[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6662109,"mediaKeyId","2399722-0a93dcc5995877c177f535d69fa275c1","parentId",2399722,"title","URA reviews downtown enhancement guidelines; members ask for clarifications, scoring and funding changes","audioSeconds",1299,"startMs",3614000,"endMs",4913000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2399722-0a93dcc5995877c177f535d69fa275c1&start=3614&end=4913","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2399722-0a93dcc5995877c177f535d69fa275c1/thumbnail_3614000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6662109/Livingston-City/Park-County/Montana/URA-reviews-downtown-enhancement-guidelines-members-ask-for-clarifications-scoring-and-funding-changes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6662109-2496d9e8d22ab6d52eb2c65d866595e6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771144934&Signature=grUYLErN7b-sqWUvIaCJFXpzSbGfVF7fFFrtGw6brmFsUOm3VIEAoClaU1UNB-WxNaLX77fyCNCn5bcVZST03khV-HmClNOAByHvdSzxfwcVuSPOt1PRQ3kR0QsEd6iob2znJ4MUTiIFQG7onVCIvgV2nYt2n~SG7ZQgykwsoFBArYGVy9bc-SHIfabXc64CPh7sejIxL0XcFrlLe7WAOrjHlce~oWz5ywPhMzb9PIWcSjBZNpRMUrP0XO9K5bFe2gIFJqqNYpFtRe-nPjJzSFZBfbhvanzCkL5Q14dBI-z4ua46i1ufpWDE1zZg6DUqfUWseP9RaU6BMR2NQk35ug__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Livingston, MT","date","2025-02-26T15:34:46.867Z","article","The Livingston City Urban Renewal Agency on Feb. 25 reviewed draft guidelines for a new downtown enhancement program and asked staff to return a revised draft addressing several clarifications, including how funding is disbursed, scoring simplification and the definition of \"third spaces.\"

Board members recommended several edits: change the packet language from \"reimburse\" to \"fund\" for a small direct-payment tier so applicants without up-front cash can access funds; simplify project-scoring from a 1–10 scale to 1–5; and rework a strict three-year \"must remain in use\" requirement so project duration is considered in scoring rather than being an absolute threshold. Staff agreed to soften the three‑year language and instead rank longer-lasting installations more favorably in the criteria.

The packet links the program to the downtown master plan and includes examples of eligible projects; members asked staff to clarify whether preferred project types should map to particular funding sources and to add clearer examples, including indoor \"third spaces\" such as pop-up markets or community rooms. The board also discussed enforcement mechanisms for maintenance obligations; staff said owner participation agreements, repayment or clawback language and civil claims are options if recipients fail to maintain funded work.

Grant feedback and Sarah’s emailed comments were read into the record. Sarah supported the tracked changes and suggested adding a field on the application to indicate whether the project requests a direct pay or reimbursement path. Julie Evans and others asked whether a $2,000 direct-pay cap was sufficient; staff said $2,000 paid all costs for some small volunteer-led projects but that the board could adjust the amount (board members discussed $3,000–$5,000 as alternatives).

The board asked staff to: change reimbursement language where appropriate to allow pre-funding for small projects, provide a simplified scoring rubric, add clearer examples of third spaces and show the downtown master plan references with correct capitalization. Staff said they would return a clean draft with those edits at a future meeting.

Separately, Lisa Garcia moved to add to the March agenda a formal vote to create a marketing subcommittee to prepare promotional materials for the downtown enhancement program and broader URA outreach; the motion passed by voice vote. Board members said the subcommittee could draft collateral, plan outreach events and coordinate with partners such as the downtown business improvement district (TBID) and the Park County Housing Coalition. Staff also agreed to invite downtown master-plan consultants to a future meeting.

No final funding allocations were made; the discussion produced direction for redrafting the guidelines and adding outreach items to the next agenda.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2025_02_25 URA Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Board members discussed edits to downtown enhancement program guidelines, proposed changing 'reimburse' language to 'fund', simplifying scoring, clarifying third spaces, and considering direct-pay levels; a marketing subcommittee item will be placed on the March agenda.","taxTitle","Livingston City, Park County, Montana","taxId",52298,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6662114,"Livingston URA approves up-to-$35,000 reimbursement to keep warming center open through March 31",204,1059000,1263000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2399722-0a93dcc5995877c177f535d69fa275c1&start=1059&end=1263","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2399722-0a93dcc5995877c177f535d69fa275c1/thumbnail_1059000.jpg","/articles/6662114/Livingston-City/Park-County/Montana/Livingston-URA-approves-up-to-35000-reimbursement-to-keep-warming-center-open-through-March-31","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6662114-eaa1b1bf11b8c8e25af50f6347a46e47/orig.mp4?Expires=1771144934&Signature=A1G1iYcL9ROV4ujJRRQIwJoo-7HC~DFk4SojYh14j16Ea7w2nay-Dj7l7dQoVAnU8xClm6CMSONvRHMsh8eFygIxkfWSbcSDi~M2eW-RnNNtE1jaDJGO2Om4lvdaCw7mEY5zpJKaLtlKSDvk7yvIu1r~y8nYpP5HdEyKoJ3frvDGVkgm4FZgo0RTGNiguKSNAnvZXdDJMmZe6FbANPBg9kjvF769B-CQP1M-z-BRFgAWDW32qjoIyTITnLR7ekec8Ti1YIxDdBW4a2RbUwzl-AcGaDOt-GQieptlx3TBfr0CiLnX-6~NTx7e0qWvAQLF60cm-7RU4Xgt2jGh~78Dsg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Livingston City Urban Renewal Agency voted Feb. 25 to provide up to $35,000 in grant reimbursement to keep the local warming center open through March 31, with two conditions: URA funds must be applied last after other donations and grant awards, and the URA funds will not roll over into next year’s operations.

Grant, who spoke for the warming center operator, told the board the center is a 20-bed seasonal shelter that typically runs November through March and that operating costs average about $45,000 per month. He said the facility had 16 guests the previous night and that recent \"code blue\" cold snaps (24-hour operations) increased February costs. With existing funds and lower January salary expenses, the operator had resources to run the center through March 7 but needed additional support to remain open through March 31. Grant estimated $35,000 would cover operations to March 31.

Board members debated whether URA funds were an appropriate source. Several members — including Lisa Garcia, Melissa Noot (comments provided by email), and others — raised concerns that URA TIF funds are typically used for infrastructure and projects with broad, long-term benefit and that grants to nonprofits for operations risk creating a recurring precedent. City Manager Gager and others noted that urban renewal statutes allow certain expenditures related to relocation and housing and that the board could structure funding as a reimbursable grant with reporting and \"but for\" language to ensure other sources are exhausted first.

In response to board questions, Grant described the warming center’s funding mix: roughly $50,000 raised from community donations (matched with operational funds), $25,000 from the City of Livingston, Park County Community Foundation support, and other local sources. He said state and federal funding for shelter operating costs were not available and that fundraising is most productive in the holiday season (November–December) while donations in February–March are harder to secure.

The board approved a motion to fund warming center operations through March 31 up to $35,000 on the condition the URA funds are reimbursable, are used last (\"but for\" test), and do not roll over into next season’s operating funds. The URA will reimburse actual costs incurred and deduct incoming donations or other grants from the URA reimbursement amount. The operator agreed to provide reporting to the URA and to accept a reimbursement-based payment structure; staff said they commonly receive one invoice for a seasonal period rather than weekly draws.

Vote: Allison Mccenzi, Lisa Garcia, Julie Evans and Chris Raley voted in favor; two members (Sarah and Melissa) were absent. The motion passed.","The URA agreed to fund warming center operations through March 31 with up to $35,000 in reimbursement funds, stipulating URA dollars be used last and not rolled into next year.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6662117,"Livingston URA approves up-to-$25,000 contract with consultant Brianne Downey",114,292000,406000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2399722-0a93dcc5995877c177f535d69fa275c1&start=292&end=406","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2399722-0a93dcc5995877c177f535d69fa275c1/thumbnail_292000.jpg","/articles/6662117/Livingston-City/Park-County/Montana/Livingston-URA-approves-up-to-25000-contract-with-consultant-Brianne-Downey","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6662117-177ed9f8a4772a9bbf269717351204b5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771144934&Signature=jME6t5DhLhPxdATX9GKWt2pPr6SMQFXsT7rbG7JQaXEXOE6AIIkFNETcErpjcllGbFRobou83sQUdtjEIEThbVhppTZHadJ9p6wTBZpETtg7~Ji3O4ZrSsoqwZXYUUZIcpDcxPl3hmjTjMHqmaFN5MZ07nrpsKIwsWy-bF6OdT0zbxGlJkifAM6w4KY6cSkhD9aKn3B3yKOMkR12lte7jW~aO~D9pFfU9ASzQBngXyMM3G70NUVuGPXMC4ntpdCl8DQAUBug09ksebI19S9aiQ6u55ZS6cLo1xS94YKLiQ1clp3c2FdCFkWDzrVpAnt2z-sv~OJjqM1F1V6g~l0U~g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Livingston City Urban Renewal Agency voted Feb. 25 to approve a contract with consultant Brianne Downey and to authorize staff to sign, authorizing task-order work under a $25,000 contract cap.

The agreement specifies that materials created under the contract will be the property of the URA, while the contractor receives a license to use the documents for marketing or portfolio purposes. City Manager Gager told the board the ownership clause appears on page 14 of the packet and is “relatively typical,” and that the contract’s last sentence grants the contractor a limited license to use finished materials.

Board members discussed how the contract would be used in practice. Gager described a structure of discrete task orders — a general support task order for routine board work and separate task orders for specific projects such as marketing the downtown enhancement program or coordinating with the downtown master plan. Gager also said billing and timing rules in the contract (sections 6 and 23) are standard boilerplate that affect termination and notice periods and that task orders would identify scope, duration and a cost estimate.

The contract has no fixed end date and is structured as an open-ended, task-order arrangement up to the $25,000 maximum. Gager said both parties can terminate assignment-specific task orders and that the contract includes a 15-day termination window for the overall agreement. The board asked whether task orders and other routine communications could be handled by email and Gager said formal contractual notices (termination, etc.) remain written notices, but routine email correspondence would be expected for task-order work.

Allison Mccenzi, Lisa Garcia, Julie Evans and Chris Raley voted in favor of the motion to approve the contract. No dissent was recorded.

The board directed staff to use task orders for billing and to bring scopes-of-work to the URA for approval as needed. Downey called in after the vote and said she looked forward to working with the URA and would stay on the call to listen until she had to leave for another event.

The URA’s decision follows a short period of questions from board members about hourly rates, invoicing cadence and whether the agreement would allow small, frequent meetings with the contractor. Gager said those details would be clarified in each task order. The board did not set a separate hourly cap in the contract; instead, each task order will define the scope, estimated time and costs.","The Livingston City Urban Renewal Agency approved a consultant contract with Brianne Downey that establishes task-order work, grants ownership of deliverables to the URA, and caps payments at $25,000.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

URA reviews downtown enhancement guidelines; members ask for clarifications, scoring and funding changes

Livingston URA approves up-to-$35,000 reimbursement to keep warming center open through March 31

Livingston URA approves up-to-$25,000 contract with consultant Brianne Downey