The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-26-24 Public Comment - K. Edgar - Comments on Resolution 5663, Bozeman Yards TIFFrom:Edgar, Katie To:Bozeman Public Comment; Jennifer Madgic; Terry Cunningham; Emma Bode; Douglas Fischer; Joey Morrison Subject:[EXTERNAL]Comments on Resolution 5663, Bozeman Yards TIF Date:Tuesday, November 26, 2024 8:52:47 AM Attachments:Opposition to resolution 5663- block 104 TIF.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, city commission. Attached please find my letter urging you to please oppose the TIF funding for Resolution 5663, Bozeman Yards, Block 104. Thank you, Katie Edgar Bozeman City Commission, I am adamantly against the approval of the TIF for the Bozeman Yards project laid out in resolution 5663 and application 24-107, and ask you to please deny the request. This TIF seems to bee too preliminary and is not following the requisite steps to make such substantial changes which are in the public’s interest and should go before the commission. This TIF application assumes Ida Ave will be closed down, while not going through any of the required procedures to do so. Furthermore, if the closure of Ida is not approved, then it would completely change the parameters of the TIF request, making this application moot. The proposed road changes and improvements only benefit the development and negatively impact the current residents. If it were not for the developers building the two 5-story buildings, there would be no need to make the proposed improvements. It is only an additional selling point to draw in residents. It is completely self-serving. The project states the changes to traffic flow are to improve safety, yet in the traffic study, there have been zero accidents in this area. The proposal is to move traffic from a road that has strictly commercial uses at street level (Ida between Tamarack and Peach) to flow all traffic to a residential street (Aspen). I am not sure how anyone can argue that is more safe. The traffic study says this project will add 345 trips a day for the residential traffic created from the housing units, on top of the nearly 1,200 daily trips already on the roads in question with this proposal. None of this takes into account the additional traffic which will be generated by the commercial portion of this project, which the traffic study does NOT address. The better solution is keeping the road going straight down Ida to maintain the flow of increased traffic. The proposed solution does not seem to ‘afford maximum opportunity consistent with the needs of the city as a whole.” The proposed project is bringing 42 units and only 41 parking spots (and that’s just phase 1 of the project) and that assumes each unit only has one car, which is highly unlikely. The only way the developer can meet their parking requirement is by the on street parking created by the TIF. This TIF serves as an opportunity to fund the parking requirements of the developer in lieu of them investing in adequate parking themselves. After the residents use up a significant portion of the on street parking, there will be almost nothing left for parking for visitors and workers of the commercial spaces, guests of the residents, guests of existing residents, and community members looking to enjoy the boulder park. The projected margin for the project is already $9M. The TIF would increase the margin to almost $13M. Why do they need public assistance with those kinds of dollars? How is that justifiable? The proposed profit margin with the TIF does not sound like a do-gooder of the community providing housing to an area that needs it, it sounds like a cash grab. Just because your project is expensive, does not mean you deserve a TIF. If this is something required to complete a project and make your $9M, why should you be reimbursed? I live in the TIF area, should I be deducting improvements from my tax bill? The reason for the TIF funding in the Staff Memo and Baker Tilly report is because without it, they would not make enough money on the project. I am having a hard time understanding how that is even a relevant point for a TIF. If you cannot afford a project, then you don’t make the project. If I make improvements on my house and don’t ger the return on investment I was thinking I would get, I cannot ask the city for a tax break to make up for it. The fact that the Baker Tilly report said they added in some project costs for funding and removed others to stay within a desired profit margin makes the whole process feel unethical and disingenuous. Will the city be taking on any risk by allowing this TIF? If Bozeman Yards is not paying taxes for the foreseeable future, yet infilling with 42 units, who is paying for our first responders, public services, and schools- all of which will be further stressed by this influx of people. As we all know, these services are in dire need of funding, and this will rob them of even more, while adding more people to the grid. I am curious how this project got 2/2 on honoring the character of the neighborhood. This will be as tall as the iconic Misco Mill which is the symbol of the neighborhood. Nothing else comes even close to being this colossal. The other icon of the area is the Train Depot, and this will dwarf that historic gem. Please preserve the historic characteristics and charm of our Northeast Neighborhood and oppose the TIF request for Bozeman Yards, Block 104. Thank you, Katie Edgar