HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-09-26 Public Comment - M. Campanelli - Regarding 10 Feb 2026 City Commission Consent Item G.10From:Mark Campanelli
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Regarding 10 Feb 2026 City Commission Consent Item G.10
Date:Monday, February 9, 2026 9:20:46 AM
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.
Greetings City Commission,
I write regarding Consent Item G.10 on the agenda for the commission's meeting on 10 Feb
2026, entitled "Resolution Amending a Development Agreement Relating to a Project in theSouth Bozeman Technology Tax Increment Financing District (Montana State University
Innovation Campus)". I think this contract amendment shows evidence of a somewhatwreckless redirection of taxpayer monies, in this instance using the tax-increment-financing
(TIF) mechanism.
1. The original agreement with the developer to receive the TIF-based reimbursement
agreed, in a binding contract, to the following (from 1.1. Definitions): "“ReimbursableAmount” means the least of: (i) $3,599,178; (ii) the actual cost of the Infrastructure
Improvements; or (iii) if the Bonds are issued, the proceeds of the Bonds, less proceedsof the Bonds used to pay Costs of Issuance and, if desirable, to fund a debt service
reserve account; recognizing that the Bonds must meet the Coverage Ratio determinedas described in Section 5.2(a)(ii)." Why is the City amending a legal contract in such a
manner that is disagreeable to existing taxpayers? I get the sense that the City is beingdriven here by bad optics. Assuming that the eventual property-tax assessment would be
certainly favorable was apparently foolish, but both parties agreed to it.2. If the City believes that the property tax assessment was undervalued by the Montana
Department of Revenue (DOR), then take up the issue with DOR. This way, we do notlose out on tax revenue year after year after the increment has been paid off, as well as
being able to pay off the increment sooner and direct those badly needed tax revenueselsewhere. (Recall the public-benefit criterion for TIF.)
3. Changing the debt-coverage-ratio language from "to produce a Coverage Ratio of notless than 1.7" to "to produce a Coverage Ratio acceptable to the City, with a
targeted Coverage Ratio of 1.7" seems like a slippery slope towards reducing the goodfaith and standing of the City's credit worthiness.
4. The amended development agreement makes no mention of the 1.1. Definitions section,and I think the new language in section 5.2(a)(v) now contradicts the definition of
“Reimbursable Amount” quoted above from the original contract.
As a reminder, we should all be aware of the fundamental importance of well written
contracts in the equitable execution our civil society, in addition to spending our hard earnedtax money in a limited fashion and as wisely as possible,
Mark Campanelli
Bogert Park NeighborLinkedIn