Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-01-11 Economic Development Council minutes with attach. 1 of 10 City of Bozeman Economic Development Council (EDC) Meeting Minutes December 1, 2011 10:30 am – 12:00 pm Madison room, City Hall, 121 N. Rouse Members Attending: Daryl Schliem (Bozeman Chamber of Commerce), Tracy Menuez (Human Resource Development Council), Cheryl Ridgely (Bozeman Deaconess Hospital), Anders Lewendal (Contractor), Chris Mehl (City Commission), Stuart Leidner (Prospera Business Network), Chris Westlake (Midwest Welding and Machine) – joined meeting at 11:11 a.m. Members Absent: Wendy Bay Lewis (Career Coach/Corp. Trainer) Staff Present: Chris Kukulski (City Manager), Brit Fontenot (Director of Economic Development and Community Relations), Aimee Kissel (Deputy City Clerk – taking minutes) Bob Risk (Building Official), Chris Saunders (Planning Department), Anna Rosenberry (Finance Director) Guests / Public Present: Warren Vaughan (County Planning and Economic Development), Jason Bacaj (Bozeman Daily Chronicle), Brian Klein NOTE: These minutes are not word for word and should be considered in addition to the audio recording of the meeting. A. Call to Order – Vice Chair Daryl Schliem Daryl Schliem called the meeting to order at 10:35 a.m. B. Public Comment Daryl Schliem opened public comment. No person commented. Daryl Schliem closed public comment. C. Non-Action Items 1. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Update (Rosenberry/Saunders) Minutes of the Economic Development Council for December 1, 2011 2 of 10 Brit Fontenot introduced the subject explaining that the EDC asked to be involved in. Mr. Fontenot has been involved in the CIP update in the following ways: • Retool some of the evaluation criteria to include more direct economic development criteria – especially emphasizing a transportation focus and ways to make the criteria more specific. This included several projects added to the CIP that are economic development related such as the inclusion of the light at Griffin and Manley Road and a light at the intersection of Griffin Drive and Seventh. If work does takes place out there, that light will need some improvements. These were listed as unscheduled until a project comes down the line. Adding them to the CIP makes it easier for projects to move up the list when needed. Mr. Fontenot reported the Commission will be discussing the CIP on Dec. 5th. Anna Rosenberry explained that what has been recommended to the Commission for Dec. 5th’s meeting was a result of three impact fee advisory committee meetings. The main focus for the committee has been streets. This requires an intricate balance and the Committee had a lot of discussion on that. The Committee recommended establishing criteria to rank impact fee programs starting with communication about what is required. The minimum criteria to be impact fee eligible includes that it be infrastructure, capital or a combination of; have a useful life of ten years or more and be made necessary by new development and expansion of capacity of our system. From there they adopted criteria that give the most weight to projects that have benefits to impact fee payers, future development. The next criteria were to look at how much a project benefits the whole system or just a small section of town. Then they ranked whether the project has some certainty of funding or whether funding is workable. The last element of ranking projects is whether the Commission has identified a project in their work plan as a priority. Mr. Saunders explained working with staff regarding looking at where the relevant locations are in the community and where infrastructure is needed. Ms. Rosenberry provided the example that a Commission goal was to assist in getting a hotel in the core area. Needed infrastructure was looked at to see if items needed to be added to the CIP to help with this goal even though there was not a project for the hotel yet. Mr. Schliem asked if criteria are set locally. Mr. Saunders explained that the first three criteria are statutory to qualify for impact fees. After that the criteria is local, however monies used to fund projects may or may not have federal strings attached, etc. Mr. Fontenot explained we are trying to be more nimble for developers. For example, having the ability to move a project up the list or get on the list or to make intersection control device Minutes of the Economic Development Council for December 1, 2011 3 of 10 projects front and center if that is where the importance lies. It is important to identify those projects that can get off the ground. Ms. Rosenberry said the criteria help in that regard. If an unanticipated project comes in, the criteria make it easier to compare a new project to the projects already on the list. Chris Kukulski spoke to timing. The hope is to have those criteria and use the best information we can to think ahead and ask what we can do to still be responsive. Mr. Fontenot spoke regarding having a list of strategically placed properties. Cheryl Ridgely asked how adaptable and dynamic the CIP plan is. Once approved is it a static document? Can amendments be made? Ms. Rosenberry responded the city can be fairly nimble. Any amendment must go through the public hearing process with the Commission. The staff is sensitive to putting the project out to the public arena which requires a few weeks of advance notice and information. A number of amendments to the CIP have been made in the past. Mr. Saunders said the procedural side is well documented. The problem where there may be an issue is that it becomes a zero sum finance game. Depending on what commitments have been made, The Commission may need to defer another project. Some of these projects are large and have a lot of momentum behind them. Ms. Rosenberry said the Impact Fee Committee spoke regarding the length of the list with limited funds. The Committee deliberately left a lot of projects as unscheduled as a way to stay flexible. For example, when we commit to working on Kagy Blvd, we need to know that street impact fee money will be mostly used up. Cr. Mehl said the Commission is interested in metrics, urgency and funding ability. The Committee looked at how long the list becomes preferring moderation. We need enough to provide guidance, while also acknowledging that we do not know where development will go. Education and awareness that the fee schedule can be updated fairly quickly is important, but with the knowledge that any new project will need to be reviewed by the same metrics. Ms. Rosenberry explained that with criteria ranking it gets to a point where projects score low. We might consider in the future dropping projects that do not rate enough points. Mr. Kukulski said whether a project is unscheduled does not make a difference as to the formal process. Gateway and the connection of Garfield were added recently and are examples of projects that received a lot of attention. The city was able to adjust as developers have done things that helped the transportation system. The more we can anticipate the better. Mr. Saunders said developers can ask for impact fee credit, but need to get through five criteria. Two criteria are listing and funding on the CIP. As part of those discussions the Commission Minutes of the Economic Development Council for December 1, 2011 4 of 10 must determine whether the project has sufficient community priority and meets capacity expansion, etc. There are definitely projects that are completely worthy, but have no funds or limited funds available. Ms. Rosenberry explained that prior to a hearing on an impact fee credit, the Commission must have a hearing and decide whether to revise the CIP to either add the project to the CIP or move the project from unscheduled to scheduled. Cheryl Ridgely spoke regarding the importance of education about the process. Mr. Fontenot spoke to the importance of developers knowing what they are looking for and helping them with a list of strategic properties. This list could work well with the GBRN site selector and allow Mr. Fontenot to talk to them about some of the things that make it worth their while to come here. It is important to have a point of contact and a place people can use to connect with that information. Mr. Fontenot said it is important to have these projects front and center for staff and the Commission but also to show the public what options they have available. Mr. Fontenot asked the Council if they would like him to mention anything from them during the Commission meeting on the 5th. Ms. Rosenberry spoke about an upcoming project to finish the connection on North 27th Street between Baxter and Oak Street. Mr. Saunders said the public asked for the North 27th Street project to be listed. A site plan came in for development at that corner. Ideally when someone comes in and would like to do a project we can identify what is in the vicinity and what is available. The planning department has recently made modifications to development standards, specifically for intersection controls that provides more flexibility. Ms. Ridgely asked whether we have a nice portfolio to offer people. Mr. Fontenot said he has resources on who folks should talk to, where hub zones are, where financial resources may be available, etc. It is not as consolidated as he would like it to be, but the GBRN site is heading in that direction. The site is at an evolutionary crossroads where we need to decide what else we would like it to be. Ms. Rosenberry asked the Council whether they felt the cost of water and sewer services was a barrier to development coming to Bozeman. Daryl Schliem said the large developers he has spoken with may not have gotten down to that level of analysis. Manufacturers may be stopped by the amount of overlay districts, entry corridor, etc. Mr. Fontenot gave an example of a business owner who was interested in maintaining there well on site for industrial uses to lower their cost of paying for city services. Minutes of the Economic Development Council for December 1, 2011 5 of 10 Chris Westlake joined the meeting at 11:11. Ms. Ridgely spoke to the importance of sufficient capacity. Mr. Saunders spoke regarding areas that do not have capacity. Mr. Leidner asked whether Montana site selector has data regarding the capacity of the lines. Mr. Fontenot explained that Jon Henderson in the GIS department has mapped existing water and sewer lines with the map accessible on the city website (www.bozeman.net). Mr. Kukulski explained the process of CIP adoption usually begins with a Commission policy work session. Changes are made if necessary and then the CIP is placed on an upcoming agenda within several weeks for approval. The General fund will then be reviewed on December 12th with adoption scheduled for the 19th. Cr. Mehl announced he would like to hear from folks prior to the Commission meeting if they have information about projects that would affect the CIP list. Ms. Ridgely spoke about her excitement that barriers have been lowered and opportunities are in place. Mr. Fontenot said those opportunities are mainly created by cross departmental discussions and cross organizational discussions with the County, Prospera and others. Mr. Schliem asked how we are separating out the expansion of upkeep when looking at capacity expansion. Mr. Saunders answered Mr. Schliem saying the long range facility plan is implemented which looks at what we have as a whole system and what will we need in the future. When the CIP is created, they then look at the current snapshot. If a project is 100% maintenance it is placed at a different location on the CIP. Final design and bidding also help determine what will be impact fee eligible and which will not. Ms. Rosenberry explained there are legal restrictions on all funding sources. There are multiple sources of funding for many projects. Last year, the commission agreed to increase the citywide street maintenance assessment for street reconstruction. Sometimes street reconstruction are also capacity expanding so are paired up with street impact fee funds. The CIP is designed to look at funding source by funding source and then projects within the funding source. Mr. Kukulski reiterated that the engineers and accountants detail these projects as to what is capacity expanding and what is replacement, and then fund accordingly. The Commission has been very interested in funding those mechanisms properly. Minutes of the Economic Development Council for December 1, 2011 6 of 10 Chris Mehl said there is a deferred maintenance back log. Infrastructure is vital, complicated and expensive. It is important to explain the direct relationship between raising the rates and the maintenance or infrastructure provided. Mr. Saunders explained the engineers and GIS staff have done a great job on an impact fee project page on the city website. This includes large maps that include the project list and timing. They attempt to show people what is out there. When we talk about infrastructure development we are referring to what the developer puts in themselves, maintenance, impact fees or capacity expansion, and on occasion money from outside resources. Ms. Rosenberry said as the city becomes better at dealing with deferred maintenance the community in turn becomes worth more. Property values have fared well compared to other cities in Montana. Cr. Mehl said the city of Bozeman has grown considerably faster than most of Montana. The city is well capitalized from an infrastructure view. Mr. Saunders announced the consultant and Impact Fee Advisory Committee will be meeting on December 8th with the impact fee update. Significant strides have been made even since 2008 in data availability. Improvements in gathering and managing information go a long way to manage systems as affectively as possible. Mr. Westlake asked about the four sources of funds and asked when referring to impact funds, who is actually impacted. He also asked whether criteria exist in the process that provides a sense of future development impact. Mr. Saunders said we look at long range facility plans and as growth goes forward what new facilities will be needed. They look at what the future loading is likely to be. By pooling funds you are able to have a rolling reimbursement to a point. Policy discussions also take place regarding how much money we have and where we would like the money used. Mr. Kukulski spoke regarding an exchange with Bend, Oregon. It used to be that if a developer was the last one through and was the development that became the tipping point for a failing intersection, they were stuck with the entire project cost. Now, the program is run in such a way that this does not happen. Ms. Rosenberrry said it is difficult to talk about what your impact fee is covering related to other projects involved as some of the fee may be to pay for a project that has already been completed. Mr. Kukulski spoke to the difficulties and complexities of defining transportation needs. Metrics Subcommittee Report Minutes of the Economic Development Council for December 1, 2011 7 of 10 Stuart Leidner spoke regarding the work of the metrics subcommittee, explaining that Tracy Menuez, Anders Lewendal, Stuart Leidner, Commissioner Mehl and Mr. Fontenot met at Headwaters to begin the task of looking at metrics. Mr. Leidner provided and reviewed a memorandum he wrote titled ‘Measures of Success’ (see attached). Mr. Leidner believes the Council has addressed about 55% of those projects that were listed under the Council’s first priority and about 80% from the second priority. Mr. Leidner continued a review of the memorandum. The subcommittee would recommend an annual metrics tablet comparing communities characterized as current peers or a little larger. Mr. Leidner thanked Chris Mehl, Ben Alexander and Ray Rasker from Headwaters for asking the subcommittee the right questions and helping them look at the goal. Mr. Leidner will continue to look further into Headwaters models and data sets. An annual survey possibly looking at some niches needs planned. They also talked about who is getting left behind and looking into quality of life indicators and how they can quantitatively add that to the annual tablet. Another metrics discussed is a report card on progress being made regarding how the Council is doing on the established priorities. Mr. Westlake asked Cr. Mehl if the Economic Development Council is accomplishing the objectives of the Commission. Cr. Mehl indicated the Council is meeting most of his needs, but he cannot speak for the others. He suggested the Council refine the metrics to send out to the Commission for a response or discussion. The Commission would like to see what the Council is doing, measurements of time, what areas are sufficient, what needs work, etc. The EDC can make recommendations to the Commission as well as receive recommendations. The Council discussed when the matrix of priorities should be updated. Mr. Fontenot said some of the completed items were fundamental goals identified early on. Many of these revolved around information and knowledge and could be completed within a timeline. Bigger picture projects have a finish line that is far away. Mr. Leidner committed to updating the matrix sometime by the end of the year if provided an editable format. D. FYI / Discussion 1. January 5, 2012 agenda items • Send emails to Mr. Fontenot with ideas. • Prospera’s economic profile – Need several more for those who do not have a copy. 2. Entrepreneur’s Roundtable Event, December 1, 2011 Minutes of the Economic Development Council for December 1, 2011 8 of 10 Today was the first entrepreneur’s roundtable event which was a collaborative effort between the City, County and Prospera. The round table was interesting and eye opening. Facilitators asked the group of entrepreneurs spanning many industries what they needed. The concept that stuck out for Mr. Fontenot was the concept of main tiers of development as being freshman through senior level and how needs are different depending on what development level a business is at. We need to maximize the GBRN site and structures already in place. This was a very worthwhile event and they would like to continue the roundtables as long as there is interest. Warren Vaughn with Gallatin County reported on the roundtable event as well saying there was a lot of interest and attendees were excited and happy this was happening. A number of things may come from this such as the possibility of a fairly regular coffee shop entrepreneur meeting. Everyone felt there was a real opportunity to provide a forum to ask different questions and share information. It was a very successful meeting and we will start spinning out some ideas and next steps. Mr. Westlake asked about the format and whether we are catalyzing conversations between them or just providing an education component. Mr. Fontenot responded that it is different depending on the stage of development. Networking with peers is one example of a need depending on development stage. Another entrepreneur spoke regarding the need for a database of qualified employees they can choose from when the time is right. They are having a problem selling potential employees to move to Bozeman. The Council has begun working on branding and now we want to try to incorporate that in to something bolder and broader. The format will need to be somewhat tailored to different needs. The underlying message is that there is a need for this type of networking opportunity. The Council discussed the reasons employees may not want to move here. Mr. Vaughan spoke about small size companies that do not do business in Bozeman but have employees here. He relayed a story from one of the entrepreneurs that emphasized how scary it is for people to take the chance to come here not knowing whether things will work. He suggested the need for talking about success stories. If people can recognize that others have succeeded and other options are available if things fall apart they will be more likely to take the chance. Responding to a question, Mr. Fontenot reported that he and Maria Kappes from Prospera, as well as Mr. Vaughan from the County called and recruited folks to come. Mr. Kukulski spoke regarding how even those in depressed areas may not be able to conceive of starting a business in Bozeman and taking a chance. Mr. Vaughan said one attendee said he would like his employees to be able to reach out as well and spoke about providing this type of a forum for the mid level manager. Minutes of the Economic Development Council for December 1, 2011 9 of 10 Mr. Fontenot spoke regarding an idea an attendee had about bringing an outdoor show here. We need to get a nucleus of people together to talk about things like that in a meaningful way right now, not at some point in the future. Mr. Westlake spoke regarding challenging the common condition of believing our own rhetoric. There is a theme of communication or marketing about getting the word out about all the great changes in the city and what we can do to communicate the reasons why things are the way they are. Mr. Kukulski spoke regarding an internal staff challenge. He said staff is doing a retreat with the Commission on January 30th to continue to get their buy in on some of the internal system changes that continue to need to be made within the organization. These system changes do not automatically happen. They are looking at key projects they can get the Commission to buy in on because of the importance of spending time and resources to improve internal functions. These systems are vital to continuing this evolution in the organization to being more responsive and proactive. Ms. Ridgely spoke regarding the vision, leadership, culture and continuity to make those systems continuing and replicable. Mr. Westlake spoke regarding perception vs. reality. While reality may be changing, the perception may not follow automatically. 3. 2012 EDC Vacancies (2 terms expire on February 1, 2012); • Consideration of appointments to the EDC are tentatively scheduled for the January 23rd, 2012 Commission meeting. • Chris Westlake and Wendy Bay Lewis have expiring terms. • Bryan Klein has applied to the EDC. 4. Change EDC meeting time? Mr. Westlake asked members to follow up on a previous discussion about possibly moving the EDC meeting time to a lunch meeting. He asked the Council to provide feedback. 5. Human Resource Development Council (HRDC) Needs Assessment Ms. Menuez said the email sent out with a link to the HRDC needs assessment has a technical glitch. She will resend that email after the problem is fixed. She asked that members help her forward the needs assessment to community members. E. Adjournment Daryl Schliem adjourned the meeting at 12:05 p.m. Minutes of the Economic Development Council for December 1, 2011 10 of 10 * NOTE – Full audio of this EDC meeting is available at: http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/0/doc/46732/Electronic.aspx ____________________________________ Daryl Schliem, Vice-Chair PREPARED BY: ____________________________________ Aimee Kissel, Deputy City Clerk Approved on: Economic Development Council meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator James Goehrung, at 582- 3232 (TDD 582-2301).