like I I picked up what you're saying pretty quickly, I think on that.

Um, and I think that makes some sense.

So think of pointing that out to me.

Nice, yeah.

Thank you.

So can I can I ask a question?

Um, if we put if we add a void to say 11.

I remember just sharing a situation between Nolan and I few years ago looking at that four-acre chunk that had one acre or two acres of wetland that's right under the bridge on the right as you come through there, and we were like, oh, this would be great for storage units.

Uh can we move these wetlands?

There's a process where you can actually pay to move wetlands from one place to another.

Um, but that would be to that that would be under that next jargon that you wouldn't be able to do that process, I don't think, if or or um if we add the um what was the the other term we were gonna add to number 11 avoid.

Avoid.

Avoid avoid.

That wouldn't be avoidance, but I I would think that would be to really actually move them.

So you're not avoiding to like impact your your moving the impact.

So you I don't I wouldn't call that avoidance.

Would that mean that you couldn't do that process?

Because somebody anybody who developed some of this might have to move some of those wetlands, and some of those wetlands aren't like created naturally.

They're with old culverts that are clogged and basically backed up that are supposed to be draining areas and they're not, or a neighbor pumping their problem onto a neighboring onto one of these sections, like, but they're still wetlands that need to be dealt with because they they meet that criteria.

Um does that mean you couldn't develop that, period, if you because you're not avoiding it.

Well, I again I will point out this is in terms of the urban rule law, you do need to be in conformance with the plan, but that needs means you need to be meeting one criteria from the plan of these six that are called out here.

So these are different ways to make this so like you might have tons of points with the first four, and you're not doing that great a job on respecting critical habitats, and then like I think that's where the board and the commission are providing their, you know, like well, the board was providing their advice, and the commission is providing a policy determination about how they want to use TIFF as it relates to a particular project.

So I guess as I'm hearing your question, I I would think two things either one in the narrative, they explain, you know, the quality of the of the wetlands and you know and what they're doing, and maybe get some points, and then worst case scenario, they don't get any points for that one.

Um we see lots of projects that come through the city that you know meet meet one criteria really well and don't meet some others.

So that I think that happens pretty pretty frequently.

No, that's fair.

Yeah, okay.

And you know, a lot of if somebody was looking to mitigate wetlands now.

I mean, we're pretty much they're gonna be most likely in the district, um, right.

If there's credits or transferred over to the sackage, we Autobahn society.

Um, you know, perhaps like it could enhance other parts of the district, or you know, we could know if we want to mandate that, but there are areas within this district that are would be beneficial.

I think no, I think that that's where I really like your language where it says the project takes measures to mitigate harmful environmental factors and minimizes or avoids impacts on streams of it wetlands.

I mean, I think to separate those out, I think I think in in the case that you just you know mentioned, I think you could make a really good case that's saying, you know, we're mitigating these crappy wetlands that weren't supposed to be there in the first place by you know replacing them in a better situation.

So I think they could I I think the narrative they can make a case for it.

All right.

Well, this is this is.

Yeah, I think my intention.

Sorry, David.

Go for it.

I think my intention with adding the word avoid was to kind of send a signal that we would really like you to actually do this, but yeah, then give you the opportunity to explain why you're taking some other measure.

And again, it's up to the discretion of the reviewing body, and you guys will likely see it as well.

So, I I'm gonna do my best to take this kind of conversation and make some modifications to the text on 11 for sure, and possibly on 10, to just add some clarity to what we're doing with these.

Um, I'm not certain since you know there's there is some alignment on this board, but I think some people are thinking a little bit differently than others, and so um I'm not I don't know that I'll perfectly capture it, but I'll try and bring it back and we can discuss the new language at the next meeting.

That sound good?

Now it's time for public comment.

Anyone on the poll yard application form?

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Amy Hoitzma.

I am the president of the Northeast Neighborhood Association.

Um I just wanted to make I'm not sure.

Are you talking about the other document today or just this list of criteria?

I was primarily digging into the criteria since that's the biggest policy thing, but we can definitely.

Well, I was just maybe this is a point of clarification, but um in looking at the uh, you know, the description of the program, um, there's a lot of several mentions of the director of economic development having sole discretion, sole discretion.

And there's and the only references to the board in that document are just sound sort of administrative, like the board will provide applicant with notice of default, the board will publish and document deadlines.

So I I'm a little a little confused about what the role of the board is versus this document in terms of um because most of a if a project is less than $50,000, it doesn't even go to the city commission.

So it's just that it's only the economic development department, and which I'm not to dismiss the economic development department, but their job is is economic development, and so they will have that lens, that perspective, and all of you have um joined the commission because you come from different walks of the community and different occupations, um, and maybe have a different perspective than just what's gonna make the most money um for the city.

So and from my perspective as a neighborhood organizer, I'd like to have some influence over these decisions, and I feel like talking to you all, I have more access and the city commission and not necessarily with the staff.

So just a just a thought or a maybe it's a point of clarification.

Um a couple another comment, I wonder about um, and I think this is allowed in other um TIFF districts, but why impact fees are considered eligible for TIFF funding?

It seems a little bit backwards.

If this project is gonna create an impact that needs to be mitigated or paid for, why are we going to award public funds to help them pay for that?

Um so just something to think about.

Um I really like the discussion you all had on the criteria, of course, particular to Idaho pole property.

Um the the the new owner actually is going to have to move those soils as part of because now those soils with the with the new floodplain that the Army Corps of Engineer created, the new floodplain map, those treated soils are in the floodplain now, and so they're gonna have to be moved.

And my understanding is they're gonna be moved closer to the railroad, which means closer to the neighborhood.

And the neighborhood is very concerned about that.

Um they include the treated soils include dioxin PCPs that could be airborne, and I know there's gonna be all kinds of efforts made to, you know, let to decrease the harm of that, but that's of huge concern to the neighborhood right now.

Um I really like that idea of avoiding impact instead of minimizing.

Um there's a this comes up in sort of relationship counseling, where it's like a partner saying, I'll try to be better instead of I will be better.

You know, you can fail at the will, but try is not, you know, I aim to try, not very high standard.

Um the criteria, I would like to see more points given to placemaking.

So this is a really big district.

The Idaho Pole Superfund site is one piece of it, but we're talking, and I don't know why it's included, but all of Simpkin Hallens up Broadway is gonna be something else because they're moving out.

Um, the whole rail yard behind like Rolly Poli, um, there's just that that's like a whole city that can be developed in there.

And I would just like more points given to neighborhood identity, the project matches and or fosters neighborhood identity, um, community interaction, because those places are gonna be really that's gonna be really important to the to the neighborhood, and I think to the city as a whole.

Um the one other comment I have is um one thing that is eligible for TIFF funding is affordable housing, and that's not listed on here.

I'm not sure why.

Um, and it's not in the criteria in any way.

So, you know, our experience of new developments in the in recent history is that things a lot of things are getting built for our luxury units or boutique now.

I guess luxury isn't good enough anymore.

Now they're called boutique, um, but they are being built for people who don't necessarily live here or only live here part-time.

There's a lot of dark buildings at night, and um, I feel like the whole argument with TIFF funding, the butt for argument, but for the award, this would not get built.

I don't I don't buy it on most of these projects.

Bozeman Yards got 3.66 million dollars in TIFF assistance, and I don't think the developer would have just walked away and gone back to Philadelphia had he not got that money.

I think it was just made the project a lot easier to build.

Um, I think the only thing the only time that but for really takes comes into play is for truly affordable housing because people are not able to build affordable housing.

And if we can help that, and I think this district is a place where that is probably is a possibility.

So I would like to see something in the criteria that gives some points to someone who is trying to build housing for the people who are looking for housing in this town.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Thank you, Jessie.

Is it time for us to move on to the next topic, sir?

Do you think that's right?

I think I've gotten what I need.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

So there's actually one um thing I would like for us to discuss further if we could.

Um, and I really appreciate Amy Hoitzma bringing this in public comment because it's the one thing I wrote down in my notes to address um with this uh document, and that was more clarity around the role of the board, because if all of these decisions are made administratively, where is the public interaction with these decisions?

Your board meeting and having the ability to look at these applications is the opportunity for the public to participate in the conversation.

So yeah, is there a reason that the board is only listed as being involved when it's reimbursement for demolition or impact fees?

Is there a possibility to have the board involved for other types of applications as well?

I'm I'm happy to address that.

And I think it's possible we need to provide more clarity in this document that matches the staff's understanding of what this process is.

So our understanding is that first this is an application that is aimed at people who are going to use the program, right?

And helping helping those particular folks understand who's gonna do what.

So like first they're submitting an application to us in economic development.

We're doing a staff review, a staff report, you know, sending it out to third-party uh analysis for for a financial butt for report, and then we're providing that information to the board.

The board is an advisory board to the city commission.

They're making a recommendation to the city commission.

Our intent is that any project that was coming through now that this board exists is going to be reviewed by this board, and they're gonna, and you're going to provide your advice to the city commission.

Um, and the city commission makes decisions on contracts, so even in the event where this board has a $50,000 one, that usually just means I stick the application on consent with the city commission instead of taking it as an action item, but the city commission still ends up approving those, um, and so in terms of checks and analysis.

So if that's not clear in this, the board's gonna be involved every time.

Um I think I think the references to the director of economic development are primarily about, you know, if you're awarded this, we're the like economic development is the department that is administering the grant award, which I think is fairly normal.

That is an administrative process.

We're reviewing the receipts, we're making sure they're following the criteria of the development agreement.

Um, and in the event they aren't following those things, that's probably not something for an advisory board to be involved with.

That's probably more something for city management, city attorney's office to be involved with, in addition to our department.

Um, so I I think that's why, but I I'm definitely hearing that maybe we need to put a little bit of clarity about the process and the board's role in it into the into the narrative so that people can understand it better.

So address what you're trying to say, I like that.

Yeah, thank you.

Great.

Dave, do you have any examples of I'm trying to remember from North 7th and these urban rural district examples of like $50,000 or less?

I mean, I know we granted some power upgrades on the North 7th, uh, little small ones here and there.

Um, yeah, very rare.

Um, especially for like this district.

They're gonna be big ones.

Yeah, yes, and and I and I think um, you know, that we used to have um, you know, in in midtown we had like $50,000 facade grants, so those went towards things like Gauss and Valley Furniture made a big investment in their facade.

Um it's great, it's in the district, it looks way better than the old building did.

Um I think they did a good job.

Um, but given the magnitude of that facade grant, um, you know, I think two, and we were we were using an existing program there, I think two things are true.

One is you know, that was a big lift for them, and we appreciate that.

I'm not sure the grant is $50,000 is a reason someone does a $2 million dollar project or not in that case, and so part of what we did with making these grants bigger is we really wanted to get it to buff four, right?

Like if we're going to be providing money, we want to make sure that it is happening because of the city assistance and the city assistance is not just generally helpful.

Um, and so like I I'm sure someone could come in with uh a project, like I wouldn't want to close the door on that.

Um, and that $50,000 level is that that came from the commission in 2017.

Um I think we'd proposed allowing the board to approve it up to 100,000 and they backed us down to 50.

So that I mean that's kind of the history of that number and why it's in this template.

All done.

Any other questions for Dave?

Yeah, that's a tough one.

I could go down a lot of wormholes with this.

So maybe we would love some guidance from the city commission.

Dollar.

All right.

And these will ultimately go to the city commission after this, either as action items or on a consent agenda at some point, based on the feedback I get from the city manager on that point.

Next item.

Would anybody care?

Show me the agenda.

Thank you, Jesse.

All right.

Thank you.

Item number two, Midtown.

You urban renewal, the strategic land acquisition loan pilot program.

This is a big deal.

So thank you, David, for presenting.

Great.

So this um this program we're about to uh present today is related to some conversations we had during the work plan and budgeted option.

Um, as you may recall, we ended up setting aside 2.5 million dollars in another, uh, with a specific kind of note that the first thing we were going to think about trying to do with that other item was proposing um a land acquisition uh loan pilot program related to using using a lending tool to encourage the acquisition of land for future for sale affordable housing within the district.

Um so while this is this looks like it's completely baked potentially, it's not necessarily.

It's more it's here for you to review to talk about to see um if we're on the if we're on the right track.

Um, we will we will bring this back to you and then we will uh eventually take it to the city commission moving forward.

But that's uh this is kind of first reading on the program.

Um I'll put some high-level, you know, that this has been available in the public packet, and you know, I'm sure you've had the opportunity to read it, just for anyone tuning in for the first time.

Um the the high-level things are we are encouraging uh long-term for-sale affordable housing.

We are encouraging the use of a community land trust model to advance long-term skewership.

We're specifically targeting non-profit developers.

Um we're looking at loans for acquiring the land that are taken out in a fairly short period of time, you know, 24 to 36 months.

Um, and uh so it's you know designed to reduce the carrying costs on acquiring the land to a to uh um to a nonprofit, uh, but it's also designed to protect the city's risk.

So um the loans need to be for a value that is related to the lesser of the appraised land value or the sales price, you know, whichever is less.

Um, so like we are allowing for the possibility of a bargain sale um in that, but the idea is that this loan is secured by the land, and so that it's we're not putting the tax increment money at a big risk.

Also, when the when the money's paid back, it goes back to the TIFF fund.

So we've done a number of TIFF grants in the past.

Grants certainly have a great role in getting projects done.

Um, in the event of a default, I guess the worst scenario would be this essentially became a grant.

But um, but but really the idea is that we can recapture it and then reuse the funds for other urban renewal projects in the future.

Um we're looking at very low interest, and again, that kind of short short time period.

And if it works well, we we may come back to the board and say, let's set up a more standard and ongoing program, and we might say that was nice, it was good, we can use lending in the future, but it's gonna be on more of a one-off basis.

Um, so with that, I'm happy to take any questions or um here discussion of this program and where you think we should go with it.

If no one else in the state of Montana has tried this before, I mean it's great.

I am totally behind it, but I just to me it's like you need the first applicant.

Then we go through it and we go, oh, but that's just me since it's a pilot program.

But the language looks good to me, David.

I think it's well thought out.

But again, I will default to the people that are in the business.

There is there is a another urban lending program in Missoula, and they used it for um that's part of their facade program in one of their districts.

I think they've done as much as a $600,000 loan related to a facade project.

So again, going back to size, but also the right tool, you know, maybe given the actual tax generation of a facade project, right?

Like a loan is the right tool.

It helps make it happen.

You're reducing the interest cost, but again, at the end of the day, the facade is something the business can cash flow and is is worth it, and you're improving the district and keeping a business there, but you're not like the level of lift is more commensurate with the actual tax generation.

But I think for this, so lending has happened, but we haven't um done lending specifically for encouraging housing affordability in Montana.

Maybe you have a point scale similar to what we have for the TIFF, where like you just mentioned it's gotta be nonprofit, it's gotta be uh affordable housing, it's gotta be 24 to 36 months or whatever.

It it like your criteria already are each of those criteria are cutting out 90% of the people of developers, really.

Like we've seen so many affordable housing projects that were gonna get done somewhere on the north side or seventh, and all of a sudden they try and pencil them, and there's no way it's happening, it's just never gonna happen.

So I think you don't want to ask for too much, you know, there maybe maybe uh make some sort of point um uh uh criteria or something that that opens the door for more people, if that makes sense, versus just having say something like um what uh trust for public lands did where they needed a 10 million dollar donation to even break even, right?

Like I mean, that was just philanthropy, and we got rid of 60 trailers and got 60 houses.

But um I don't know.

It's I I think you can't ask for everything.

So I just want to make sure I'm hearing what you're saying.

Yeah, you'd like some criteria and some weighting in the criteria, but your sense is that maybe we've tightened this down too much within this draft, and we should we should open it up a little bit, acknowledging that this board can recommend and the city commission can decide not to award, but yeah, but but open up at least allow more people to attempt.

I think so.

That's my thought on it.

When I looked at all the criteria, I was like, well, I'm out for sure.

Everyone I know is out.

So that maybe open the door a little bit.

And and I think you know, there probably is a world in which a for profit developer could conceivably deliver homes at the price point if they got the assistance.

Sure, yeah.

Okay, I mean, it's already a hard enough one criteria, affordable housing that like that's already taken out most people.

Um, almost everybody, really.

So it's hard.

It's hard to make things pencil as being remotely close to affordable and are anywhere near downtown.

You just the reality of it is you're not gonna do it.

I remember uh that when you were doing West Beach condos, you were had it had aspirations of affordability, and the cost just kept coming in and it became less so.

Yeah, and I think we actually could have done some on the end, but there wasn't a mechanism within the affordable housing ordinance for condos.

Remember, like is when there was town homes and single family, and if we did town homes, we had to bring in water and sewer into each unit, which jacked the price 20 grand door, right?

And then all of a sudden you quickly things start adding up, and you and you you change your common wall, you change you change a bunch of stuff, even though we did townhome walls on those because it anyway.

Um it just uh it just becomes uh it was close, but there was no way to do a condo because what do you do if you have one affordable unit in a condo um association, and the other 10 have to subsidize that unit if there's no uh if there's like a new roof that needs to get put on, um it it became very difficult.

Um so uh I think we we we didn't have to go through the affordable housing because of because we were condoed and we're under a certain amount of units okay at the time, yeah.

But we were affordable, by the way.

Where when we sold them, I was the cheapest per square foot within, I think we sold those originally at like a lot more than half of them for around under 600 for 1600 square feet double garage.

That was per square foot.

I think for a new project, we were the cheapest around, if that makes sense.

Everything's affordable to someone, yeah, yeah.

And it was back then, now they sell for quite a bit more, but yeah.

Thanks for setting the record straight.

Anyone else?

I mean, this is the most complex problem in the world, like affordable housing.

Um so many things need to align on the federal state, every level, every level.

Um, to have something like this, uh, you know, I this is something that if we do this right, it could be used as an example in many other communities.

And you know, I'd like to see them doing this in Bute, I'd like to see them doing this in Missoula.

Um so let's do it right.

You know, I think we can we can get this done.

Um I'd like to hear some public comment, like to hear some uh more, you know, as we continue to grow this, and you know, my understanding with these is you know, I think making sure like all these kind of layers are pointing in the same direction, like on the federal um, you know, state and and local levels.

It's it's a complex, um, complex problem.

And the goal is to get renters or purchasers affordable housing, so and not just affordable, but for sale affordable, right?

So that's a barrier too.

I I think we as was already mentioned, I think we need to get an application in here and actually walk it through a real world, you know, evaluation to see you know if the criteria and all that kind of stuff works, and I don't know if we could do that on a or if it's worth doing that on a you know, just to make up a project and run it through and kind of see how it works, or if we wait for that first one and know that we're gonna have to tweak things a little bit once we get inevitably, no matter how specific we get and how in depth we think about this, someone will bring up something we haven't thought about.

So, yeah.

Well, and I think a good thing here is we we don't have to lend.

So we can find ways to protect the city's interests and the criteria that as they come up, and I I think I think a challenge in government is like I think a lot of times people want us to have a completely fully based product and then never touch it again for five to ten years.

And that's not usually how great things develop.

My my current iPhone is better than my first iPhone, and that's because they've you know done this 17 times.

Um, it's gotten better, and I think you know this will get better as we test it and improve it over time.

So we're all in agreement that this first one potentially could be a bit of a sausage making process.

May have some bumpy roads, but we'll figure it out.

Yeah, and Dave, it might be nice too if there's some.

I mean, I've never done like a section eight housing project or there's there's uh developers that are much more sophisticated in this realm, like even like Jeff Anderson, for instance, who did uh that project behind uh the cat spa, he was penciled that once upon a time.

Twice, yeah.

Um I think people like that might have some, you know, some insight and some recommendations on how something like this could work.

So to your point, Marty, like bringing an actual project through.

Well, maybe one of these guys that specialize in this realm, and especially the first sale part of it, if there is some sort of way to structure that and for us to like cater towards that.

I think that would be super smart to do that due diligence up front and get advice from those guys and gals, if that makes sense.

Okay.

Do you need anything else for us?

Right now, should we go to public comment?

I I yeah, let's do public comment and then we can bring it back.

Anyone?

Thank you, Nathan.

Everyone, uh, thank you, staff, members of this board, and um Commissioner Sweeney.

Uh my name's Nathan Stein.

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

Uh, we're a nonprofit 501c3 community land trust here in Bozeman.

We are focused on the creation and stewardship of permanently affordable um middle income home ownership in this community.

Um, our foundational project was the Bridgerview neighborhood, um, over on the northeast end of Bozeman, which um, as was mentioned uh by a board member required a pretty extraordinary circumstances um to come together.

Um we it's our goal that that's not Headwaters' last project, and that rather it's our first project, and we're looking for opportunities to expand middle and moderate income homeownership opportunities around Bozeman, including in the midtown um urban renewal district.

Um, and so we're really excited that that this board and staff and and the commission have put their support behind what we think is is potentially a hugely powerful pilot program to help these projects come together.

Um, as staff mentioned, um it's not just the cost of capital.

Um that can be a barrier to land acquisition, but also just um a timing component.

And so that the for the city to have something like this set up and able to be deployed to take advantage of timely opportunities.

Um, I think could could very well be the difference between projects happening and not happening.

Um, on the program that that staff have drafted here, um, it looks really good from our perspective.

That said, we we maybe fall into that very narrow band that that was discussed by this board.

Um but I had one um question or potentially friendly amendment to the program as as drafted.

Um, and the eligibility criteria, I think I don't have page numbers, I think this is the third page, section three.

Um the third bullet is a requirement that a project create new taxable value within the urban urineal district.

The project structured as tax exempt developments are not eligible.

Um I wanted to just offer a clarification on how community land trust ownership projects are structured from a tax perspective.

Um, I guess I'll put this in terms of bridge review.

So community land trust homeownership, it's a model of shared equity homeownership.

So non-profit community land trust developer.

Um we acquire land, we develop housing, we um gather the subsidy to sell it at a below market price.

Um we find a qualified middle-income buyer, facilitate the sale, and at the time of sale, the buyer purchases um the home itself, the improvements, um, whether a uh freestanding single family home or or a condominium.

Um, and the community land trust retains ownership of the land.

Um, in that scenario, we as a 501c3 community land trust, we don't pay property taxes on the land that we retain ownership of, um, but the homeowners do pay property taxes on on their improvements.

So a CLT ownership probe project in this district would certainly create new taxable value through through the improvements, but um the nonprofit developer and then stewardship entity wouldn't necessarily be paying property taxes.

So um just wanted to flag that for you guys and offer a friendly amendment to either adjust the language in that second sentence, or I think you could strike it and still have have the same effect.

Um but anyway, I'm out of time.

That's all I got.

I'll stick around if if anyone have questions if anyone has questions after the meeting.

Thanks a lot for your consideration.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Uh yeah, we have Emily Tilango online.

Go ahead, Andy.

Hello, uh, Emily Collego, Bozeman residents.

Um yeah, just thanks for allowing me to comment remotely here.

The um the discussion that you guys have had, yeah, it definitely reflects some of the questions that I had um about this, and it's so interesting when you're doing a pilot.

Uh you don't exactly know what it is that you're gonna um need to change or modify until like as you've all reflected, you have something the first one goes through and you see what it does.

But um I do think this kind of you know, the discussion about broadening this for pilot, like a broader net of um, you know, like how many, you know, do we know how many potential applicants like has staff identified how many potential applicants could reasonably meet the criteria?

Um, you know, so do we want to expand it to shared equity co-ops or or other deed restricted affordability ownership models?

Um also, you know, as kind of an extension of the work plan and budget discussion you guys had of like really looking at some analysis that supports dedicating 2.5 million to acquisition lending rather than infrastructure streetscape utility, other urban renewal investments like that.

Um, also, you know, are we exhausting more perhaps intuitive funding sources like the community housing fund as like a front load to this or part of the application?

Um so yeah, the other thing I I noticed you know, is there any borrow like what borrower equity, if any, is required, um what is the expected return on investment, and I do think also with a pilot, it is really important, I think, to develop some metrics so that we will know whether the pilot program succeeded or not.

Um, and then yeah, insofar as like the taxable value, I do think that the goal of you know, zooming way out where you know you say that a geographic area is not creating enough taxable value to support the cost of maintaining or updating its own infrastructure, making sure that we have you know solid new taxable value is really one of the tens of urban renewal um an implementation of those things.

So um hope that you guys can have some more discussion about this, see how it unfolds.

Uh and again, the pilot is always a pilot, and uh we'll certainly learn from it as we go.

Thank you.

Thank you, Emily.

Anyone else?

That is all for online.

Do you want some more direction, David?

Or what do you want to do next, sir?

I I think I have good direction.

We'll uh try to integrate some of these things in and we'll bring it back as an action item at a future meeting.

We look forward to that.

I I do have an FYI for this board, um, not a whole item, but just kind of an FYI to put on your on your radar.

Um the opportunity zone 2.0 round is coming up.

Local governments and economic development organizations are that um allowable applicants to the Department of Commerce.

We'll collect the applications and have kind of put together a structure.

Ultimately, the decision is the governor's office in terms of designating.

I think there's 25 of these statewide, 25 or 26.

So they're um in the commission packet that'll be coming out.

Um there's uh staff has recommended ranking the two census tracks in Bozeman.

Um and our the first choice ranking we've made is one that includes three of our urban renewal districts.

Um this is a federal financial tool uh related to federal capital gains tax policy.

Um so you know, and I'm not necessarily speaking to whether this is a good federal policy or not, just like is this something we'd like to see happen here?

Should it be used here?

Do we want that opportunity to make the projects potentially more feasible and to create that taxable value uh within Bozeman?

So that will be a city commission item coming up on the 23rd.

I don't know that it's specific to this board, but it's something you may all be interested in in your individual capacity.

Thank you.

Anything that could bring us some projects here would be great.

Any help?

All right.

Any other items?

Thing y'all.

Meeting adjourned.

Thanks, everybody.

No one else, no one ever use on the other.

Thank you guys.

Thank you.

No one for you get the whole.

Goodbye.