Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-10-10 Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) Board Minutes Downtown Business Improvement District Board Meeting Minutes March 10, 2010 Attending: Eric Bowman, Don McLaughlin, Dan Himsworth, Ileana Indreland, Buck Taylor, Mike Grant, Chris Naumann, Ellie Staley Absent: Mike Basile Public Comments None Disclosures None Minutes Review and approval of minutes from January and February meetings postponed until April Financial Report No financial report presented Program Director’s Report No Program Director’s Report was presented Executive Director’s Report No Program Director’s Report presented Discussion and Decision Items BID Renewal Issues Chris informed the board that this March meeting of the board had been called a week earlier than normal in order to address some pressing issues regarding the re-creation of the BID. Chris referred to an e-mail exchange between him and Ileana from March 2 and 3 that centered on some concerns from a small group of property owners (he provided printed copies to all present). Chris then asked Ileana to share those concerns. Ileana recalled that a group of owners met to discuss the proposed renewal at which time several concerns were raised. She assured the group that this meeting was not held secretly in an attempt to circumnavigate the process. Eric mentioned that he did not know about this owner meeting. Ileana continued to summarize the concerns as a lack of transparency; lack of information and notification to owners about board vacancies, work plan and budget; and the need for assessment predictability over the next 10 years. Chris stated for the record that every property owner has the opportunity to attend each and every BID board meeting as they are public meetings held at regularly scheduled times and notice according to the City of Bozeman requirements. He also noted that all Board minutes are available on the City of Bozeman website. He added that the draft work plan and budget are made public two weeks prior to the advertised public hearing before the City Commission. He concluded that all of this public access and transparency is supplemented by a public office and open door policy—“every property owner knows where my door is”. Buck agreed that he feels the organization and board actions are quite transparent. Eric noted that other property owners rarely approach him as a board member with questions or concerns yet he feels that every board member is an open resource for other owners. Bylaw Amendment-- Chris then acknowledged that he and the organization could be more proactive to impart information to the larger owner group. To this end, he presented in writing a revision to the bylaws that would make better communication an organization policy. He suggested that under “Article IX = Operation Policy” a section entitled “Property Owner Communications” be added that would stipulate that 1) all owners be notified of board vacancies thus having the opportunity to apply or nominate potential applicants; 2) all owners be provided with drafts of the annual budget and work plan; and 3) all owners shall receive the annual report. ACTION:Buck Taylormotioned to amend the bylaws as had been presented in writing. Dan Himsworth seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Chris thanked the board for approving this bylaw amendment and said he would give all property owners an opportunity to submit their e-mail addresses to be added to an owner list serve. He said that sending the agreed upon notifications and documents was most feasible via e-mail. Assessment Cap Options— Chris then began the discussion of how to guarantee assessment predictability and limit future growth of the assessment. Chris presented to the board in writing three possible options to address this concern. The first option would be to institute a dollar amount cap on the total assessment. Chris noted that some property owners thought this should be $115,000 while others offered $120,000 as the limit. Ileana added that the concerned owners acknowledged that the cap may need to be raised at some point and proposed that this could be done with 60% approval from the property owners. Chris added that the pros of this option would be no increase to owner assessments and 100% predictability. The cons would be all increases to operation costs would result in a reduction of services. He added that the process by which he would have to seek 60% owner approval would take a minimum of 60 days as demonstrated by the current petition process. Eric added that this option seemed much too restrictive on the assessment and the likelihood that Chris would have to spend an inordinate amount of time seeking 60% support of raising the cap periodically would be too great. The second option Chris presented was a three year freeze on the assessment followed by an annual assessment total adjusted according the CPI-U rate. He pointed out that the pros of this option would be some predictability and the increases to the assessment would help cover increased costs. The cons would be that the CPI-U is not very predictable and over the last ten years it fluctuated 7.7%. Chris noted that the downtown TIF operates under a cap adjusted for inflation according to the CPI. The third option would be to freeze the assessment for three years and then raise the total annually at a rate not to exceed 3%. Chris identified the pros as consistent predictability for owners and organization. The con could be that the costs of operations could exceed 3% annually. The group discussed all the options and agreed that there should be some kind of scheduled increase to the assessment. The board agreed that requiring Chris to solicit 60% of the owners to approve any and all increases to the assessment would be overly burdensome. Don suggested a tiered increase schedule: 3 years at $114k, 4 years at $120k, and 3 years at $126k. Chris said that such a schedule and amounts could work while providing everyone with predictability. He said that the board should be prepared to spend STIP savings to cover increasing costs. ACTION:Don McLaughlinmotioned to establish the following assessment schedule: 2011-2013 $114,000; 2014-2017 $120,000; 2018-2020 $126,000. The total assessment may be increased by securing signed petitions from 60% of the district’s owners. Eric Bowman seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Chris edited a pre-written resolution (DBID2010-01) to reflect the passed motion and all present board members signed the document. See experts from resolution below. New or Old Business Chris quickly mentioned that he would like to purchase additional flower baskets this year to hang on the new streetlamps being installed at Tire-Rama and potentially at Heebs. He said that this may require covering that cost with STIP money. The board was supportive of rewarding these property owners for upgrading their streetscapes. With no new or old business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT RESOLUTION DBID2010-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IIMPROVEMENT DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, TO REGULATE THE FUTURE GROWTH OF THE BID PROPERTY OWNER ASSESSMENT AND REQUEST THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN TO INCLUDE THIS AS A PROVISION IN THE ORDINANCE CREATING THE FUTURE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Downtown Business Improvement District Board and the BID Executive Director, agree to regulate the future growth of the BID property owner assessment by implementing the following assessment limitation measures: For the first three fiscal years (2011-2013) of the downtown business improvement district the total property owner assessment shall not exceed $114,000.00. For the fourth through seventh years (2014-2017) the property owner assessment shall not exceed $120,000.00. For the eighth through tenth years (2018-2020) the property owner assessment shall not exceed $126,000.00. These assessment limitations may be exceeded with a favorable vote by the owners of more than 60% of the area of the property in the district.